1975 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MARCH 18,1975

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

713 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Election Expenses Act (Bill 39). Mr. Wallace.

Introduction and first reading — 714

Oral Questions

Strike-lockout hardship cases. Mr. Curtis — 714

ICBC salary payroll return. Mr. Gardom — 714

Delay and cost of B.C. ferry construction. Mr. Wallace — 714

Pre-rental of space to Scotia Bank. Mr. Chabot — 714

Continued funding for alternate education programme.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 715

Subsidies for employment of students. Mr. Fraser — 715

Revenue from outside use of government aircraft. Mr. Morrison . —

Government involvement in "beaver" promotional film.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 715

Bremer settlement documents. Mr. Gardom — 715

Sidney alcoholism centre. Mr. Wallace — 715

Ferry cleaners' classification. Hon. Mr. Hall answers — 716

New industry in province. Mr. Phillips — 716

BCR payment due Peace Wood Products. Mr. Smith — 716

Re-evaluation of Columbia River downstream benefits.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 716

Change in driver insurance points. Mr. Morrison — 717

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

Mr. McClelland — 717

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 719

Mr. McClelland — 720

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 721

Mr. Curtis — 721

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 721

Mr. Curtis — 722

Mr. McClelland — 722

Mr. Gibson — 722

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 723

Mr. Gibson — 723

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 723

Mr. McClelland — 723

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 723

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 724

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 724

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 725

Mr. McClelland — 726

Mr. Curtis — 726

Mr. McGeer — 726

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 728

Mr. Bennett — 728

Mr. L.A. Williams — 730

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 731

Mr. L.A. Williams — 732

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 732

Mr. Phillips — 733

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 737

Mr. Phillips — 738

Mr. Wallace — 742

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 746

Mr. Smith — 750

Mr. McGeer — 751

Mr. Gibson — 753

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House

to welcome today one of our former distinguished Members of

this House from Richmond, who is sitting in the Speaker's

gallery, Mr. Ernie LeCours.

MR. C.S. GABELMANN (North Vancouver–Seymour): In the gallery

this afternoon — part of the group now and the rest of the group

at 3 p.m. — are students from North Vancouver Senior Secondary

School on their annual visit. They are accompanied today by

their teachers, Mr. Rusterneyer and Mr. Rossetti. I'd ask the

House to join with me in making them feel welcome here

today.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): Mr. Speaker, seated in the

gallery today are 10 elected executive members of my own union,

the Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers Union, who have crossed

the water to see how our meeting rules compare with theirs. So

I would ask the House to make them welcome, and behave this

afternoon.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, in

the gallery at 4 o'clock this afternoon will be a class from

Carson Graham school in my constituency in North Vancouver. I

ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Mr. Speaker, seated in the

Speaker's gallery today are two long-time residents of the

Shuswap area, Mr. Collings and Mr. Rivette.

Mr. Collings moved to the Shuswap area in 1908 and has lived

in relative isolation in that area ever since, with the only

access by boat. Mr. Collings' father is also a well-known. B.C.

painting artist. I'd like the House to welcome them.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): I would like to

have the House join me in welcoming a group of students with

their professors from Watcom County Community College.

Presenting reports.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour

to present, pursuant to

section 5 of the Attorney-General Act which says that

a report of the Department of the Attorney-General shall be laid before the

Legislature each year, the first annual report of the Attorney-General's department.

Mr. Speaker, I may say that all of my predecessors in office

may have got their decals up, but they were all in breach of

that

section 5 of the Act, down since 1899 when the Act was

passed.

Introduction of bills.

ELECTION EXPENSES ACT

On a motion by Mr. Wallace, Bill 39, Election Expenses Act,

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.

STRIKE-LOCKOUT HARDSHIP CASES

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, to

the Minister of Human Resources: has the Minister established

any new policy specifically relating to the current civic

workers' strike-lockout situation in greater Victoria in terms

of payments to individuals who may be experiencing severe

hardship?

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): No, the policy

of the department is to meet emergent need only.

MR. CURTIS: Supplementary. I wonder if the Minister has been

approached by any representatives of the Canadian Union of

Public Employees in greater Victoria within the last few days

asking for a meeting in this regard, again relating to a

specific hardship case.

HON. MR. LEVI: I met with a representative from CUPE, I

think it was a week ago yesterday, and Mr. Larry Ryan was also

along, at which time we discussed the policy of the department.

I made available to them a copy of that policy. I have not, to

my knowledge, had any request to discuss a specific case since

that time.

MR. CURTIS: The Minister may find — and I am informed that

this is the case — that in fact a request has been made on

Friday last, March 13, and yesterday, March 17, on this

specific issue. May I ask if the Minister has been made aware

of a specific situation where a locked-out employee in the City

of Victoria, Local 388, I believe, is pregnant and is in severe

difficulties with regard to lack of funds? Has this been

brought to his attention? I understand that the woman in

question is perhaps even suffering a shortage of food.

[ Page 714 ]

HON. MR. LEVI: I think the case the Member is referring to

relates to an eviction, if I'm not mistaken. Is that the

one?

MR. CURTIS: That is possible.

HON. MR. LEVI: That case was brought to my attention in

relation to an eviction. We meet emergent need and, in terms of

families, we will not see anyone go hungry. But I think if

that's the case you are referring to, it was discussed with me

in terms of an eviction order.

