1978 Legislative Session: 3rd Session, 31st 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)

WEDNESDAY, MAY 3, 1978

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

1039 ]

CONTENTS

Matter of privilege

Alleged contempt of the House by member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) Mr. Nicolson

–– 1039

Routine proceedings

Guaranteed Available Income for Need Amendment Act, 1978 (Bill M 205) Ms. Brown.

Introduction and first reading –– 1040

Oral questions

Temporary work permits for Japanese. Mr. Lea –– 1040

Printing of ICBC forms. Mr. Cocke –– 1040

Report on speech pathologists and audiologists. Mr. Gibson –– 1041

Leaseback of ferries. Hon. Mr. Wolfe replies –– 1041

Chief Lake-Ness Lake-Nukko Lake inclusion in AIR. Mr. Skelly –– 1043

B.C. Hydro-Housing ministry joint committee. Mr. Levi –– 1043

Youth employment programme. Hon. Mr. Williams replies –– 1043

Committee of Supply; Executive Council estimates.

On vote 5.

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1045

Mr. Gibson –– 1048

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1050

Mr. Gibson –– 1053

Mr. Macdonald –– 1053

Mr. Lauk –– 1056

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1062

Mr. Shelford –– 1066

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1068

Mr. King –– 1070

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. SKELLY : Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to acknowledge the presence in the gallery today of Mr. Ledingham, who has been a continuous observer of the proceedings in this House almost on a daily basis for several years. I believe he's trying to match the record of Mrs. Ruth Johnson, who has been here for several years herself.

I understand that Mr. Ledingham first came to the Legislature at the age of nine and that the Premier at that time was the Hon. Richard McBride.

MR. LLOYD : Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure of introducing to the House today a delegation from north-central B.G. They are down presenting their concerns to the caucuses of all the parties. They represent the DARE group, Discrimination Against the Rights of Employees, and they're concerned primarily because they feel that employees should have the right to a secret ballot concerning the labour union representation.

I commend them for traveling to Victoria and for the cause they represent. Mr. Speaker, may I introduce to you and the House Mr. Bob Anderson, Mr. George Janzen and Mr. John Fritsen of Burns Lake, and their solicitor, Mr. Bill Hibbard of Prince George? Would the House please bid them welcome?

MR. BARRETT : Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to welcome two former M[As who are visiting us today - one who is in the precincts and another who's in the gallery.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT : Oh, both in the gallery? I only see one in the gallery.

AN HON. MEMBER : Carl's up there.

MR. BARRETT : Behind the post. Well, both are in the gallery, Mr. Speaker: the former member for North Vancouver-Seymour, Colin Gabelmann, and a former member for Delta, Carl Liden. I welcome them back to the gallery and hope to have the opportunity to welcome them back on the floor some day.

MR. STRONGMAN : Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to

welcome to the precincts today Judge and Mrs. Saul Gothard, of Gretna, Louisiana.

Judge Gothard is a leading authority on children's rights and child abuse.

I would ask the House to make them welcome.

HON. MR. FRASER : Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce to the House today Mr. Neil MacKerrzie and his wife. Neil is the news director of Cariboo Radio, and his home town is Quesnel.

MR. KEMPF : Mr. Speaker, I, too, would ask the House this afternoon to welcome the group from Burns Lake, Mr. George Janzen, Mr. Bob Anderson and Mr. John Fritsen, and I, too, commend them for what they are doing.

Mr. Speaker, I would like the House also to welcome a group in the gallery this afternoon from Babine Elementary School, at Granisle. The young men are, Lawrence Massicotte, Gordon Gerl, Paul Foley, Phil Foley and their teacher, Mr. John Rathbun. 1 would ask the House to make them welcome.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND : Mr. Speaker, it's a good day for Langley today. We have a lot of students here from Langley. In the gallery at the present time are students from the Alternate Learning Environment project, with their teacher, Steve McCarthy.

Touring in the building at the present time are mu ic students from Fort Langley Junior Secondary School, with about 40 guests that they have with them, from the Middleton Regional High School band from Nova Scotia, and their chaperones.

Also coming into the gallery in a little while are students from the Mountain Secondary School in Langley, along with their teacher, Mr. B. Ivanay, and I hope the House would make them all welcome.

MR. NICOLSON : I rise on a matter of privilege, at the first opportunity at which I have been able to do so.

On April 12,1978, 1 sought clarification from the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Hon. Mr. Bawlf) concerning a statement made by the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) to the Western Guides and Outfitters Association convention. That member's statement was presented as a message from the minister.

Following the question period, the member for Omineca rose and made the following statement from Hansard, page 377:

"MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order in order

to correct a statement made by the hon. member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson)

during the

[ Page 1040 ]

question period. The member told the House that I, in an address

to the Western Guides and Outfitters Association convention in Burns Lake last

Friday, made reference to a new Wildlife Act. I would like to tell this House

that the member is wrong. He has misquoted me. In order that the member get

his facts straight I would be quite willing to make a copy of that address to

those people available to him so that he can read the whole of that great speech."

The member in the first instance has denied making reference to a new Wildlife Act at the convention, and in the second instance has implied that the prepared speech which he supplied me with that day, which I will file, was the speech given in Burns Lake. I have since obtained a transcript -of the speech actually presented at the convention. It indicates that the member did indeed mention a new Wildlife Act. I will file this transcript.

Secondly, the speech supplied by the member was not a copy of the speech he delivered. The member's action interfered with my efforts to seek answers in the House. May's Parliamentary Practice, 18th edition, says on page 138: "The House may treat the making of a misstatement as a contempt." I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to consider these documents in order to determine if there's a prima facie case of such a contempt. If you were to define a prima facie case I would be prepared to move a suitable motion.

I ask leave to file documents.

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER : Hon. member, I would defer the decision pending proper consideration of the matter and will report to the House at my first opportunity. Previous to reporting to the House I would wish the hon. member to make known to the Speaker the nature of the motion that he intends to make, should the ruling be in his favour.

MR. NICOLSON : Mr. Speaker, I would, if the occasion rises, move that this House instruct the committee of selection appointed on March 30 last to name a Committee of Privileges to investigate the allegation that the member for Omineca was in contempt of the House on April 12,1978, and that the said committee shall, with all speed, inquire into the said matter and report its recommendations thereon to this assembly before the end of the session, the said Committee on Privileges being authorized to sit while the House is sitting.

MR. SPEAKER : Thank you, hon. member. I will undertake to consider the matter and report at the first convenience.

Introduction of bills.

GUARANTEED AVAILABLE INCOME

FOR NEED AMENDMENT ACT, 1978

On a motion by Ms. Brown, Bill M 205, Guaranteed Available Income for Need Amendment Act, 1978, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions.

TEMPORARY WORK PERMITS FOR JAPANESE

MR. LEA : Has the Minister of Labour discussed with federal officials the conditions attached to some 450 temporary work permits which have been issued for Japanese citizens to work as so-called technicians in B.C. canneries during the herring and salmon roe fishery seasons this year?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS : Mr. Speaker, I have not discussed the matter with federal officials but I have asked for a report through the manpower division of the Ministry of Labour into this continuing practice by the federal department.

MR. LEA : May I ask the minister when he asked for that report and from whom?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS : If the member will accept my apologies, from memory, it was some 10 or 12 days ago, of my deputy minister. I might say to the member that the practice of issuing temporary immigrant work visas is a matter which we view with some concern. It is a practice of the federal department that we have been unable to control as yet.

MR. LEA : I would ask the minister whether that report, once in his hands, could be made available to the Legislature.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS : Yes.

PRINTING OF ICBC FORMS

MR. COCKE : Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Education. I would like to ask the Minister of Education why it is, in view of the wide unemployment in the province, that ICBC has been importing printing of

[ Page 1041 ]

their forms from the province of Ontario, from R.L. Crane Ltd. in Toronto. I wonder if the minister has any answer to that question.

HON. MR. McGEER : Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I've been aware of this, and I would be pleased to take the question as notice and bring an answer to the member.

REPORT ON SPEECH PATHOLOGISTS

AND AUDIOLOGISTS

MR. GIBSON : Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) . On March 29 of this year the minister announced the establishment of an interagency committee to discuss the ministry's requirements for the qualifications of speech pathologists and audiologists in the division of speech and hearing services. The minister promised the committee's report would be submitted by April 29 of this year. Has that committee now reported, and if not, why not?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND : Mr. Speaker, no, the committee hasn't reported. As for why not, . it hasn't finished its work yet.

MR. GIBSON : On a supplementary, when I raised this subject with the minister on April 3 in the House, he informed me that he had not, at that time, read the report on the training of audiologists done by Dr. Fred Greenberg. Dr. Greenberg was, commissioned by and reported to the Universities Council, a committee of that council, which included an official representative of the Ministry of Health, Dr. F.G. Tucker. In view of the alleged criticism in the Greenberg report of a senior Health ministry public servant, has the minister now obtained and read a copy of that report and has he determined why this report was not brought to his attention earlier?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND : Yes, I have a copy of the report.

MR. GIBSON : On a final supplementary, Mr. Speaker, has the minister taken any action to get the permission of the Universities Council to have'that report made available to the members of the interagency committee that is investigating the subject?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND : Mr. Speaker, as I explained earlier, it's not the Ministry of Health's report. It's up to the Universities Council to determine what is done with it. As I understand it, the interministerial committee does have access to the report and I'm sure that the report's recommendations will be a part of their consideration.

MR. MACDONALD : Even though it's the Universities Council, since

the Greenberg report was prepared by a public agency - the Universities Council

is a public agency, as is the Ministry of Health - why is that report not made

public? Why should it be kept secret from the members of the Legislature and

from the public? Is there any reason?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND : It's not my report. Mr. Speaker, the member must realize the report is not the Ministry of Health's. It was not commissioned by the Ministry of Health, it wasn't delivered to the Ministry of Health, it had nothing to do with the Ministry of Health. So it's not my report to release. I have no objection if it's released and if it's printed on the front page of the Vancouver Sun.

MR. MACDONALD : On a supplementary, will the minister speak to the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) and see that the report prepared with public money is released to the public?

LEASEBACK OF FERRIES

HON. MR. WOLFE : I would like to respond to a question asked of me last me by the second member for Burrard (Mr. Levi) . It had to with the subject of the three ferries which were purchased and leased back, namely the Queen of Alberni, the Queen of Cowichan and the Queen of Coquitlam. By way of information, I would just like to supply this report:

In March of 1976 Mr. Charles Gallagher, general manager of the British Columbia

Ferry Authority, was contacted by Mr. W. John Bennett - no relation to our

Premier - who was the vice-president of McLeod, Young, Weir & Co. of Toronto,

on a proposal to sell and lease back the three new ferries about to be delivered.

At this time other proposals were sought and received from Roy Marine, Ltd., Wood Gundy Ltd., and J. Henry Schroeder & Co. Ltd. In each of these cases, their proposals meant a higher cost to the ferry authority than the one which was adopted.