MR. CURTIS: With your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, I was

informed of this this morning. Eviction may well be part of the

problem, but there is a complete shortage of funds and a very

serious circumstance for this particular locked-out

employee.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think there has been ample

questioning on this matter.

ICBC

SALARY PAYROLL RETURN

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): To the Minister of

Transport and Communications, Mr. Speaker. Last week I

questioned the Hon. Minister as to whether or not the ICBC

salary payroll return that he filed in the House was complete.

The Minister initially took the position that he didn't

understand the question but he would look into it. So I would

ask the Hon. Minister today if he understands the question and

has looked into it.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): I understand

the question and I'm looking into it. It will be answered.

MR. GARDOM: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. The Minister

....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think the Hon. Member knows

there is really no room for a supplementary until the original

question is answered.

MR. GARDOM: I think there is, perhaps, to this extent, Mr.

Speaker: the Minister filed a return indicating a top salary of

$16,962. Is it complete or incomplete?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I understand the question and an answer

will be forthcoming. I'm checking into it.

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps the Hon. Member could hold his second

barrel on the shotgun.

DELAY AND COST OF

B.C. FERRY CONSTRUCTION

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to ask a

question of the Minister of Transport and Communications. With

regard to the B.C. ferry presently under construction in

Vancouver, can the Minister tell the House if it has been

necessary to install a heavier shaft and heavier bearings than

were specified in the design, and has this prolonged the period

of construction and increased the cost?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The final design of the shafts was not

available until after the tenders were awarded. Any necessary

costs relating to that will have to be met. As far as delay is

concerned, I had a meeting yesterday with the Burrard's

management group and the ferries we are still expecting will be

ready for some time in the late spring of 1976.

MR. WALLACE: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. What will the

extra cost be?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I haven't got that figure with me. There

is a long explanation of about eight pages which I could bring

in sometime and read during question period. But the figure

will be available. It's a valid thing.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, could I just ask one final

question? The design, I understand, was selected because it was

identical to already existing Washington state ferries and the

Minister remembers the debate we had on that. Could the

Minister tell us why there have been difficulties if this is an

identical design to ships that are already in existence?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Oh, it's not an identical design. It's a

prototype, but it's a different design, different dimensions,

and so on.

PRE-RENTAL OF SPACE

TO SCOTIA BANK

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): A question to the Minister

of Public Works. Did your department, on behalf of the

Department of Highways, rent or lease two floors of the new

Scotia Bank building in Prince George several months before

they're being required?

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): I'll take that

as notice, Mr. Speaker.

MR. CHABOT: A supplementary for notice, Mr. Speaker. How

many months in advance of the requirement were these two floors

of the new Scotia Bank...?

[ Page 715 ]

MR. SPEAKER: I think the first question will lead to the

second in any event.

MR. CHABOT: And at what cost?

CONTINUED FUNDING FOR

ALTERNATE EDUCATION PROGRAMME

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): To the Minister of Human

resources, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Minister whether he can

give the House his assurance that the funds which have been

made available to date by his department for the alternate

education or work-experience programme operated by School

District 61 and 62 in cooperation with the Boys Clubs of

greater Victoria will be continued?

HON. MR. LEVI: Could I take that question as notice?

SUBSIDIES FOR

EMPLOYMENT OF STUDENTS

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): To the Minister of Labour. With

reference to the Department of Labour's plans for financial

assistance to farmers and small businessmen who employ students

for the coming summer, the applications for this programme are

to be made by March 21.

In view of the problems with the mail and so on, has the

Minister any intention of extending the deadline for

applications? If he has, how long would he extend the deadline?

We're just about there now.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): I'll check into that,

Mr. Speaker, and determine just how many requests have been

received from farm groups. If it appears that more time is

needed, I'll certainly be prepared to consider that.

REVENUE FROM OUTSIDE USE

OF GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, my question is

addressed to the Minister of Transport and Communications. Does

the B.C. government receive any income from any source for the

use of B.C. government aircraft?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Not to my knowledge.

MR. MORRISON: Supplemental, then, Mr. Speaker. Could the

Minister then advise the House what arrangement the B.C.

government has with the federal government for the use of B.C.

government aircraft?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The only circumstance under which a B.C. aircraft

is used by any federal government agency is during the period when the RCMP

plane is tied up. In that case, on some occasions in the past we have allowed

them to use our aircraft for their purposes.

MR. MORRISON: Mr. Speaker, could I take it then that it is

definite that no other people have had the use of government

aircraft except the RCMP?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Are you speaking of the federal

government now? That's to the best of my knowledge.

GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT IN

"BEAVER" PROMOTIONAL FILM

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker,

a question to the Hon. Provincial Secretary in respect to his

portfolio as Travel Industry Minister. Last Thursday there was

a promotional film shown with respect to a beaver being

displayed in the State of California, Would the Minister advise

the House if the cost of that promotional effort was paid by

his department?

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): I'll check into that

and let the Member know.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: As a supplemental, could we also have the

amount of the cost, Mr. Minister?

BREMER SETTLEMENT DOCUMENTS

MR. GARDOM: To the Minister of Education. A couple of days

ago I asked the Hon. Minister if she was prepared to file in

the House the Bremer contract and settlement documents, and the

Hon. Minister started to discuss an action that is now before

the courts. I gather from the newspapers that she is relieved

of her position in that action. Is she prepared to file those

documents?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I'll take it as notice. But I do want to

point out that the action is still before the courts, as you

know.

MR. GARDOM: Well, the Hon. Minister took it as notice all

last year and it wasn't before the courts then.