The sale lease-back deal with McLeod.Young, Weir and Company resulted in $48,442, 000 being received for the three vessels: Queen of Coquitlam, Queen of Cowichan and Queen of Alberni. Commission at the rate of 0.5 per cent was paid. I might say that that is a reasonable rate compared with other transactions of a similar type. I'm advised that, for

[ Page 1042 ]

instance, bond issues in Europe attract a commission of 2.5 per cent on very sizable financial issues. This commission was at the rate of 0.5 per cent, namely, $85,000 on the Queen of Cowichan and $73,000 on the Queen of Alberni deducted from the payments received from McLeod, Young and Weir Leasing Companies; $85,000 on the Queen of Coquitlam. paid to McLeod, Young, Weir and Company.

The reason for the different methods of payment is that the first two vessels were sold to the leasing companies and then resold, while the third vessel was sold directly with McLeod, Young, Weir and Company acting as agent.

The effective rate of interest, which is an important part of this transaction, on the leaseback is 7.09 per cent, excluding the acquisition of the ferries at the end of the lease, or 17.71 per cent if the ferries were re-acquired. In either case, you have a very attractive effective rate of rental.

SOME HON. MEMBERS : Oh, oh!

HON. MR. WOLFE : That is true, Mr. Speaker. I challenge anyone to disagree with that statement. The effective rate of 7.09 per cent [illegible] compares to the then existing bank interest rates of upwards of 10 per cent.

MR. LEVI : Could the minister tell us who actually owns the ferries at the moment?

HON. MR. WOLFE : From recollection I think one had actually been owned by the Grown and had been resold; the other two, perhaps, were purchased by the leasing companies directly before they were transferred. I'll have to check on that for you.

MR. LEVI : Could I perhaps assist the minister? It's my understanding that two of the ferries are now owned by McLeod, Young, Weir and Company; and one of them is owned by the syndicate Trustco, which is the Bank of Montreal and the Trust Company of Canada.

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

MR. LEVI : Yes.

HON. MR. WOLFE : I think it's clear that this transaction was beneficial to British Columbia. These companies that purchased the ferries were in effect able to give us a better rate because of depreciation laws which exist.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER . Hon. members, we must remember the purpose of question

period is not to have prolonged debate, but rather to seek information.

MR. LEVI : Can the minister inform the House, Mr. Speaker, whether Mr. Austin Taylor was involved in any way in the negotiations in respect to the McLeod, Young and Weir proposals?

HON. MR. WOLFE : Mr. Speaker, not to my knowledge. I've informed the House that a Mr. John Bennett, vice-president, approached the Ferry Authority and handled the transaction.

MR. LEVI : Would the minister undertake to find out and let the House know if, in fact, Mr. Taylor was or was not involved in the negotiations?

MR. BARRETT : I understand that the minister said that McLeod, Young and Weir is also an owner of two of the ferries at this point, and then sold them later to a leasing firm. Is that correct? I understand one ferry was sold directly, and two were held by McLeod, Young and Weir and then sold again. Is that correct?

HON. MR. WOLFE : No, Mr. Speaker, I believe either one or two of the ferries had first been purchased by the Grown and were resold back to accommodate this leaseback transaction. I think the third one had not, in fact, been purchased at the time the transaction was made, and was then purchased directly by one of these leasing companies from the Authority, who had constructed them.

MR. BARRETT : Is the minister saying to the House that the province of British Columbia bought two ferries from its wholly owned Crown corporation and then sold them, through McLeod, Young and Weir, to the leasing firm?

HON. MR. WOLFE : I don't know.

MR. BARRETT : Well, could the minister inform the House who held the ferries in the interim - the two ferries that were not sold directly, either by the Grown or by the government.

HON. MR. WOLFE : Mr. Speaker, I'll take that question as notice.

Interjections.

HON. MR. WOLFE : That wasn't part of your

[ Page 1043 ]

original question. What are you talking about?

MR. BARRETT : Don't you know, for goodness' sake? It's $48 million and you don't know what's going on.

HON. MR. WOLFE : You just don't like the transaction. We'll save a lot of money.

MR. SPEAKER : Hon. members, time is fleeting.

MR. LAUK : To the same minister on the same subject. I wonder briefly the answer to these questions: what is the term of the lease back for each of the ferries and the calculated payout over that period of time to the leasing company?

HON. MR. WOLFE : Mr. Speaker, I've advised the House that the effective rate on the rental was 7.09. I'll get that further information. I believe the term was roughly 20 years, but I'll supply that further information. You want the term of the contract and...

MR. LAUK : ... and the calculated total payout.

CHIEF LAKE - NESS LAKE - NUKKO LAKE

INCLUSION IN AIR

MR. SKELLY : Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Highways and Public Works. With respect to the announcement today by the MLA for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd) that 40,000 acres in the Chief Lake-Ness Lake-Nukko Lake area near Prince George has been included by cabinet order in the AIR, this inclusion was recommended over two years ago by local government and the Land Commission but inclusion was delayed by political interference.

SOME HON. MEMBERS : Oh, oh!

MR. SKELLY : Will the minister please advise the House how many subdivision applications have been received by his ministry in the area between the time that the recommendation was made in the first place and the time the order was passed? What acreage was involved? Who made the applications for subdivision during the two-year delay and what were their political affiliations?

HON. MR. FRASER : To the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) , I'll get the information but I think he maybe better put that question on the order paper.

B.C. HYDRO-HOUSING MINISTRY JOINT COMMITTEE

MR. LEVI : My question is to the Minister of Housing. Could the minister tell the House what the exact function is of the joint ministry and B.C. Hydro committee in respect to Pacific Stage Lines and the Vancouver Island Coach Lines?

HON. MR. CURTIS : This is a staff committee to examine the possible duplication or opportunity for integration of services offered by both companies.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS : Mr. Speaker, a question was posed to me in question period yesterday by the hon. member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) , and I wonder if I might have leave to respond now.

Leave granted.

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMME

HON. MR. WILLIAMS : Mr. Speaker, the question, as you will recall, dealt with the policies of the Youth Employment Programme in 1978, operated by the Ministry of Labour with respect to Indian bands. I indicated that it was my view that Indian bands did qualify for the programme and I am pleased to report to you today that such is the case. No distinction is made between Indian bands or any other individual or organization in this province.

However, the Youth Employment Programme has a number of categories: one of them is nonprofit organizations, one is small businesses, one is farms. There are others as well but they apply to local government organizations. Any organization or any individual who wishes to qualify for a non--profit business or farm programme must bring themselves within the regulations applicable to those categories.

In the case of which the member has notice, the Indian band did not bring itself within any of those three categories and hence the application was rejected. This occurred with respect to a number of other Indian band applications. However, I can assure you that in the non-profit organization section, seven Indian bands or organizations have been approved for funding.

The assessment of applications is conducted by area review committees, which are composed of members of various communities throughout the province and officials of the ministry. In the case of the area review committees at Smithers, Kamloops and Williams Lake, those committees have representatives who are members of the Indian community.

[ Page 1044 ]

I think that perhaps the letter the member has was one which was inappropriate in communicating to the particular band what that band could do with regard to renewing applications. I do however know that a number of applications which camp forward were intercepted by field officers of the programme and that Indian bands were advised in advance of that letter being sent as to what should be done in order to bring their application within the regulations. Whether this particular band, to which the member for Prince Rupert referred, was so advised I can't tell at this moment.

We are having an investigation made among all field officers in the programme to determine the extent to which specific advice was given to Indian bands.

I will have further to report on the matter if the member wishes to raise the question in a subsequent question period. I might also say that in outlining the number of identifiable Indian organizations today, this list is not necessarily exhaustive. These are the ones which we have been able to identify in the period of time since question period yesterday afternoon.

I also wish to make it clear that it is not the policy of the programme or of the ministry to identify organizations as to being Indian or non-Indian or otherwise. We attempt to treat all applicants based upon the application and the priorities established thereby.

MR. SPEAKER : The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) wants the floor. What is the nature of ... ?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER : Hon. members, the practice of the House is that if leave is granted to give a reply to a question made in question period, supplementary questions are made in a subsequent question period. Do we want to change that?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER : Does the member have leave to make a statement?

Leave not granted.

MR. LEA : The Minister of Mines says no, Mr. Speaker...

Interjections.

MR. LEA : ...and the Premier.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. It's not necessary to identify the noes.

MR. BARRETT : On a point of order, I would appreciate some instruction from either the Chair or the House Leaders as to the accommodation for requests without notice or the suspension of the rules for leave to make a statement. If indeed the courtesy is to be extended, as has been the tradition in this House, to the government or to the opposition, some understanding must exist. I would ask the Speaker .....

HON. MR. MAIR : Nonsense. It just doesn't occupy your question period, that's all. It's his courtesy to you.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please, hon. members. A point of order is being stated.

MR. BARRETT : On the question being asked, before suspension of the rules and leave to make a statement, there is no knowledge to the House as to the content and the material. As a consequence, the tradition is that leave is granted by opposition to government with the understanding that the same leave would be granted as a courtesy in return. If indeed this is not to be the practice in the House, I would appreciate some instructions from either the House Leaders or the Whips.

MR. SPEAKER : I would understand, hon. members, that the necessity to ask leave indicates that we are providing an opportunity for any member to object to leave. As I understand the standing orders, if one voice objects, it simply means that leave is not granted. Therefore it cannot be assumed that because leave was granted on one particular instance that leave would necessarily be granted on a subsequent instance. If we want to change the rules, I'm willing to listen.

MR. BARRETT : Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that nothing can be assumed in a request to suspend the rules. However, if the tradition is to be changed, then the request honourably made by the member after the question period, which was freely given, becomes a matter then of question by the House. For example, Mr. Speaker, we would then....

HON. MR. MAIR : Sure, we'll answer them in question period at great length - pages of them.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please, hon. members. I cannot hear the point of order. Please proceed.

[ Page 1045 ]

MR. BARRETT : For example then, Mr. Speaker, the question of suspending rules and giving leave to make a statement might require a statement before the request made on the leave of suspension of rules as to what the nature of the statement is. If that is indeed the practice that we may may embark upon, we'll find ourselves wasting a great deal of time in irrelevant debate before we get to that courtesy point of asking for leave.

MR. SPEAKER : Yes. As I understand that the rule, or at least the practice of the House at the present time, if a ministerial statement is made then the right of reply - it's not a matter of leave - to leaders of opposing parties in the House is granted. However, when a statement is made by leave and is an answer to a question asked in question period, then further statements are not in order, as I understand it, without leave. I would undertake to do some research on the matter, and perhaps even come to the House with the recommendations under the parliamentary procedures and practices Act.

MR. BARRETT : Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LEA : On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, when you are considering this question I wish also that you would take into consideration what could happen in this House, because we are a group of human beings with the same emotions as any other group of human beings. If for political reasons leave is not granted to a member of this House, I believe that that would lead to pettiness, and I believe that once pettiness has entered into it we would find that through pettiness, no leave would be granted for any statement from either side. I wish that you would take that into consideration while considering the motion.

MR. SPEAKER : Hon. member, I trust that it is not the wish of the members for the Chair to try to determine what is the motivation for not granting leave.

HON. MR. GARDOM : On the same point of order, I have one observation. Mr. Speaker, it seems to have been developed as a rule of practice and procedure in the House that when lengthy answers are to be given, they are given outside of question period. But if any of the members of the House on the government side and on the opposition side prefer lengthy answers to be given during question period, I'm sure the ministers are prepared to accommodate.