SIDNEY ALCOHOLISM CENTRE

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Minister of

Human Resources, who is responsible for the Alcohol and Drug

Commission, if any further consideration has been given to the

acquisition of the alcoholism centre being built in Sidney

which has

[ Page 716 ]

gone bankrupt — and which the Minister of Health (Hon, Mr.

Cocke) has commented upon already. But I wondered if the

Minister of Human Resources, in view of the need for such

facilities, has had any discussions with the owners of

Gallain Manor?

HON. MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, I haven't had any discussions

recently. I did meet with Mr. Strachan some time ago and that

was about the programme, not about the bankruptcy situation. It

was referred to the chairman of the commission. I agree with my

colleague, the Minister of Health, that to acquire such a

facility would be an extremely expensive proposition, and I

have not given any consideration to that at all.

FERRY CLEANERS' CLASSIFICATION

HON. MR. HALL: The Member for Capilano (Mr. Gibson) asked

the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr.

Strachan) a question last week regarding public service

classifications and schedules. I'd like to answer, now that the

matter has come to me from the Minister of Transport and

Communications. The Member asked why apparent discrimination in

one classification was still allowed on the list. I want to

report to the Member that that discrimination was on the list.

It has been removed.

The reason was somewhat confusing. It comes into the area of

what is commonly called, I think, in the Attorney-General's

staff, "public decency." But let me explain by saying we

changed the titles that the Member referred to: "Cleaner,

vessels — 1" and "Cleaner, vessels — 2." The difference between

the two is that one is light duty and one is heavy duty. There

is a difference in the work and there is a difference in the

pay. Both men and women can be appointed to either position.

The only limitation that is put on — and I referred to this

earlier — is that at least two females and at least two males

must be in either category in order to satisfy the questions of

washrooms and everything else.

NEW INDUSTRY IN PROVINCE

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I would like to ask a

question, Mr. Speaker, to the Hon. Minister of Economic

Development. Since the Minister adjourned the House last spring

to take a crisis trip to Japan to locate industry in the

province, would the Minister advise me how many industries are

located in the Province of British Columbia as a direct result

of that trip?

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Economic Development): I'll take

the question as notice, Mr. Speaker.

MR. PHILLIPS: A supplementary question.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't think you can at this stage,

normally.

MR. PHILLIPS: You have allowed it.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, you see, if I allow it, I get criticized,

if I don't, I get criticized. Now what am I going to do, follow

the rules?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm not supposed to break them, but you are

permitted to, I presume.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Could the Minister advise how many industries

in the Province of British Columbia he has directly helped

through the Development Corp. of British Columbia?

MR. SPEAKER: That's really not a supplemental.

HON. MR. LAUK: I don't understand the question, Mr. Speaker.

Is he referring to different corporations or industry sectors,

or what is he talking about?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, all right, how many grants have you

made in total to either industries or development?

HON. MR. LAUK: Mr. Member, I will take the question as

notice. (Laughter.)

BCR PAYMENT DUE

PEACE WOOD PRODUCTS

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River) ; My question is to the Premier as

president of the B.C. Railway. Is the Premier aware that Peace Wood Products

are experiencing considerable delay respecting payment of an account of $70,000

payable to them by the railway for the supply of railway ties?

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): I'll take the question as notice,

Mr. Member.

MR. SMITH: Peace Wood Products of Taylor, British Columbia,

Mr. Premier.

RE-EVALUATION OF COLUMBIA RIVER

DOWNSTREAM BENEFITS

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: To the Minister of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources: could the Minister

[ Page 717 ]

indicate to the House whether he has attempted to have

article 15 of the Columbia River treaty...involving the joint

engineering board carry out a study as to downstream benefits

and possibly have them re-evaluate the returns to British

Columbia under the treaty provisions?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources):

I'll take the question as notice.

CHANGE IN DRIVER INSURANCE POINTS

MR. MORRISON: My question is addressed to the Minister of

Transport and Communications. On the weekend there was an

announcement that there would be a change in the drivers'

insurance points, from 10 to three for those people who,

perhaps, have not bought their $10 insurance. Could the

Minister advise what the programme will be for those people who

are not paying very heavily through the point system? Will they

be entitled to a refund, and when will the policy take

effect?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The policy takes effect the minute it is

ratified by the Lieutenant-Governor.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: PREMIER'S OFFICE

(continued)

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Chairman, I want to urge

the Premier to reconsider his action, or lack of action, in

regard to the question that was raised in this House some days

ago in connection with a campaign donation given to the

Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) at the time he was

a candidate in the provincial election.

The Premier, in his comment to the House when he got

involved in this question, said that he treated the matter very

seriously, as he should. But I think that he reached the

conclusion he reached because he didn't fully comprehend the

exact issues and the sequence of events that led up to those

issues. There are some serious questions which have been

raised, and the Premier must recognize them, with regard to the

sequence of events and subsequent events as well.

On Thursday March 6, 1975, the radio hotliner, Gary

Bannerman, phoned John Twigg, the Premier's press secretary,

and Ray Wargo, the Minister of Human Resources' executive

assistant, and told those two people — Twigg and Wargo — that

he had an important matter that he wanted to raise on the air

on his programme regarding a campaign contribution....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member for

Langley if he's questioning the conduct of an Hon. Member —

namely the Minister of Human Resources.

MR. McCLELLAND: No, Mr. Chairman, I'm not. I'm outlining the

sequence of events which was raised in this House with regard

to the Premier's statement on the subsequent events. I am not

questioning the conduct of any Member of this House. I want the

Premier to consider his action in regard to this matter.

So the important matter was re contributions and the

Minister of Human Resources. By Friday noon — that's the day

after — the Minister of Human Resources had the full details of

the matter from the radio hotliner. An appointment was set up

between the Minister and the hotliner for March 12, which the

Minister did not keep. At that time he phoned and asked for a

further delay, although the hotliner had waited for a week

already. The hotliner felt he couldn't wait any longer and he

ran the story the next morning.

I want the Premier to consider these questions: first of

all, did the Minister make any attempt, other than the request

for a delay, to keep the matter off the air? Did he make any

other attempts to keep the story off the air?

The Premier's opening statement to the House was: "First of

all, let me say that the Minister approached me and informed me

that he had received a phone call from the radio commentator as

outlined by the Minister." Is the Premier telling this House

that his press secretary, John Twigg, did not tell him of the

phone call on Thursday, March 6?

I can hardly believe that a person in a position of

influence such as Mr. Twigg is in would not tell the Premier of

such an important instance. Did he keep that information to

himself and, if so, did the Premier, in fact, reprimand his

press secretary for keeping such important information to

himself?

Later on in his statement the Premier said: "I took the

matter most seriously and did not comment upon it until the

Minister presented me with the two cancelled cheques." The

inference that I get from that statement by the Premier is that

he concluded that everything was clear and that there was no

impropriety on the basis of those two cancelled cheques, and on

that basis only.

Mr. Chairman, the point I'd like to impress on the Premier

is that those cheques do not mean a thing, because there are

many unanswered questions with regard to those cheques as well.

I think that if I can relate those unanswered questions perhaps

the Premier will take a second look at his comment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon.

Member before he proceeds that it

[ Page 718 ]

appears to the Chair that the Hon. Member is attempting to

do indirectly what he cannot do directly. If you are

questioning the conduct of the Hon. Minister of Human Resources

directly it would be done by substantive motion. However, it

appears that you are attempting to do indirectly what you

cannot do directly. I would ask the Hon. Member to confine his

questions strictly to the Premier's area of responsibility.

MR. McCLELLAND: I'm talking about a statement the Premier

made in this House. It was unsolicited and he has accepted some

responsibility in this area. This is the proper area for me to

follow that line of questioning — under the Premier's salary

estimates.

With regard to the cheques, which were tabled before this

House, Mr. Chairman, I just point out to the Minister that

those two cheques were written nine days apart and were signed

by two different people. If, in fact, the $200 campaign

donation, which was mentioned in this House and on the air,

prompted those two cheques, why weren't they both written at

the same time by the same person?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon.

Member that.... I would just draw to his attention this

distinction: you may question the Hon. Premier on his actions.

However, if you're getting into the overall merit of the whole

situation, then you are attempting to do indirectly what you

cannot do directly.

Will the Hon. Member continue with the questioning of the

Premier?

MR. McCLELLAND: I would just like to point out, Mr.

Chairman, that in the Premier's statement he has indicated that

his whole statement was based on these two cancelled cheques,

and he reached a conclusion because of these two cancelled

cheques. I'm suggesting, Mr. Chairman, that there are some

questions that need to be answered regarding these cheques and

that the Premier may want to change his statement if I point

out these unanswered questions, because I think that they

should be clearly answered.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon.

Member for Langley that if he continues to discuss the general

merits of the case I will be obliged to rule him out of order.

However, he may question the Premier on specifics of his

responsibility.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, Mr. Chairman, that's what I'm

doing.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Chairman, you've established,

commencing yesterday, a new approach to the estimates. You tend to forget, Mr.

Chairman, that we have serious limitations in the estimates now. There are only

135 hours per year in which we can question the Ministers. If you're going to

occupy 10 per cent of the time, it's going to make it extremely difficult for

members of the opposition, through your constant interruptions, to get through

the estimates which we have to discuss. I wish, Mr. Chairman, that you would

change your approach.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. There is no point of order.

Would the Hon. Member please take his seat?

MR. CHABOT: Stop wasting the time of this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member for Langley continue

with the questioning of the Premier?

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, as I pointed out, the Premier

made his statements on the basis of the cheques which were

tabled before this House. Those cheques, of which we have Xerox

copies and the originals of which we have just viewed in the

Speaker's office, leave many questions unanswered. Since those

cheques were the basis of the Premier's statement and since

those cheques were tabled with this House, then I'm entitled,

under these estimates, to ask questions about those

cheques.

MR, CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would again draw to the

attention of the Hon. Member that the merits of the case, which

is the relevance of the cheques to the merits of the case, is a

matter for a substantive motion. The Premier's actions are the

part you must question.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, the one cheque seems to have some serious

omissions. It is a cheque made out to the Vancouver Centre

Liberal NDP Association. There is, with the new system of

computerized banking, a note when the cheque clears; there's a

computer note at the bottom of it indicating how much money was

paid out on the cheque. In the cheque to Denofreo that computer

notation is there. On the cheque to the Vancouver Centre

Liberal NDP Association that computer....

AN HON. MEMBER: Federal, not Liberal.

MR. McCLELLAND: Oh, yes, that was a federal NDP, wasn't it?

I'm sorry — that was a Freudian slip, I guess.