MR. BARRETT : On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, the choice, of course, is always present with the minister responding to the question. The courtesy extended by the minister who did answer the question after question period was given by leave. And on understanding that request of leave, there is also the option of supplementary questions in question period. I think, Mr. Speaker, rather than cone to some rigid rule that would bind the House in the necessary traditional flexibility the matter best rests in your able hands for some suggestion of operation before hard lines are drawn that all of us will regret.

MR. SPEAKER : Perhaps the best course of action will surface in the inquiry.

MR. LEA : On the same point of order, which I think may also help in your consideration, the minister did ask leave to make his statement or answer the question, which was granted. I would like to inform you, Mr. Speaker, and the House, that I asked leave to make a statement not to politically embarrass anyone, but to help the minister in his investigation. I think because the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Chabot) and the Premier presupposed my intervention, we got ourselves into a lot of trouble and we'll meet more trouble down the road.

MR. SPEAKER : Order, please. I think it's obvious, hon. member, that that is beyond the realm of the point of order.

MR. NICOLSON : Those two aren't themselves today, anyhow.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

(continued)

On vote 5: executive council, $753,760 -continued.

HON. MR. BENNETT : First of all, I'd like to introduce the Deputy Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications, Mr. Roy Illing, who will be sitting with me today.

I'd like to deal with a number of areas covered yesterday on which statements were made and questions asked.

Regarding the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation, I remind you that it is not a Grown corporation. But it does have an obligation,

[ Page 1046 ]

in its prospectus and annual report, to report all manner of information and to answer questions at an annual meeting. While preparing for incorporation, I'm sure many things are developing under the direction of the directors, including their opportunity to hire staff who will help them with the preparation of the prospectus and then, of course, manage the company after it has gone public.

Part of the success of taking a company public is both assets in real resources, in tangible assets -and future assets, such as a share subscription would produce - and also the human resources, those who are going to run the company in a management capacity and who may be continuing after the permanent board of directors is elected by the shareholders at the earliest allowable opportunity following the public subscription.

This will, I hope, be enthusiastically received by the people of British Columbia, as an opportunity to harness their capital and to have a major public company in the private sector that will be our own British Columbia company. The company is restricted to first issue in British Columbia, and Canadian ownership. It will be our own company in size and substance, our private sector corporation and our measurement against the multinational corporations - and owned by British Columbians. I'm sure that the share issue will be actively and enthusiastically purchased.

I know I'm looking forward to seeing the early issuance of the prospectus.

That is why I was a little concerned today in reading an interview with the new manager of B.C. Resources Investment Corporation in which he talked of possible delay. I would hope that he has had time, since that interview, to talk to to the directors and to understand that the mandate that was given them was to prepare a prospectus with all haste - but haste, of course, that would allow for the meeting of all the Securities Commission's requirements. To give British Columbians that opportunity was their mandate when they were named as the interim board of directors. I'm hopeful - as I have been - that an early prospectus and an early offering will be made to the people of British Columbia.

MR. BARBER : Did he confirm that it might be another year before the prospectus was issued?

HON. MR. BENNETT : I have not talked to him. I just read it in the paper. That was not the, mandate given to the directors and that's why I'm mentioning it to the House at this time. Their mandate was to proceed with as much speed as is possible in carrying out such a gigantic undertaking and to provide this early opportunity to the people.

As I said yesterday, those directors have the opportunity to make available such information to all the public of B.C. They don't have to report to the House, as such information will be available very shortly in any prospectus - and through here, where I invite them to do so, Mr. Chairman. I'm sure that information could only help the confidence in this new corporation which is going to count on the enthusiastic support of the people of the province.

I believe it to be a great opportunity in this province not only for the people, but to have a private-sector corporation which is neither run by the hand of government nor has the hand of government compromised by both the policy and the opportunities which it has. It has a great opportunity. Any member standing in this House could relate the number of opportunities that lie in British Columbia for anyone with initiative and enterprise.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT : Any British Columbian can have the opportunity to purchase the shares in various denominations. That opportunity then can unfold in a number of ways. Those ways, of course, would be up to the directors of the company in the best interests of the shareholders.

But in meeting their objectives, they would help to meet the economic objectives of initiative and employment and jobs and economic creativity that this province needs, this province desires and which will pay not only many dividends directly to the people employed but also untold benefits to all of the people indirectly because a healthy corporation will be a tax-paying corporation. It will pay taxes in British Columbia to the British Columbia government. People working provide revenue to government. When government gets revenues, it can provide (

a) more services and (

b) a possibility of tax reductions on a broader level for more people. Certainly what we're looking for in British Columbia is to have a growing economy so that we can look to two things: continuing programmes we have now and improving them in the future, and also lowering the burden of taxation on people as the cost of government can be spread over a much broader base. When you have a series of Crown corporations who have yet to ever pay dividends into general revenue to help pay for the programmes for people, you've also eliminated them from the tax-paying base of the province so that they make no contribution to government in cash into consolidated general revenue to pay

[ Page

1047 ]

for medicare or to pay for the extended health care or to pay for universal Pharma care or many of the benefits we've been able, since we became government, to bring to government.

That money would not be there because they are not a tax-paying base. It's a false economy, then, to consider that government would be the logical owner. This is a logical opportunity for people. When people show initiative and are successful, they can do well for themselves and increase their own way of life. They also have an opportunity to make a contribution through the tax regimes of the country and the province, and that's really what pays for the services.

Somehow, some of the public, some politicians like to think that all services from government are free and somehow the money comes from some mysterious source. That's not correct. It comes from the taxpayers, individual and corporate. It comes from the taxpayers, and that's where government gets its money.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

A healthy economy, then, and a healthy, growing business economy will provide more dollars for government, giving us the opportunity to lower the impact of taxation on individuals. You know, the first er for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) , laughs at that, yet he is part of a party that has indicated....

MR. LAUK : I'm laughing because you're not saying anything. You're full of hot air, Mr. Premier; you're not saying anything.

HON. MR. BENNETT : I can see the member is his usual gracious self. Have the school children left yet so they haven't been exposed to him?

Mr. Chairman, so in reality, the party that member belongs to seems to have

tried to create the myth that somehow government services were free and that

they could provide more services, with no taxation and that somehow the money would come from mythical areas. Of course, they recognize that with that

philosophy and that attitude, that is why they ran into financial trouble when

they were government. I'm only saying that with the difference in our philosophy,

by encouraging the private sector in this way and a number of other ways, we'll

provide that economic base that will, besides giving individuals an opportunity,

send the flow of capital to government, and government then can carry on the

services that British Columbia already provides. When you have our economy threatened,

as it was, then those services themselves are threatened, let alone any possibility

to expand them or provide new services, which all members on all sides of the

House from time to time stand up and speak for most eloquently. It's easy

to ask for many things that may be done. It's another to have that balance

between financing government, providing fair taxation levels to people and working

towards an equitable formula where more money can be left in the hands of individuals

yet government can carry out those functions that government must provide in

a general way.

The B.C. Resources Investment Corporation is just such a vehicle, because it will create an opportunity for people to invest - and I don't have to remind members again of the tremendous buildup in savings accounts of individuals in the last few years in this province and the tremendous buildup in chartered banks of capital waiting to be invested or spent. That capital could be harnessed for their benefit and also be put into this corporation to help it create economic activity as well, giving them an investment and giving it an opportunity to help build the economy.

As I say, all of this will eventually guarantee a better economy that will also help provide government financing in the future through the tax regimes of the day.

Now some question was made of mining, and I answered that yesterday. But the member who spoke immediately left the House and wasn't present. So I answered it while he was out, presumably giving an interview. The answer is, Mr. Chairman, that neither the mining industry or anybody will get a major ripoff, as he suggests, while this government is in power. The same opportunities in coal mining are here that have been through the last government and the government before.

I want to assure the member that his fears are unfounded. The Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Chabot) has indicated that legislation will be forthcoming dealing with that industry. I know the member looks forward to the debate in the House and discussion with the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources on the impact that will have.

But, Mr. Chairman, one of the opportunities we don't have is to deal with subjects that are anticipated in legislation or for which legislation may be forthcoming, so I am unable to provide those further answers that the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources has stated, both in this assembly and, I notice, to the news, that such an opportunity will be presenting itself, and his initiative as part of his policy to both encourage development and make sure the public interest is protec

[ Page 1048 ]

ted. So I must only say that it is a policy of the government to guarantee that the public interest will be protected. But again, as I have already stated, as part of our policy we are encouraging development in this province. We're encouraging the development of the economy because we are concerned about creating jobs for our people

This budget this session has been geared to job creation and to creating employment opportunities, because that's what the people want in this province. You can't cry about unemployment and then say you want no development. Sometime some members talk out of both sides of their mouths. They don't want development, yet they want jobs. They want more government taxation to provide money to government, yet they talk about nationalization. The nationalization that I can find in this province has never sent any money to general revenue to pay for these programmes.

So believe me, the inconsistency of their positions hasn't been lost just on me or my party. The public sometimes wonders whether these people talk just to make a point for the moment, rather than having any consistent policy about how this province should be managed and led and the encouragement and opportunity that should be given to people.

The other question was to do with transit and, of course, I refer the member who mentioned it to the statement made by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) , and the fact that that statement was made. But he also knows again that transit will be considered by this assembly during this session. When the estimates are finished we have a substantial legislative package to introduce and be passed before this first sitting will conclude. I know the members are eager to get on with that important legislation. Many of them are already anticipating it, and I look for the opportunity to participate in having that legislation discussed in the House, Mr. Chairman.

MR. GIBSON : In the matter of the Premier's answers to questions with respect to coal mining in this province, I think the Premier must have been suffering from a bit of a perceptual aberration yesterday afternoon. The fact of the matter is that the House and I had to wait for over two hours for answers to any questions after the conclusion of my remarks. I ask you why., Mr. Chairman, and I give you the answer: the Premier is acutely embarrassed about this particular issue. When he finally did answer, ' what was it?

It was five or six lines in the Blues of Hansard, saying only that the questions I had raised were the kinds that would have to be dealt with in legislation. That is absolute nonsense.

The essence of the questions I raised was that there was a serious alienation of resources going on right now that must be stopped, that must be put in a deep freeze until there is an opportunity for public debate, and until there is an opportunity for exactly the kind of legislation of which the Premier speaks, so that everyone concerned will know the ground rules under which these resources are being given away.

As the Premier was discussing a few moments ago the mandate of the British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation, I had to think what an irony it was that by the time they get to it there won't be any coal lands left for that particular British Columbia owned public company to take over. They will have to buy into them in some way from those who already hold them. They will have to buy into then in some way from. Imperial Oil or from Shell Oil or from Du Pont or from Denison or from all of those that already have their names on that precious priority list of the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Chabot) .

If some of these coal lands had been given to the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation in the same, way that some of the oil and gas lands were given, I can't think for a moment that they would have handled them with a scintilla of the ineptitude that has been shown by the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources once he reversed the clear policy statement made by the Premier on June 2,1977.

Let me relate it once again, so that the Premier can understand. And I hope this time he will answer immediately afterwards, instead of keeping the House waiting for two hours and then giving no answer. Let me relate exactly what's going on here:

there is a colossal alienation of remaining British Columbia coal lands

in progress.

HON. MR. CHABOT : Nonsense!

MR. GIBSON :

it is irreversible once it is started, and I'll give you

chapter and

verse on each of these points, Mr. Minister;

the policies necessary for public protection in this process are not in

place;

there was a mysterious, last-minute policy reversal and flip-flop done

in the dark and against the advice of the Public Service;

the only way to redress this situation is to see that it is frozen right

now until there is a public debate and a new and clear policy announced.

[ Page 1049 ]

Let me go over those points again with some more elaboration. First of all there is a colossal alienation in progress. Mr. Chairman, what is happening now in the area of coal, the area about which the Premier on June 2,1977, stated as follows:

"I believe that the economy of this province will be significantly influenced by coal during the next decade and that coal could eventually outrank the lumber industry in employment, resource revenue and taxation."

What is going on in that area is by analogy similar to what we would have if we had in the last three months in this province entered into a licensing application process which would have seen one-third of the timber land in this province given way. Mr. Chairman, I say to you that the former Social Credit government gave away the timber lands of this province to the large companies, who got forest management units larger than they needed and have been proven since that time to have allocations far beyond what was allegedly being granted at that time. And I say that the current Social Credit government is in the process of doing the same- thing with the coal resources of this province.

HON. MR. CHABOT : "Cut and run" Gibson.

MR. GIBSON : Mr. Chairman, I say that's a pretty serious thing when within a space of three months a set of events is put in train that is going to lead to the alienation of the remaining good coal land in this province. There are 940 acres currently under lease, and a further 705 acres applied for since the minister's announcement of February 10. Now is this process irreversible once it's started, once the minister has issued those first exploration licences?

It has been said in this House that really there are no dangers here. The Premier asked yesterday haw exploration can be a danger, in response to this question. I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that according to our legislation, once those exploration licences are granted the situation is on a conveyor belt that moves irreversibly towards the granting of production leases as long as the companies fulfill their obligations.

HON. MR. McGEER : What's the matter? Doesn't Edgar want to bid on them?

MR-. GIBSON : Mr. Chairman, under

section 19 of the Coal Act....

MR. CHAIRMAN : Excuse me, but do you not feel this could possibly better be handled in the estimates of the Minister of Mines?

MR. GIBSON : No, I don't, Mr. Chairman, and I'll tell you why. I'm basing my remarks on the statement of the Premier at Nelson on June 2 of last year, in which he outlined a new coal policy. He said this: "The statement of coal policy for British Columbia is probably the most important resource policy announcement that this government has made since taking office, or will make during the next two or three years." That was an announcement made by the Premier.

He went on to give details of that coal policy which have since been reversed by his government, and were reviewed by his government according to an answer to a question that I received yesterday from the Premier. The Premier's responsible for that.

May I carry on, because I'm trying to explain to him, just in case no one else has told him, the inevitability of the course that he has Embarked upon once those licences are granted, if they are not frozen at the present time.

The minister made great moment in the House yesterday, saying: "Well, it's upon the recommendation of the minister." Surely the minister is not suggesting that good corporate citizens who go out under his policy and spend money to explore coal lands would not be granted such a lease. Is he talking about breaking faith? Obviously not. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I say to you it is very clear that it is a conveyor belt from the time that licence is issued. That is why I say to the Premier that he Tm, t put a freeze on this right now.

The public protection policies are not in place - the public protection policies that the Premier claimed to be spelling out in his policy announcement of June 2,1977. The policies for the public revenue are not in place; the policies for work requirements are not in place. The new policies that have been foreshadowed by the Premier, and the protec

[ Page 1050 ]

tion against potential deep freeze by the very large energy companies that have made the applications for these new 705 square miles largely - all but 112 square miles that are applied for by individuals.... The potential deep-freeze capability of those companies of holding those lands for year after year have not been protected against.

That kind of public protection mechanism is not in place here, and that kind of anti-deepfreeze mechanism is not in place here. I say that until these policies are in place, the very absence of such legislation that the Premier foreshadows is all the more reason to put a freeze and a moratorium on the granting of any exploration permits until that time, and the minister should agree with that.

The minister and the Premier should not want to be in the position of misleading companies who would be issued exploration licences without knowing what the new ground rules were going to be. You have an obligation to spell out those ground rules before proceeding with the issuance of these licences.

Mr. Chairman, what is behind this? What is behind the mysterious policy reversal

of the last minute of the Premier's policy announced in June 1977, confirmed

in detail with the minister in October, 1977, and then, at the last moment,

stood on its head on February 10,1978? What is behind that flip-flop? The public

has a right to know, and the public has a right to know why it should be that

only three months after that announcement by the minister we are very far down

the road to allotting most of the remaining good coal land in British Columbia.

I say it again: it is equivalent to allotting a third of the timber land in

British Columbia. You just don't do that kind of thing aver a three-month

period; you do it gradually and in such a way as to maintain the maximum revenue

to the Crown and the maximum incentive for exploration by the companies.

Mr. Chairman, I say it again: the Premier has a duty on this, now that the

reversal of his own coal policy has been brought to his attention, to stand

up in this House and say, "Mr. Member, it's not a case of future legislation."

There may be future legislation but we're concerned with what is happening

right now. We're concerned with the fact that the alienation is proceeding

right now independent of future legislation and can only be overturned by a

betrayal of the government's existing commitments, which is wrong.

Therefore, what the Premier must do is to stand up in this House and say: (1) there will be a freeze. And I don't ask for a long freeze, but there will be a freeze until: (2) there has been a public debate on the proper way and means and the proper timing of allotting for exploration and development of these remaining good British Columbia coal lands. If the Premier will not do that, then the Premier is condoning an alienation of the rest of our coal in the spring of 1978 on a brand new policy that the public has never had a chance to debate that overturned the Premier's own policy of June, 1977.

Mr. Chairman, there are all kinds of economic arguments for disposing of coal

rights under this method or that method. The point is: (1) there has been no

public debate and (2) the extraordinary magnitude of the developments of the

last three months that are poised now, some of them on the minister's desk,

ready to get on this conveyor belt of which I spoke, confirms rights that can

only be taken away by a betrayal of the government's previous policy later

on. I say that's wrong to be put in that kind of a position. To talk of

future legislation is not good enough. What must be done now is to say yes,

there will be a freeze. Then once that future legislation comes in, we will

have the new ground rules. And that it the way it should proceed, Mr. Chairman.

I hope that the Premier will respond to that one right now.

HON. MR. BENNETT : Well, Mr. Chairman, there are no permits being granted; none have been signed. We can proceed to much of the business that the member wants to talk about in this House in the Ministry of Mines and what he suggests will be happening in his own estimates. I have no intention of handling his

[ Page 1051 ]

estimates for him. I say that nothing has happened, but I'd say there probably is some haste for that member to make this speech rather than wait for the Minister of Mines and the legislation. He might have plans to leave this assembly early and seek election in another sphere, and he's got to get his campaign speech started in this assembly.

I must tell the - er that there have been no leases given. There will be ample opportunity to debate in this House, to discuss many aspects. He will certainly have the opportunity of dealing with the Minister of Mines; that is why this government grants portfolios. I must say that there is ample opportunity for members who are going to stay in this House and continue to serve B.C. to participate in that debate. That opportunity will be there during this session. The member, I hope, will be here to participate in it.

I remember well his eloquent statements on the mining industry when he was encouraging more exploration for minerals in this province. He said the companies had been driven out because they didn't have the right to explore.

AN HON. MEMBER : Now he is against it.

HON. MR. BENNETT : Now we want exploration; we want to identify that government traditionally treats minerals in a particular way. We encourage exploration. Government then can participate in the share and the rights that belong to the people through taxation methods, which has been traditional in mining. I can remember some of that members very fine speeches on this: how mining taxation could work to both encourage exploration and have it take place, and then have revenue flow to government through taxation, with such taxation levels to be adjusted from times.

Taxation will always be there, and the government of the day can impose different levels of taxation that may suit different times or different markets. That's the right of each new assembly, each new government, each new Legislature.

What has been a traditional opportunity in this province is a right to go out and explore in the mining business. Claim-staking is just that. I can remember that member concerned about the claim-staking that did not take place in the province because of Bill 33, which he fought with heart and soul. He talked, as I mentioned last night, reminding the House about the decline in claim-staking that took place during the years of the last government because of Bill 33 and their attitude. Claim staking was just that. They go out and they get a right to explore. Then they're subject to the rules and conditions of extraction and taxation that the government imposes.

Really there has to be an awful lot of trust in the government, which has the ability to change the rules at any time. There must be a lot of trust. Such opportunity for rules and regulation taxation will be available to members who are going to be sitting in this House during this session to talk about these things. I don't really want to debate every minister's estimates, because those ministers carry responsibility for their portfolios and they are prepared to stand in this House and deal with their portfolios. They are prepared to stand and introduce and debate legislation.

I think the member is anticipating and putting his own view on future events without waiting. You won't have to wait very long for your early opportunity in this House. I know all members are waiting. I look forward to the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources' estimates, and the suggestion. he made on legislation. I tell the member that the quicker we get there the better. Nothing has happened. The minister has even assured me that no applications have arrived on his desk. Is that right, Mr. Minister of Mines?

HON. MR. CHABOT : Yes.

HON. MR. BENNETT : No applications have arrived and no applications and no licences have been given. So to the member, Mr. Chairman, there is absolutely no problem in that area.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

If the member believes in all the great speeches on taxation and encouraging exploration that he gave during Bill 33, then I know he will certainly agree with anything we can do to encourage increased activity in exploration at this time, bearing in mind our further responsibility to deal with guidelines on how that development shall take place and under what taxation levels. We are always ready to meet the public interest because no policy or taxation level is in place for all time.

As I say, succeeding parliaments, succeeding governments, succeeding sessions, succeeding sittings, all have the opportunity for the ers to make decisions reflecting the responsibilities that face them during the day.

To suggest that you could establish at any time, and guarantee for 100 years, that taxation levels would be the same or some certain policy would be the same, would be to deny the

[ Page 1052 ]

right of succeeding parliaments and the right of members to react to changing conditions.

Right now, Mr. Chairman, I know all people in this assembly and the people of British Columbia are anxious to see things happen. They want to see development. They want to see ore bodies proved up. It is encouraging to me to see the exploration that is taking place in our mining industry. I can hardly wait for the estimates of the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources so that he can tell this House of the positive things that are happening in British Columbia. That member comes from an area of the province where he knows the mining industry.

He's adjacent to some of the major coal deposits, and I'm sure he knows some of the major coal companies that the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) knows -Kaiser Coal and others. They've made a contribution to this province, and I think they've been good for this province. I think they've provided employment.

They are a responsible company, as are the others, and their relationship with government will be there as providers of jobs and providers of taxation under firm guidelines on how that's to be extracted and taxation measures which this House will debate - which this House must debate, because that's what this House has the opportunity to do. The minister has said the House should anticipate some legislation from him and, as I say, I wait for it. That's in response to the er for North Vancouver-Capilano.