That computerized notation is not there. Now,

[ Page 719 ]

according to people in the banking business, there is a

possibility that that cheque could be cleared without that

notation if it were taken directly into the branch upon which

it was written, which in this case would be Vancouver City

Savings Credit Union. However, the cheque does not contain any

endorsement on the back.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon.

Member that you cannot use the time in the estimates under this

vote to raise the merits of the case and express your views

rather than....

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I'm asking questions of the

Premier under his estimates. We want to know if he's going to

check into the validity of these cheques and what he's going to

do about it. He's made the statement. We want him....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the Hon. Member continue, please?

MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you.

Now, Mr. Chairman, the only other way that the cheque could

have been cashed was if it had been taken directly to the

credit union and cashed, with the cash being received

there.

However, there is no way that I have ever heard of a bank —

and no banking people that can tell me — giving cash for a

cheque which was not endorsed on the back. It's just utterly

impossible. There is no endorsement on that cheque — no

endorsement whatsoever. We've checked this very carefully,

because I didn't want to go by the Xeroxed copy. We've checked

the original in the Speaker's office. One thing or the other

has to be there, but no bank will give cash for a cheque which

has not been endorsed.

Mr. Chairman, I think that that question alone should be

enough to make the Premier take a second look at his statement,

because obviously he's based his whole attitude in this

situation on seeing those two cancelled cheques. That's what he

said in his statement.

The Premier should also answer the questions regarding the

apparent conspiracy of silence. There were six silent days

during which the Premier knew about this issue, yet he said

nothing and, in fact, did not advise the Minister to make a

statement in this House. The people of this province, if the

Premier would have had his way, would never have learned of

this situation if the radio hotliner hadn't aired the story.

The people of British Columbia would never have known about

this.

Did the Premier, in fact, advise the Minister not to make the allegations public

in the hope that in one way or another either he or the Minister or someone

else could convince the radio hotliner not to use the story on the air?

I think it's important, too, since the Premier has taken a

direct involvement in this whole affair, that the Premier

contact the radio hotliner, Gary Bannerman, and insist that

Bannerman present to this House any further documents he may

have in his possession relating to the allegations he made on

the air. There are questions about certain documents which have

been tabled before this House in the form of cheques. Are there

other documents which are important to know about? Does

Bannerman have them? If so, will he present them to this House?

I think that as Premier, Mr. Chairman, he has no choice but to

insist that Bannerman make public every bit of documentation

that he has for the people of this House.

I think the next important thing is that the Premier take a

second look, ask the Minister to resign until a full judicial

inquiry can clear up the matter once and for all....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Again, I would draw to the

attention........

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Everyone who comes into public

life is subject to allegations, both of fact or of fancy.

People can make statements and leave innuendo, and leave the

impression they wish to leave at any given time in public

life.

For my own part, I'm completely satisfied with the

Minister's explanation, and I'm satisfied that he made the

right decision in explaining to the House. I'm quite sure that

the official opposition is not satisfied. If the official

opposition possesses any information, further documentation or

other facts, they have full access to the normal court

procedure that exists in this province. Frankly, if they feel,

other than innuendo, that there's more action....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, please be silent for a moment.

I was silent when I listened to your Member speak.

I'm saying that if you feel that there is something wrong,

then have access to the courts or bring new evidence. I am

distressed, however, that there has been no apology to this

House over the fact that one of the copies of the cheque was

doctored — admitted publicly by an assistant to the Leader of

the Opposition (Mr. Bennett). There has been no apology to this

House and its Members that after the knowledge was public that

misinformation was being forwarded by an altered cheque by a

member of the Leader of the Opposition's staff. No public

apology has been forthcoming from the official Leader of

the

[ Page 720 ]

Opposition's staff member for doctoring that cheque.

Each man must act on his own conscience, but let it be a matter of record that

a staff member responsible to the Leader of the Opposition — self-admitted —

doctored one of the cheques presented and used that doctored copy as argument.

To this moment we have not had the Leader of the Opposition stand up

in the House and say that he regrets the action of his staff member. I

think that everybody can measure for himself the purpose of other

people's actions.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, the Premier has done, again, a

masterful job of attempting to skirt a very serious issue.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Did he doctor the cheque? Did he doctor

the cheque?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

AN HON. MEMBER: Answer the question.

MR. McCLELLAND: The answer is no.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, he didn't, eh? What does he say in the

paper even?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, the Hon....

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, there was....

HON. MR. BARRETT: Did he alter the cheque?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Did he alter the cheque?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Hon. Member for Langley to

confine his remarks to the actions of the Premier on this

matter.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Will the Hon. Member for

Langley continue?

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I've spoken in this House on this matter

on one other occasion. The Premier cannot accuse me of using any altered or

doctored information at any time. I've laid all of the facts on the table for

the Premier. He has refused to accept some of them. I'm asking him now, in the

light of further facts and further questions about documents which have been

tabled before this House, if he'll take a second look at the matter.

There is no doubt that there are some questions about the

validity of those cheques that need to be answered. There is no

doubt that the Minister accepted a personal donation by himself

in clear violation of the elections Act, even though....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would draw to the attention

of the Hon. Member that I want the Hon. Member to make this

distinction: You may question the Minister about his actions.

However, if you are discussing the merits of the case it must

be done by substantive motion. Furthermore, the action in

question took place before the Hon. Member for

Vancouver-Burrard (Hon. Mr. Levi) was the Minister for Human

Resources or a member of the executive.

MR. McCLELLAND: What's that got to do with anything? What

does that have to do with anything?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Will the Hon. Member for

Langley continue?