No licences have been given. The minister says no applications are on his desk. If we could get to his estimates today, we could debate them today under his estimates. If we got through all the estimates we could get to this very important legislation which the member wants to debate. There is all the legislation that the members are anticipating on transit. The ers want to talk about transit and yet we can't get to the legislation. We want to get it debated. We've got proposed legislation, a forestry Act, much legislation that this House, I know, is eager to get on with.

Among it, the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources says, is legislation relating to the very subject the member for North Vancouver-Capilano was talking about.

In my temporary capacity as Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications, encouragement will be given to spend money on airports and air facilities in this province, as part of our economic thrust for development. Traditionally, air services have been under the control of the federal government and the Ministry of Transport. Unfortunately, their policies are often slow. They are often not quick enough to meet the needs of our remote communities and people who work in remote circumstances.

These small communities need funding to aid their people to have a transportation link, one of many which they need to keep in contact with the rest of the province. I'm hoping, Mr. Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) , that soon we may have an opportunity to have people in Ottawa who will be able to speak out for such things. I know there are people who are concerned because, of course, many of these areas in which there are minerals to be explored and developed, and which will create jobs... We want to have the facilities for people to have access to those areas - access in and access out.

Since this programme -ms announced in that dynamic budget of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) , the response has been overwhelming from many small communities, who are glad that the present government of British Columbia is not going to wait any longer for Ottawa. This doesn't mean we are going to let them off the hook - they still have their responsibility - but as an adjunct to bring services to those people and to help them help themselves, we are entertaining a number of proposals from them this year and, hopefully, in years to come for small airport assistance and facilities.

Many of these proposals are being reviewed by the ministry at the present time, and of course will impact upon people wishing to go out and explore and pioneer and help to build the more remote parts of our province. This can be a large part of developing the economy that we all went to see in British Columbia, an economy which will provide the jobs.

These moneys are well spent in providing these amenities and transportation opportunities for people, and will pay many dividends both in human and economic terms in bringing these people a little closer to the amenities that they cannot now enjoy, and giving them some access to the urban market while they go out and work in the more remote areas which will ultimately benefit the province of British Columbia. So I'm proud that for the first time in British Columbia the government has brought in a policy of aid to airports.

Members from many of these communities pound their desks, as well they might. They have waited many years. Not only in B.C. but in Alberta many people waited many years for many of the promises that were made to them. First of all, promises were made to them after the First World War when they were sent out there as returned men to homestead in the Peace River. They had to wait many years for the B.C. Railway to come in on our side of the

[ Page 1053 ]

We have applications from communities in most sectors of the province, up the coast and in the north, who are concerned with applying for moneys under this fund. I'm hopeful we can meet most of the requests this year. In succeeding years we'll try to deal with further requests by further encouraging the upgrading of of small airstrips and new airstrips in British Columbia.

MR. GIBSON : I agree with the Premier that air travel is wonderful, and now I'd like to get back to coal for a moment.

Mr. Chairman, the last time the Premier said in defence of the actions of his government that I was merely putting my own view on events with respect to the development

schedule of northeast coal. Subsequent events have illustrated that the hype of the Minister of Economic Development, who is going to have 2,000 or 3,000 jobs out of northeast coal by 1980, has proven to be just a shade optimistic. Some of the more sober economic facts that I suggested had to be taken into account by the government have turned out to be fairly important.

Well, I say the same thing on this scheduled alienation of 705 square miles of coal. It is not good enough, Mr. Premier, to say that none have yet reached the ministers desk. I want assurance - I think this committee should have the assurance - that when they do reach the desk, as they're getting there, no licences will be given until there has been a full public debate. I ask nothing else, and I hope that the government will facilitate that public debate within the next three months. We need not be talking about any great delay here.

But I tell you, the wholesale alienation of most of the remaining good coal land in British Columbia must await a public debate on the means of its disposition now that the government has done a last-minute flip-flop from the Premier's policy on it.

HON. MR. CHABOT : We'll have it right here.

If you're still here, you'll be able to debate it.

MR. GIBSON : It has not been held yet, and if the minister is going to say it will be held during his estimates, it won't be unless, by that time, he's tabled his legislation too. We must know the full plans of the government on this and we must know the pros and cons. We must know why the government reversed the Premier's policy statement. There must have been something fairly important that caused them to say that the Premier on June 2,1977, was wrong and the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) on February 10,1978, was right.

That's all I ask for, Mr. Chairman. I don't ask for any snap decision by the Premier on what the policy should be. I just ask for an assurance to this committee today that no licences will be issued under the discretion of the minister or his government until there has been a full-1 public debate. That's all I ask.

HON. MR. BENNETT : Well, that's fairly easy. I think this sitting the member will have the opportunity. And I can guarantee to him that in this sitting, in meeting the timetable I think we can meet in getting out of this House, on the first sitting after conclusion of estimates and provision of time that we've considered available for legislation-I can give that assurance, yes.

MR. GIBSON : Full public debate.

HON. MR. BENNETT : Assurance that no leases will be signed before the minister's estimates and the legislation will be dealt with in this sitting.

MR. GIBSON : Full public debate.

MR. MACDONALD : I don't think that undertaking is sufficient to protect the people of this province. It's more than the passage of time until the minister's estimates that we're talking about. The Premier now really is starting to talk about legislation. The member for North Vancouver-Capilano made a very valuable addition to the protection of the public in this province, if I may say so, by raising the reversal of policy of the government and by pointing out that formal applications are before the minister. It's ridiculous for the minister to say they're not there under

section 15; it's an application to the minister. It may be your secretary, it may be one of your officials, but it's to you, Mr. Minister, and it's right before you.

[ Page 1054 ]

HON. MR. BENNETT : If you want to deal with him, deal with him.

MR. MACDONALD : Well, no. I'm going to deal with the Premier giving this province away. You certainly have in oil and gas, and I do not want to see it happen in coal.

The undertaking the Premier should give -and maybe this will end the debate - is that if the Premier is saying there will be changes in the rules and there'll be legislation coming down, then he should say that no coal licences will be granted under

section 15 or

section 16 until that legislation is before the House. Mr. Chairman, will the Premier give that undertaking that until the new legislation there will be no licences granted?

HON. MR. BENNETT : I'd like to keep this with the member for North Vancouver-Capilano who raised the subject and again answer him so that other members can listen again both to his questions and my answers. I believe in this sitting we have ample time. None of the applications will be granted licences before both the minister's estimates and his proposed legislation is dealt with in this Legislature. I think the reasonable time frame that we see for this sitting will allow for that to happen. I think it's a reasonable request. I think in reasonable time limits taken in here we can achieve that; such will be possible.

I know that we all want to move with great dispatch to both his estimates and

that legislation, and we don't want to hold up the economic plans of the

province all summer. But I'm sure that in reasonable limits, I can give

that assurance.

MR. MACDONALD : Mr. Chairman, I'm very glad to see the way the Premier is replying to the leader of the Liberal Party, as if the rest of the people in B.C. - including the official opposition - aren't interested in this subject. You know, I congratulate my friend, but you're replying to all the people of the province of B.C., Mr. Premier. I want it spelled out....

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM : It's pretty hard to do that through you.

MR. MACDONALD : Well, that's a great remark from that other minister.

I understand now the Premier has made a commitment - and I want him to listen

because I'm an elected member here too - and I want to be sure that it's

correctly stated. He has agreed that the applications that are now made to the

Ministry of Mines and Petroleum Resources, under

section 15 with a notice under

section 16 of the Coal Act, will not be granted until the legislation, which

has been referred to by both the minister and the Premier, is brought into this

House - not just brought in, but under the rules. Is that the commitment?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT : Oh, no, no shifting of position.

MR. MACDONALD : Well, maybe the Premier can assure us that until that legislation is in place, these applications will not be granted.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Hon. member, I must remind you it's not proper to reflect on legislation or the necessity for legislation in Committee of Supply.

MR. MACDONALD : No, I'm not, Mr. Chairman. I'm talking about a time frame now, about the length of time these applications will be held up. And the Premier has spoken about new legislation. He has spoken about a change of the rules. You know, in fairness to industry, for one thing, those rules should be known. There are other people who may wish to apply, Mr. Premier, under the new legislation - if we see it and I hope we do see it. What we're asking today is that that commitment be spelled out very specifically, that these applications not be granted until the new legislation is in place - has been considered by this House and either passed or rejected. Is that what I understand?

MR. GIBSON : Not necessarily granted then.

HON. MR. BENNETT : I would never be prepared to say what the first member for Vancouver East understands. I am prepared, in response to the leader of the Liberal Party again - for the third time - to answer his question and say yes, within reasonable time limits. And there are a number of pieces of legislation that will impact in a number of areas, and which are going to be very important to this province. I would hope to see early introduction and early passage of the legislation. We know that there's going to be a major forestry bill. We know there's going to be other legislation that people are interested in.

Some of it was mentioned in the throne speech, others will be introduced in this session. The Minister of Mines has said that he is going to be dealing with legislation and I have said.... What's that squeaking noise I hear? Oh, it's the Leader of the Opposition coming.

[ Page 1055 ]

Anyhow, I have said to the leader of the Liberal Party for North Vancouver-Capilano for the third time that within the time it takes in this House to debate both the estimates and the legislative programme of approximately 50 bills which, I believe, the government has announced will be forthcoming, we can give him an assurance that both the minister's estimates and the legislation he has planned will be introduced and dealt with by this House.

But you can't ask me to anticipate the length of time some members may wish this House to continue. So I could not say that, should members choose to sit for 10 or 12 or 15 months, all of the people's business would await any moves they may make to delay. But within reasonable time limits, I give my assurance to the member for North Vancouver-Capilano that that opportunity will be there -both estimates and the bill.

MR. MACDONALD : I just want to be clear what the Premier is saying, because I think there's a little bit of slithering there and I want to be sure. I don't mind you answering my question to some other member. I don't mind arrogance - and there's a little touch of that there - or pettiness. But as long as I'm a member here, I'm entitled to ask a question and to be clear as to what undertaking we're getting from the Premier at this time.

Specifically, is it true that these applications will not be granted until there is new legislation?

HON. MR. BENNETT : The first member for Vancouver East wants clarification of the answers I have given to the speech by the member for North Vancouver-Capilano yesterday, and his further questions today. Yes, the assurances I gave were that there would be no leases signed within the time limits for getting estimates through and the legislation passed. I'm making that commitment. But I have to ask hon. members of this House, because I can't anticipate how long this House will sit. The only qualification I put is that if the House chose to sit forever and ever, I wouldn't hold up the business of the people of the province and the government's right to make things happen in this province.

But I have given the assurance, and the hon. member for Vancouver East would not want me to also presume the right to direct the House and how much time it should take. But I do say within reasonable limits there, and I anticipate it could be done in the short legislative programme we have planned. I have made that commitment to the member from North Vancouver-Capilano that no leases will be signed until the legislation has been dealt with by this House that the minister has announced that he has forthcoming.

Of course, the minister's estimates will be dispensed with by that time because the House will be concluding the estimates before we get on to debate some bills. So certainly I've given that assurance. For the third time I follow up on that assurance to members of this House.

MR. MACDONALD : I think, Mr. Chairman, that the people of British Columbia have won a temporary victory in what the Premier has said. As I understand it, the government can arrange the priorities of this Legislature and it can bring in a new Coal Act, or amendments to the Coal Act, without delay and have them debated and passed through the different readings that are required. I don't know what that new Coal Act will be; I don't know whether that will protect the people of this province from what's happened in other areas that I'm not going to refer to right now. I certainly intend to before the end of these estimates.

I'm reasonably satisfied that we now have a commitment that these applications, which are really on the minister's desk even though he doesn't acknowledge that under the Act, will not be granted. The freeze that has been asked for by the leader of the Liberal Party has been granted. That's my understanding, and I hope there's no mistake in that respect.

HON. MR. BENNETT : There is no intention of doing anything before the House has these considerations. I'm glad to give the assurance because the House has anticipated that all these things could be debated and discussed in this assembly. Members have needed the assurance, so I give the assurance as part of that ministry's policies.

MR. GIBSON : Mr. Chairman, I welcome the commitment that licences won't be issued until the House has had a chance to have a full public debate of these questions, both in the estimates and legislation, but there's one problem. The Premier said that's only the case if the House doesn't take too long in going about its business, and I don't think that's a proper condition to put on it. I think that the guarantee should be absolute, that licences will not be issued until there is full public debate.

I would like the Premier to also confirm a reasonable corollary of the statement he made * If it is suggested that licences will not be issued until such debate has taken place, it suggests as well that all of the licences will not necessarily be granted then. In other

[ Page 1056 ]

words, there may be some change in policy. It's most important that that be confirmed to this House, because one of the great concerns is the full-scale alienation at this time of that whole 705 square miles, when subsequent debate might well convince the government that it would be better to go slow.

HON. MR. BENNETT : Mr. Chairman, as the member knows, any, all or none of the applications may not end up as licences. That's all they are - applications. And that's all they will be. It would be presumptuous for me to tell the people I would suspend government business at all, depending on a time limit that I can't control.

MR. GIBSON : The House is here to control the government.

HON. MR. BENNETT : So I've made my commitment. The commitment was not necessary because this government had planned on speedy passage of introduction of bills, although we can't guarantee how long they will take to pass, and an opportunity during this first sitting for the House to conduct the business of the people. You know, I'm. not trying to tell the House how quickly they must do their business; they can take as much time as the opportunities allow. I'm only saying that at some point there is an amount of the public's business that we must get done, as we see in the best interests of the public.

MR. LAUK : But what if the House has not considered the legislation?

HON. MR. BENNETT : Oh, I'm sure it will. I would not like to anticipate. The member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) is calling across the floor. I'm not anticipating the House; love just made my statement to the member, and the statement needs no further qualification.

MR. LAUK : Mr. Chairman, the difficulty with the Premier is that he has no conception about parliamentary tradition, if he thinks that he can threaten the opposition. He's saying: "I'm going to sell out the coal resources of this province, and you won't have an opportunity to debate it if you delay legislation or estimates in this House." That's exactly what he's saying.

This is the kind of jackboot, back-of-the-hand treatment he has given to opposition parties since he took office. He has no conception of the parliamentary process. He thinks he is the president of a republic, that's what he thinks. And you can see the image now of Billy dressed up in the epaulettes and the medals.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK : There is the man of I can't recall, the man who held his cabinet post even though his credibility was impugned by contradictory sworn evidence in a royal commission. He has the nerve to sit in the executive council while this other poor chap is going down the tube.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, please. Would you please relate this to vote 5, hon. member?

MR. LAUK : Mr. Chairman, why didn't the First Minister scapegoat

the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) ? His credibility and

his involvement were under suspicion.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS : Mudslinger!

MR. LAUK : Why didn't you seek the relief of going to the Premier and saying: "Please charge me, so I can clear my name. Just give me a break. Charge me with a criminal office so I can have the opportunity to clear my name."?

The Premier has stood up in his estimates in this committee and has laid down the gauntlet. He says: "I am dictator in this province. I can ignore parliament; I can ignore the Legislative Assembly." He is saying: "Delay the legislation and the estimates and you won't have an opportunity to argue about these coal licences that are going to the major multinational oil companies of the world."

Now let me tell this committee why there is a moratorium on coal licences. That poor country bumpkin from Columbia River would never understand the major implications of his disastrous move in February of this year. The poor chap just hasn't got a clue - about what he did in February. He doesn't know what he's done to the resources of this province.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK : Oh, listen to the chirping. Hasn't the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) fed you your worms yet? You're all chirping in the back of the nest - chirp, chirp, chirp. Where is the Provincial Secretary?

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

MR. LAUK : Let's pass out some smile buttons and keep them quiet, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN : The first er for Vancouver

[ Page 1057 ]

Centre (Mr. Lauk) has the floor. Perhaps the other members would extend the courtesy of standing order 17 to the member so we can proceed.

MR. LAUK : I'm glad you pointed out that very, very worthwhile order, standing as it may be.

Mr. Chairman, let's look at what happened in 1972 when there was a moratorium on coal licences.

HON. MR. BENNETT : I think I'll work during the Gong Show.

MR. LAUK : I'm sure the Premier thinks this is very funny but he should listen to what has happened, and the people should listen to what's happened. In 1972 the New Democratic

Party administration was made aware of a plan by the major oil companies of

the world Shell Oil, British Petroleum, Gulf, Exxon - to buy as many uranium

properties and coal properties as they could and to tie up the energy resources

of the world to force the prices of their own commodities, oil and gas, upwards.

They've done this before; it's no conspiracy theory. For them it is

good business; for us it's disaster. They've got train loads and executive

jet loads of very smart board members of these major oil companies traveling

around the world, looking for banana republic governments like the one on the

other side of this House. Arid they swoop down like the peregrine falcon and

they see that hayseed over there and they say: "We can sell him a bill

of goods and he'll give us everything we to want.

What's the evidence? A moratorium on coal licences has occurred. They turned their energies elsewhere. They started buying up the shares of major coal development companies. They are involved in the Monkman Pass in the Peace River area. Exxon, British Petroleum, Gulf and Imperial Oil now have major interests in one of the richest metallurgical coal deposits and thermal coal deposits in the world. And so what happens?

In June, 1977, the Premier goes to Nelson, he makes a statement on a -good coal policy, bidding on coal properties, recommended by his very expert civil service in the ministry of Mines and Petroleum Resources, none of whom have really met the minister yet. (Laughter.) He makes the announcement, he drops the coal policy, and he goes home. Well, everybody is relatively happy, the coal moratorium is in place, a new policy is going to take place. In February of....

Interjections.

MR. LAUK : I didn't fire Hart Horn. He resigned out of a sense of guilt because he said he was going to vote for you. He's a fine man.

AN HON. MEMBER : Why did you fire him?

MR. LAUK : I didn't fire Hart Horn.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Perhaps we can relate this to vote 5, hon. member.

MR. LAUK : Well, that was raised by the minister. Could you ask him to relate it to the debate?

MR. CHAIRMAN : Please address the Chair, rather than other ministers in this House.

MR. LAUK : Yes, Mr. Chairman. as I say, in June, 1977, in Nelson, the

policy was announced. It's been covered; it's been canvassed. It was

a good policy; it's a bidding policy. What happened was that a great deal

of pressure was put on the government. The input from industry prior to the

release of the new policy for bidding for coal properties was obvious, and no

one here on either side of the House denies that the industry had negative feelings

about going into -a bidding system, so there's no one who can contend that the

government was not aware that the industry was against the new coal policy.

So the decision in June, 1977, to announce the new coal policy was made with the full knowledge that the industry wasn't happy, and they considered that in the public good they would go to the bidding system.

What happened then, between June, 1977, and February, 1978, that made the government of British Columbia, in secret, do a complete reversal of its policy and go back to the pre-'72 days of opening up all of these coal licences that anyone can apply for and obtain, and almost as of right - because there's very little discretion here - keep and make valuable and sell and resell and inflate the value of the coal licences until production time, forcing inflation in the resource area? And who are the net losers? We are - the people of British Columbia; we're the net losers.

What happened in that period of time, Mr. Chairman, to cause this government to reverse itself ? Let me suggest to you what happened. Imperial Oil has filed a report in the United States that shows that - they donated money to the Social Credit Party.

[ Page 1058 ]

SOME HON. MEMBERS : Oh, oh!

MS. BROWN : Repeat that. I didn't hear it.

MR. LAUK : Is there anything new about that? Imperial Oil has admitted that it's given money to the Social Credit Party, it's given money to the Liberal Party, it's given money to the Tory Party. It didn't give money to the New Democratic Party, because we put a moratorium on coal licences for the benefit of the people of the province.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS : You put a moratorium on the province. (Laughter.)

MR. LAUK : The people of this province would have a better chance, Mr. Chairman, if that minister would put a moratorium on his mouth. You're the greatest producer of hot air in the history of British Columbia politics. You have not produced one job in the whole province since you've been Minister of Economic Development.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Hon. member, I would ask you to address the Chair, and I would assume those last remarks were not addressed to the Chair.

MR. LAUK : No, Mr. Chairman, they were directed not at you, but through you to the minister. He is the minister of economic disaster.

HON. MR. MAIR : Country bumpkin or city guttersnipe?

MR. CHAIRMAN : Hon. members, order, please. Just before you continue, we've had quite a lot of unparliamentary language cross the floor...

MR. LAUK : I'm shocked at it.

MR. CHAIRMAN : ... and words which are not in good temper. Perhaps if we allow the tone of debate to be more relevant and deal specifically with vote 5, which is the ministerial responsibility of....

MR. LAUK : Well, now it's my fault I'm being called names, is that it?

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, please. I did specify both sides. Please continue, hon. member.

MR. LAUK : I really do apologize to the Chair for having people call me names.

HON. MR. MAIR : Country bumpkin is not a name; city guttersnipe is.

MR. LAUK : Oh, no. "Guttersnipe" is a bad word; a bumpkin is only a country boy, trying to do your best, like the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) .

HON. MR. BENNETT : You don't like the country. You're against the country, you're against the farmers.

MR. LAUK : I think the country is fine. Like the Premier, I really appreciate the way he goes to the country for his holidays - Palm Springs.

HON. MR. MAIR : Where do you go, Gary - to visit your constituents for a change?

MR. LAUK : Mr. Chairman, I want to give you an example of what went on after 1972. In 1972 a Coal Task Force was appointed. Many experts and good people in the industry contributed to the Coal Task Force. It received wide support; it received wide contributions from industry, the academics, the public, and so on, in the way of information.

Mr. Chairman, there is a design of the major multinational oil companies to control energy resources throughout the entire world. It is only in that way that they can tie up and dictate the price. We know from the National Energy Board and from the federal Ministry of Energy and Resources that they don't know what their own resources in this country are. They have to ask the multinational oil companies. That's the degree of power that these compa

[ Page 1059 ]

nies have. And do you think the little member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) is going to be able to stand up against the multinational oil companies? No.

HON. MR. CHABOT : They support bidding. What do you say to that?