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I'm very surprised at your

comments, because to me they're unbelievable. I really don't

see why you should be attempting to help to manufacture a

defence for the Minister of Human Resources. And that's what

you're doing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I'm cautioning the Hon. Member

to confine his remarks to the actions of the Premier.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes. Well, Mr. Chairman, the questions that

I asked of the Premier are still valid. He hasn't even

attempted to answer them. His own press secretary, apparently,

withheld information from him which was very important. Why did

he do that? Has he been reprimanded for that? Is the Premier

going to take a second look? Does the Premier think that the

cheques, which appear to have some irregularities, should be

investigated further? And will he give us the answers to those

questions? We don't really want, again, Mr. Premier, the kind

of stick-handling that you've been doing. Why not be

straight?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, why don't you be straight?

MR. McCLELLAND: I am being straight.

[ Page 721 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: I've been advised by the

Attorney-General's (Hon. Mr. Macdonald'

s) office that letters

that you've used that were falsely altered have been referred

to the police. And I hope that we find out who altered

those.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

HON. MR. BARRETT: And I hope that you'll check from now on

before you use documents.

AN HON. MEMBER: Come on!

HON. MR. BARRETT : We have not had an apology in this House

....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would ask....

HON. MR. BARRETT: We have not had an apology in this House

from the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I would point out to the Hon. Premier,

as well, that any charges against an individual Member of the

House must be done only on a substantive motion. I would ask

the Hon. Members to refrain, on both sides of the House, from

any innuendo or charge against an individual Member of this

House but, rather, to confine themselves to questioning the

Premier on his actions.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I say again, I'm completely

satisfied with the actions of the Minister. I had expected that

there would be a statement of apology from the official Leader

of the Opposition for the altered cheque that was used by his

staff member. No apology?

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Well, Mr.

Chairman, since you did not bring the Premier to order when he

again referred to doctoring or altering....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would point out to the Hon.

Member for Saanich and the Islands that I said to the Hon.

Premier that he should not bring any charge against an Hon.

Member except on a substantive motion. The rules apply to

everyone. Would the Hon. Member for...?

MR. CURTIS: You seem to enforce them with greater promptness on one

side of the House than the other, Mr. Chairman. I think that if we're asking

for apologies today (and perhaps that might be helpful on the part of the Premier),

we should have the Premier indicate to this House that his use of the word "doctoring"

was certainly not intended as most people will take it. This is a perfect example

of skating away from the central issue under discussion this afternoon.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Was the cheque altered?

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Premier, when you've finished asking the

question....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The Hon. Member for Saanich and

the Islands has the floor.

MR. CURTIS: My understanding, Mr. Chairman — and I believe

that the Premier knows full well that this is the case — is

that as a matter of convenience for the press, when there was

great interest in these cheques after they were filed in this

House, there were probably three Xerox copies of the cheques

available. The press came to the office of the official

opposition and asked the research assistant for one copy. The

research assistant, not the executive assistant to the Leader

of the Opposition — the research assistant, Mr. Weeks — had

been attempting to decipher a notation on the reverse of one of

the cheques in question. It was that copy which he gave to the

press as a matter of convenience.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Did he write on that copy?

MR. CURTIS: Yes, Mr. Premier, he did write on that copy.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order! Would the Hon. Member

for Saanich and the Islands confine his remarks to questioning

of the Premier's actions? Would the Hon. Member continue?

MR. CURTIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I again point out that

the use in this House this afternoon, first of the word

"doctoring" and, second, of the word "altering" is a

smokescreen on the part of the Premier to move away as rapidly

as he can from the issue before us.

Now, to return to the subject, would the Premier indicate to

the committee when he was first made aware of this allegation

by one Gary Bannerman, by whom we understand it was as a result

of a telephone call to Mr. John Twigg?

That's a very simple question in discussing the Premier's

estimates this afternoon. Mr. Twigg is, as I understand it, a

member of the Premier's staff. When was the Premier informed of

this situation? Was it by Mr. Twigg? May we hear from the

Premier on that subject?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased that the Member

has attempted to give an

[ Page 722 ]

explanation of the altering or the doctoring or the writing

on the cheque.

Did you tell the press that the staff member had written on

the cheque? Nobody knew except the staff member. Did he tell

the press? I ask you in front of this assembly and this

inquiry: did you tell the press that it was written? Come on,

answer the questions. Don't lie. Just because it's my

estimates, don't lie.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Answer the question. Did you know it was

doctored?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. BARRETT: When did you tell the press?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Change your

image.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask....

HON. MR. BARRETT: I want to get at the truth, Mr. Chairman,

just like them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. PHILLIPS: Ha! Smokescreen!

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would point out to the Premier and to those

who are questioning the Premier that we are....

HON. MR. BARRETT: When was it altered?

MR. PHILLIPS: Farce!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Shame on you! The whole works of you

should resign.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon.

Premier and to those who are questioning him....

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, estimates will be over by the time

you complete this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I point out to the Premier and to those who are questioning

him that we are considering vote 2 — the Premier's office and the responsibilities

of the Premier. I would ask the Hon. Members and the Premier to confine their

questions and answers to these responsibilities rather than entering into debate

on this general subject matter outside of the estimates.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, I haven't been in this House as

long as the Premier. I may be in a little longer the way things

are going. But I understand that Mr. Twigg is a member of the

Premier's staff; we are therefore discussing the Premier's

vote.

AN HON, MEMBER: Right.