MR. LAUK : Oh, I see, and you showed them -you gave it for nothing. Very, very clever. He showed them he wasn't going to be dictated to by the oil companies. He said: "You're not going to dictate to me. You're not going to pay me for these. You take them for nothing. I'll show you."

Mr. Chairman, it's important that the people of this province understand why the NDP government acted the way it did and why we on this side are so concerned at the reversal of policy. After the lies that were told to them in 1975, they know better now. Even the member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr. Phillips) can fool some of the people only some of the time.

AN HON. MEMBER . He's running away.

MR. LAUK : He's out checking his Grizzly Valley stocks.

Mr. Chairman, you've got to look at the situation as it existed in 1972, and why a government that really acted for the people and not for ' major corporations put a moratorium on coal licences. It was to prevent the control in this little corner of the world by these multinational companies. That's all we were trying to do. We were trying to say: "Look, somewhere in this world in energy resources, there has to be competition." We're for competition; you're for monopoly control of the resources.

This phony nonsense about going up and down this country as Social Credit coalition right-wingers and arguing for free enterprise is an absolute fraud. It is trying to pull the wool aver the eyes of the people of this province and of this country. You're not for free enterprise. You don't even know the meaning of the word. You're for total monopolistic control by major corporations.

What did the Minister of Economic Development do two months after he was chairman of the board of the Development Corporation? He passed a minute saying: "We're going to de-emphasize the small businessmen. We're going to get into big deals." And he lit up a cigar and put his feet up on the desk.

These people aren't for small business. They're not for competition and they're not for the ordinary people of this province who own these resources. Now what's happened? We know that the First Minister of this province is fully aware of the campaign contributions of the major speculators in the coal resource of this province. We know that. We know that he has received maximum amounts of money from those companies.

HON. MR. CHABOT : Make it up as you go along.

MR. LAUK : Are you going to challenge me to produce the evidence, Mr. Minister? Why don't you stand up, eh? Go ahead, stand up. Maybe the First Minister can stand up himself and challenge me.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, please.

MR. LAUK : Would the First Minister of this province reveal to the committee the campaign donations made by any of the following to the Social Credit Party prior to 1975 or since: Shell (Canada) Resources Ltd; Du Pont of Canada; British Petroleum Exploration; Kaiser Resources; Imperial Oil; Denison; Fording Coal; Braneda Resources; Pacific Petroleum ; Pan Ocean. I didn't see the First Minister make any notes of how much money was donated by these companies to the Social Credit Party organization. Does the minister want me to go out and get the receipts? May I have the key to your office? (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BENNETT : I invite the member to my office right now, and he can go through all my files and follow up on that foolish statement he just made.

MR. LAUK : May I have police protection?

HON. MR. BENNETT : I invite him to go down there right now.

MR. LAUK : Mr. Chairman, the Premier sent me the wrong key. He sent me the key to Austin Taylor's office instead.

MR. BARRETT : That's the key to the executive washroom.

HON. MR. BENNETT : I invite you to go down right now.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, please.

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, please. One member at a time on their feet only, please. If one member seeks to interrupt another member while speaking, he must do so only on a point of order and mu t state the point of order.

[ Page 1060 ]

The first member for Vancouver Centre.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MR. LAUK : I'm sorry to interrupt the Premier while he's interrupting.

Mr. Chairman, I contend that without further explanation this government has serious answers to give to the serious questions that are being posed by the opposition parties in the Legislature. We should know the campaign donations. We do know of some of them, as I say, but we should know about all of them, and we should know whether or not the reversal in coal policy was a payment in full or in part for favours received by the Social Credit Party by the major companies involved in the coal exploration and coal speculation. Right now there is no other explanation for their actions - none.

It could be, Mr. Chairman, a panic move as well, because of the coal resources and development proposed by this government as being their Crown jewel going down the tube because of inaction by Senator Phoghorn from South Peace River. South Peace only gets access to [illegible] information from Alberta, which explains why he's the only one up there that gets re-elected by such majorities. They don't read his speeches, it's very clear.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK : Well, you speak to my brother. You seem to have better access to him than I do.

HON. MR. BENNETT : You're right.

MR. LAUK : By the way, he figures the latest object of your affections.... If it's a gif t, it's too much; if it's a bribe, it's not enough. He asked me to pass that along. I'm referring to the Japanese-Canadian report of March, 1978. On page 5 -of that report.... By the way, every time I mention this I'm surprised that the press seem to look very puzzled at me. Maybe they should call the business page editor, because it's very significant information. It was only touched upon briefly by George Froehlich, the business editor of the Vancouver Sun.

The business page of the Vancouver Sun, by the way, appears between the personal ads and the Eaton's catalogue ads, and sometimes is read and sometimes isn't. But it contains a lot of valuable information.

Now in the Japanese-Canadian newsletter, March, 1978, is this interesting statement:

"An eight-year pact involving $20 billion-plus in bilateral

trade was concluded in mid-February between Japan and China. The agreement arrived

at by the Japan-China committee on long-term trade and its Chinese counterpart

was described as a private agreement, but it is known to enjoy the backing of

both governments. The agreement provides for Japan to import massive amounts

of oil, steam and coking coal."

Has anybody heard that? I wonder if the former Minister of Energy, Transport and Hoohah will recall....

MR. CHAIRMAN : Please address the Chair.

MR. LAUK : I was addressing the Chair. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Minister of Energy, Transport and Hoohah can recall a symposium in the Bayshore Inn some months ago when he said the northeast coal project was full steam ahead.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK : You're drinking your own bath water over there.

The target figures have been set out for the first five years. This will amuse all of us, to our detriment economically. While the Minister of Economic Development and the Premier sit on their fat stats, China and Japan are negotiating major trade agreements that will cut out the development of northeast coal for many, many years. The agreement provides:

"Target figures have been set out for the first five years. Quotas for the final three years will be negotiated, starting in 1980. The eight-year estimate for Japanese imports is about 47 million tons of crude oil, 5.2 million to 6 million 'tons of coking coal, and 3.5 million to 4 million tons of steaming coal."

What does that do to the northeast coal project? Who are we going to sell it to - Luxembourg?

Many, many months ago this side of the House warned the Premier of this province of these dangers. We said: "You're making a big mistake." What did he do? He sent Sancho Panza over to Japan. He spent a lot of the taxpayers' money. He managed to lose the steel mill and coking coal contracts. The Japanese businessmen couldn't get over here fast enough. They had double hernias trying to renegotiate the coal contracts they already had. That's the success of the Minister of Economic Development. Don't send a Senator Phoghorn on a politician's job, Mr. Chairman -through you, to the Premier of the province.

[ Page 1061 ]

AN HON. MEMBER : He's like a pagoda on horseback.

MR. LAUK : The agreed escalation for the first five years is 7 million, 7.6 million, 8 million, 9.5 million and 15 million tons of oil in successive years. Coking coal purchases will rise from between 150,000 and 300,000 tons this year to 2 million tons by 1982. It's almost exactly the projected figures for the northeast coal development. The Japanese, Mr. Chairman, have looked elsewhere.

In a panic reaction, the Premier of this province has opened up coal licences because he solves two problems: he owes the multinational corporations, and he wants desperately to create some kind of flurry of activity, even though it's on paper, with respect to coal licences in the province.

You saw how proudly this little First Minister stood in his place. This diminutive

member for South Okanagan stood in his place and said: "Look, the mineral-staking

activity was down under the NDP administration, and it has just climbed under

the Social Credit administration."

I used to act for mining companies defending against claim-jumpers - who probably donated to the Social Credit Party - and all the rest of that hodge-podge of claim-staking and land speculation that goes on in the mining industry. That proves absolutely nothing except that the bandits are back to work on Howe Street. That's all it proves. You know it, I know it, and ordinary people in this province know it.

AN HON. MEMBER : Jurgen.

MR. LAUK : Jurgen Lau knows it, too. He knows about claim-jumping and speculation and so on.

Mr. Chairman, would you ask the minister to hold that up? What is that? It's a little piece of metal that looks very much the size of the minister's brain. That's probably because he is sitting too close to the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) , who has a propensity to experiment on species of the lesser kingdom.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Three minutes.

MR. LAUK : I received a very kind invitation to the opening of the Afton Mine and the project by....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK : Yes, I will. Will you resign if I can show you the invitation and the exchange of correspondence?

AN HON. MEMBER : He makes it up as he goes along.

MR. LAUK : One of the reasons that Norman Keevil Jr. invited me to the Teck Corporation thing is: "You helped get this thing started. You might as well be there for the ribbon cutting."

Interjection.

MR. LAUK : Do you know why he is so upset, Mr. Chairman - the minister of consumerism and corporeal affairs? The reason this minister is so upset is because his campaign committee printed a falsehood - a deliberate lie in a publication going out from the Kamloops Social Credit newspaper - which indicated that the NDP government stood in the way of the Afton project.

HON. MR. MAIR : That's true.

MR. LAUK : It's absolutely false.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK : I certainly will. I say that it's a lie.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK : You will, eh?

MR. CHAIRMAN : Perhaps, hon. members, if the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) and the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) would like to take their places, then someone else could be involved. I'm sure there are other members who wish to enter this debate.

MR. LAUK : Yes. Mr. Chairman, the important point is this: the Afton project went ahead after the negotiation between Teck Corporation and the NDP administration. It's very clear that that's what happened. As a result, it went ahead.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Time under standing orders has expired, hon. member.

MR. LAUK : I move that the Speaker do now leave the chair.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK : No, I withdraw the motion.

[ Page 1062 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN : The motion would not be correct in any event because it's the Chairman.

HON. MR. BENNETT : Mr. Chairman, it's always delightful to have the comedy team from the opposition get up and run their routine. You'd think the province was going to an election , rather than the federal government. I've never heard such a blatant, political speech, full of rhetoric and hot air and misconceptions and things that weren't right.

I want to tell the House, though, for those that haven't been exposed to this recycled speech of his leader - the attack on the multinational corporations and all the rest of it - that I have no knowledge of who donates to our party, and I don't want to know. I deny his allegation that campaign funds have anything to do with the actions of this government. That's nonsense. The member was talking nonsense when he said it. He said it in his frivolous, joking style. But for someone who may take him seriously somewhere, I just want to get on the record that what he said ums nonsense, as was most of his speech.

I find it difficult to deal with my estimates because we have the Minister of Mines' (Hon. Mr. Chabot) estimates, the Minister of Economic Development's (Hon. Mr. Phillips) estimates and we're having all sorts of discussion across the floor.

HON. MR. CHABOT : I guess my estimates are just about over. (Laughter) .

HON. MR. BENNETT : Mr. Chairman, I want to say that the member for Vancouver Centre was incorrect in making those allegations about campaign funds. Now it may be that in their party....

MR. LAUK : Will you resign if I can prove it?

HON. MR. BENNETT : Will you be silent? It may be that in the New Democratic Party that contributions are made known to the members that are running and those who get elected know where every cent comes from. But I must tell the member that in our party, to avoid any conflict of interest, members are not given, nor do we seek out, that information because it would impair our ability to govern. There are many people who donate to political parties because they want good government. There are many people who donate to political parties because they want to get rid of bad government, and certainly both of those were the case leading up to the last election.

We have an opportunity now in this province for members who are concerned about elections and electrical reform to make submissions to the commission that's going around the province on all aspects of campaigns, campaign funding, limits, parties, constituencies, voting methods. Everybody has a chance to have their say, and I'll be very interested to see the submission of the member for Vancouver Centre and all of the information that he will put before that commission as evidence to back up his opinions. I'm sorry for the unfortunate statement he made in here. Then he wouldn't accept my offer to go down to my office. I invited him to go down to my office.

MR. LAUK : We know about Larry Eckhardt.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

HON. MR. BENNETT : Mr. Chairman, I hope I'm not hearing that the member of the bar, a lawyer, is attacking a respected judge in this province. That's unfortunate. But, however, his standards are well known - that member for Vancouver Centre. His conduct and his standards are well known. It's unfortunate.

I'd like to get back to the policies of the government and what we're doing to encourage economic development in this province. A large part of our budget and our programmes this year, Mr. Chairman, relate to encouraging small business. Now small business and individual enterprise can be encouraged in a number of ways, not just by tax relief. And we did offer tax relief to small business against that oppressive taxation legislation, the capital tax, brought in by the former NDP government, aimed at small business and hurting them.

We gave them an exemption of half a million dollars that relieved this heavy burden on small business in this province that was imposed by the former government. The member for Vancouver Centre, as a former Minister of Economic Development, voted in favour of that tax and supported that tax because he didn't believe in small business. He didn't believe in large business. He believed in just government business. The government was going to own everything. .

I know that before the next election, he, along with his leader and his party, will clearly identify.... The people of the province got a surprise, after they were elected in 1972, at the number of firms they took over and bought out, from chicken plants to forest industries, potato plants and on and on.

They want to know clearly, and I expect that party, because they will have an election programme, to publish the list of those companies and corporations they're going to take

[ Page 1063 ]

over. That's fair to ask. That's their policy as socialists, both in philosophy and as practised when they were government. The only thing is they tried to let the people suspect that they weren't going to take anything over because they were afraid that wasn't what the public wanted. But I know in front of the next election we're going to have that long list of companies they're going to take over.

MR. LAUK : Just one.

HON. MR. BENNETT : Oh, no. There was more than one company they took over last time -dozens.

MR. LAUK : But next time only one.

HON. MR. BENNETT : Mr. Chairman, we know them by their actions and we know them by their philosophy. They can't pretend to be anything different in the next election. We want to see the list of companies they're going to take over, large and small, because they took over some small companies and they took over some large companies.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT : Well, publish the list. We want to know who's going to be the next target of your party. I look forward to it. In fact the public will welcome that list. Now we know that they probably won't publish the full list. They probably won't 'even publish half the list. But just give us an indication of maybe three or four dozen companies, just a .small part of the list that you intend to take over if you are returned to government. We would like to have that as part of the election campaign.

The, member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) is smiling and nodding his head. As the former Minister of Economic Development, he's quite willing to publish that list, because he knows it's in his files in his basement. I know that as Minister of Economic Development in the last government he had a secret plan of which companies they were going to take over. I know he still has it. We saw the large number of companies that they got at in their first term, companies that we're trying to restore to the private sector.

MR. LAUK : Under standing order 43, Mr. Chairman, repetitious and tedious debate should be brought to the attention of any member of the House. I don't know why the Premier is filibustering his estimates but he repeated the same thing five times. I counted them here and I wonder if the Chairman could bring that tedious and repetitious standing order to the First Minister's attention.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Hon. member, there is a tremendous amount of repetitious debate in this committee from time to time. Your point is well taken.

HON. MR. BENNETT : I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, the member is embarrassed. I can't understand why he would be embarrassed about talking about the list of companies he wants to take over. Does it mean that he doesn't want to let the public in on the list he had in his files when he was minister and which is now in his basement with the files that were taken from the government offices when his government was defeated? I'm surprised, because the list should be well known. It's part of their economic plan for takeover. We should know.

The citizens out there who have small businesses have a right to know what areas they can go into right now, what areas you're going to take over as you started to do last time.

We know lumber is one you took over because you made acquisitions and took aver companies in the forest industry. We know agriculture processing is another of your targets. You were into chickens.

HON. MR. CHABOT : Turkeys.

HON. MR. BENNETT : Everything they got was a turkey! We know they were into turkeys. And poor old Bricklin, if only he had come here first, he would have got far more than he got out of poor old New Brunswick. He wouldn't have had any problem. He would still be siphoning off the money. I remember when Swan Valley was only going to be a small investment, then they kept putting in more and more and more.

Anyhow, I know that party will, in front of the next election, identify that list. Now this question of elections can- up because I wanted to assure the ers; that they didn't have to trot out their old election speeches, which we have heard in this chamber, because there's going to be no provincial election this year. We were elected with a mandate to do something for British Columbia, to develop the economy and create jobs, to create opportunity and better, more efficiently run government programmes that provide aid to those in need, to end waste and mismanagement and a number of other things. We've done them.

In our budget this year, in the general economic thrust of this government - the general intent - we cover a very vast array of

[ Page 1064 ]

economic policies, tax reforms and measures that will encourage small business and reduce the cost of goods to consumers to fight against inflation. We do it within a balanced budget, Mr. Chairman. We've done that because as I've gone and spoken in the high schools in this province - not a set speech but an opportunity for the students to question me, both publicly and afterwards - I find the great concern they have for those governments and those politicians who intend, through their spending practices, to leave them a drawerful of bills for when they take over the economy. They're worried about that.

They don't want the type of government that will try and buy the votes of their mothers and fathers and then leave it for them to pay the bills when they grow up and take their place in society. The young people are looking at those politicians and those parties that have been doing that. And they want to know, is there another way? I say, yes, we can live with balanced budgets, we can meet the services of the people of this province and we can reduce the cost of taxation for our people at the same time.

And they look at the two balanced budgets we've had, and now the third proposed one, and they're impressed, because they look at the last government and they look elsewhere and they see governments trying to buy the votes of their mothers and fathers -promise them anything, borrow, borrow, and leave them with the bills to pay. The young people of this province don't want that, and they recognize those politicians and political parties for what they are: financial opportunists.

Not only have we got a balanced budget, we have harnessed the surplus from my first year in a series of make-work projects. One of them not only makes work, but encourages the continued expansion of our basic resource, forests - major silvicultural reforestation to catch up with the lack of good forest management and to provide that these forests will be there.

It will not only meet our needs today but be there on a continuing basis to meet the needs of those very same young people who have been penalized by other governments who leave them their bills, and penalized by other governments who haven't offered these programmes of good silviculture, forest management and reforestation which is such an emphasis in this budget.

Not only do we have money in the Ministry of Forests budget but we have, of course, money in this special fund -the recaptured surplus of the good management of our first year - to provide jobs today and, more important, to build for the future of our young people.

That's just one of the thrusts of the major economic programmes, which all other provinces look at with envy, as they see British Columbia attacking unemployment, attacking our problems with the economy on many fronts.

They see us with an aggressive programme for tourist expansion, recognizing that, in contrast to the former Minister of Highways -who now sits as the member for Prince Rupert for the NDP and who then said, as a minister of the last government, that he didn't want tourists in B.C. - we have said: "You're welcome in British Columbia." Other Canadians are welcome, people from other countries are welcome, to come and help us build our economy and share with us our wonderful province.

And they have the opportunity to leave their money and encourage the small-business people in small motels and small gas stations, people in small gift stores, people in small restaurants - people who have put together their small businesses which cater not only to our own people but to tourists. And you know that many of the people who work in small business connected with the hospitality industry do not have special skills - it's an industry that can pick up the employment in many difficult areas. They can carry on that work - it provides employment in one of the major areas of concern for government.

And over and above that we have our training programmes.

Mr. Chairman, the power programmes and policies that we're talking about in my estimates today - the policies of this year, the policies that we intend to carry out, the economic thrust that has been mentioned both in the throne speech and the budget presented by Finance Minister Wolfe - put great emphasis on creating job opportunity for our people, building the economy and encouraging the ordinary people to provide that restaurant, to provide those facilities.

As I say, tourism is one of the major industries with which this province can - without losing it - attract capital and build our economy and create jobs for our people. They come with their money, they take nothing away - except good memories of a friendly people and a beautiful province, one which we're willing to share but one in which they leave their money when they share it. That money goes to create jobs and build the economy, and it reflects in tax revenues eventually. That means we can continue to build hospitals and schools and provide universal Pharmacare, which the Minister of Human Resources (Hon.

Mr. Vander Zalm) brought in, so that all groups in our society - the young, the old, the middle-aged - all are protected from excessive pharmaceutical costs. They have a ceiling put on their costs and as such they

[ Page 1065 ]

no longer - through no fault of their own -pay those high pharmaceutical costs. It's a programme that deals fairly for everyone. And you know, some of the money that comes in from the tourist dollars flows to government and helps pay for that programme. If the former government had stayed in, we wouldn't have that, we wouldn't have been able to do this. But now that the tourists are coming back, we're able to do that.

I know the Minister of Human Resources is just bursting to get up on his estimates and tell you about it.

AN HON. MEMBER : He's busting to do more than that, my friend.

HON. MR. BENNETT : To get to be Premier. First of all, you never take out an NDP membership any more. I just saw your federal polls. They were awful. They're awful.

MR. LAUK : My what?

HON. MR. BENNETT : The polls on your federal chances. What was the latest Gallup poll - 12 per cent or something? Ten per cent?

MR. LAUK : What have you got against polls?

HON. MR. BENNETT : What was the latest Gallup poll? You know, I think if they heard more of you, the more you speak, the more you affect your chances in the rest of the country.

AN HON. MEMBER : We should allow television in here.

HON. MR. BENNETT : I've got to tell you, as a provincial party I'm happy to stay in this House and not have to participate in the federal election. That's what I think.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN : Order, please.

HON. MR. BENNETT : Mr. Chairman, what I'm concerned about, as all Canadians are, is that we have a federal election as quickly as possible and end the indecision that hangs over this country right now so that we can get on with building this country and building the economy and ending the indecisiveness that takes place at the federal level. The people want an opportunity to have such an electoral choice. I think they should end that indecision and have an election. Yes, I think we should have a federal election.

MR. LAUK : I think we should have a provincial election.

HON. MR. BENNETT : Oh, we're going to have one - one of these days.

MR. LAUK : How about right now?

HON. MR. BENNETT : No.

MR. LAUK : Ah, come on.

HON. MR. BENNETT : I want you to see next year's budget. You think this year's is good. The member for Vancouver Centre says this year's budget is an election budget, it's so good. Boy, you think this was an election budget? Wait until next year. We might even go into our mandate in 1980, and you should see the budget we're going to have in 1980. That'll be even better.

Why, by then, the message will be out to the tourists: "Come to British Columbia because Graham Lea is no longer the Minister of Highways telling you to go home." Many people will be employed. The tourist business is increasing. I'll tell you, the tourist operators and the hospitality industry I talk to, that talk to me, tell me that business was never better.

I know the member for Vancouver Centre was in there. It must have been him because they said there was a gentleman in that restaurant that didn't leave a tip the other day. I know he's been there too.

Mr. Chairman, I'd love to go on and talk about the policies that this go