MR. PHILLIPS: It's in his estimates.

MR. CURTIS: We can have the grandstanding once again, and

attempts to distract not only this House but also the gallery,

on the part of the Premier but the question is a

straightforward one: when did the Premier learn of this

particular situation and was it from Mr. Twigg?

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I take it from the Premier's

silence that his press secretary did not tell him about a very

important....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I don't believe the Hon.

Member's microphone is on.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask if my

assumption is correct — that the Premier's silence means that

his press secretary did not tell him about this important issue

although he was phoned on March 6 with regard to it. I just

wonder if that is a correct assumption. If it is, it's an

incredible turn of events that a member of the Premier's staff

would take it upon himself to withhold that kind of information

from the Premier.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Chairman, I

don't want to speak at any great length on this subject at the

moment, but I do want to suggest to the Premier, through you,

that he does have the general superintendency of his Ministers,

and the responsibility for their conduct and their fitness to

hold office.

I would suggest to him that, whether any of us like it or

not, there has been an important charge made here this

afternoon — questioning in effect whether or not the cheque

tabled with this House and dated September 15, 1972, in fact

did go through the clearing procedure at that time. If it did

not go through the clearing procedure at that time then that

has a number of grave consequences and implications which I

don't even want to speculate on at this point.

[ Page 723 ]

May I simply ask the Premier if he is prepared to make it

his business to find out, through the channels of inquiry he

will have, whether or not that cheque did in fact go through

the clearing procedure in September, 1972?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Is the point you are trying to make, Mr.

Member, that there is a possibility, in your opinion, that the

cheque was manufactured past that date? Is that the point you

are trying to make?

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, I'm searching for what....

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Please. I'm searching for what you are

looking for so that I'm clear in my mind.

MR, GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I have tried not to make any

allegations. I deliberately didn't go into any of the

possibilities. All I said is that the charge was raised as to

the validity of the clearing procedure, and would the Premier

take it upon himself to satisfy....

MR, CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Just before....

HON. MR. BARRETT: I satisfied myself. I saw a stamp on the

front of that cheque showing that it had been cleared. That

satisfied me.

MR, CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Before we proceed any further

with this matter I would draw to the Members' attention the

decision that was given by the Speaker yesterday and contained

in Votes and Proceedings. This paragraph is a quote from

Mr. Speaker Michener when he was the Speaker of the House of

Commons:

"In my view, simple justice requires that no Hon.

Member should have to submit to investigation of his conduct by the

House or a committee until he has been charged with an offence."

So I would ask the Hon. Members just to bear that in

mind.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, on that point of order, I just

want to say that it seems to me that what we are trying to do

is follow up the Premier's responsibility — which I know he

agrees is his responsibility — for the propriety of actions of

members of his cabinet.

I take it that his answer, then, is that he is completely satisfied that that

cheque did go through the proper clearing procedure. I would say, in support

of his contention, that there is on the face of that cheque a stamp saying "Vancouver

City Savings...Paid September 15, 1972" — and "3295 West Broadway, Credit

Union" at the bottom. On the other hand, what the Hon. Member for Langley (Mr.

McClelland) has pointed out is that there are no computer clearing marks, there

are no stamps whatsoever on the back of the cheque and there are no endorsements

on the cheque. For that reason, without mentioning anything further, I ask the

Premier if he would undertake to satisfy himself a little bit further on this

point.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I am quite satisfied as it stand, Mr.

Member, unless you can show me new evidence that it was not

cleared at that time. I assume that that stamp is genuine. If

you can show me evidence that it isn't, then of course I'll

take another look.

MR. McCLELLAND: On the same subject, I find it incredible

that the Premier could be satisfied with a cheque which had no

endorsement on it. That's a very highly irregular

situation.

The second question, Mr. Chairman — and perhaps this is a

pretty simple request and perhaps the Minister could feel his

way clear to give us at least one answer to one question — is

the request I made that the radio hotliner be asked in an

official way to table in this House any further documentation

he may have in relation to this whole situation — and the

original cheque as well.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, why ask the Minister? It's the radio

hotliner.... We want to find out if he has any further

documentation.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, if anybody is withholding

information from the public on this matter, I appeal to them

publicly to bring it forward. But I'm not going to chase every

hotliner. I asked the Minister and he has brought forward

everything he possesses. I know that your purpose is not to

sling mud or leave a cloud of suspicion over the Minister;

therefore I assume that you will go out and bring forward any

undocumented evidence that you may have as quickly as

possible.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, Mr. Chairman, I just want to clear

this up. You have said that you do want to appeal publicly for

anyone who has further documentation to bring it forward?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Sure.

[ Page

724 ]

MR. McCLELLAND: Thank you.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, to follow up on

this subject, the Premier indicated that he is considering some

guidelines, and we certainly appreciate that. That was the

purpose of the questioning.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Guidelines for what?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Guidelines on acceptance of gifts by

Members of the Legislative Assembly or cabinet. We are

discussing here the acceptance of gifts.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Is the Hon. Member making a

charge?

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Obviously if you find that....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. If the Hon. Second Member for

Victoria is making a charge against another Hon. Member....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No, I'm not. I'd like to read, if you

like....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: ...the Minister's own statement in the

House.

MR, CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's an accusation.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I'm not making accusations. I'm asking....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I accept the word of the Hon. Second

Member for Victoria that he is not making a charge against

another Member of this House. Would the Hon. Member

continue?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I started off to ask, in the light

of this particular instance where indeed a cheque was accepted and signed and

deposited, whether or not the Premier, who is responsible for the general overseeing

of the cabinet, who has stated in this House and elsewhere — or outside the

House, I might add, not inside — that each Minister is allowed only one mistake,

is taking steps to make sure that the acceptance of gifts is, in future, totally

about reproach so that we don't have the type of argument we have had here today,

or indeed the type of comments we've had on hotlines.

HON. MR. BARRETT: A point of order. Is the Member suggesting

that the $200 in question falls into the category of a

gift? Is that the allegation you are making?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, we can argue semantics....

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, no, no, no.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I will quote from the Minister's

statement: "I recall receiving a cheque from Mr. Joe Hargitt in

the amount of $200 prior to September 6,

1972. The cheque I accepted as a political donation."

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's right. Is that a gift?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, in the circumstances, it apparently

was not destined for the federal campaign by the original

donor.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Hon. Member if he is making a

charge against the Hon. Minister.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I am making no charges. Why have you got

charges in your mind? Why don't you sit back quietly and act as

Chairman of the debate, and if you want to take part, take your

seat over there and let someone else sit there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I assume from the answer of the

Hon. Member that he is not making a charge. Would the Hon.

Member continue; otherwise I will caution him that he must do

it by a substantive motion.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, the fact is that a gift was

accepted and put, in this instance, into the account of the

Minister. Later on....

HON. MR. BARRETT: It was not a gift.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Later on, one cheque was issued on

September 15. Before, one cheque was issued, I believe, on the

5th, prior to the depositing of the cheque. Now gifts can be

accepted and gifts can be given out. It's not as though the two

have to be related directly in terms of either amount or

date.

But the Speaker's decision which you quoted indicated that

indeed the subject did not really arise in view of the fact

that the Member concerned did not become a Member of the

Legislature until September 15, when he took the oath and

signed.

[ Page 725 ]

But to get back to my original point before you and the

Premier got so touchy: under the circumstances, where we have

charge and counter-charge going across the floor and where we

have hotliners raising the most unpleasant suggestions, there

is obviously a need for the Premier, as the man who oversees

the integrity of the cabinet generally, to lay down some sort

of guidelines. But about 10 minutes ago I asked the Premier

whether or not he has requested other Ministers, subsequent to

this particular event, to report to him gifts they may have

received in the past two years, before or after they signed. I

would ask him specifically whether or not he received from the

members of the party that accompanied him to Japan a list of

any gifts other than a token nature and whether or not he is

willing to make such material available to the House. It's a

fairly simple request.

There is, in this instance, a fair amount of dispute with

reference to the cheques in and the cheques out. It would seem

that the Minister responsible — namely, the Premier — should be

interested to make sure that this type of situation does not

arise again. It would seem to be his responsibility to check

further, particularly as he has said publicly that a Minister

is only entitled to one mistake. I would like to question him

on this and ask him whether or not he has spoken to the other

cabinet Ministers concerned, whether it's been raised with them

and whether they in turn made reports to him and, in

particular, whether not only the cabinet but also those who

accompanied him on his trips abroad were asked to make similar

declarations.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, I want to apologize for

responding to you emotionally. I do find your attitude, on

occasion — in my

interpretation — as an insufferable snob. I

want to apologize.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Premier

not to make personal remarks about other Hon. Members. I would

ask the Hon. Premier....

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm confessing....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Will the Hon. Premier withdraw

the remarks directed personally to another Hon. Member —

unconditionally?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the remarks, but

I must admit that I do have an emotional response. I withdraw

them unconditionally.

There is a deliberate mix on your part of the words "gift" and "campaign donation."

Now you must stand in this House, if you are intending to do so, and make an

accusation that the Minister took a gift. But don't leave the innuendo by mixing

the words "gift" and "campaign donation" — that somehow the Minister took a

gift. If that is your implication, then I find it despicable. I'm entitled to

that opinion. I do have emotional reactions and I am human and perhaps my emotional

reactions are insufferable to you. Nonetheless, that is a matter of fact.

Now in terms of the question raised by the Member for North

Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson), there was no policy; there

never has been a policy in this province related to gifts, not

by the former administration or by any other administration

before. As I said yesterday, we are looking into this matter to

formulate a policy. I think it is a sensitive area, but there

is no existing policy and there never has been. I quite

recognize that vacuum.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Premier has indicated that there is

this amazing distinction between a gift and a campaign

contribution. But this would only be a campaign contribution if

Mr. Joe Hargift expected that money to go to the federal NDP on

the one hand and a particular individual on the other hand.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would caution the Hon. Member

again that I draw the distinction between questioning the

Premier on his actions and discussing the merits of the case.

If the Hon. Member is seeking to discuss the merits of the

case, it should be done by substantive motion.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I feel I had a number of

questions on the Premier's actions and statements only a few

minutes ago. But this fine distinction that he would like to

make that somehow or another a gift which was accepted — and

there is no question here about that — somehow becomes a

campaign contribution to another campaign entirely, even though

half the money involved was paid out prior to the receipt of

the original cheque, is too much to take — that this somehow

was a totally different thing. Now no one is questioning the

Minister's payment of those two cheques — or, at least, his

wife's payment of one of the cheques and his payment of the

other — to the tune of $200. The cheques have been sent out.

But the fact is that a previous or subsequent gift — and I use

that word advisedly — does not alter the nature of the gift

from Joe Hargitt to the Minister; and that's the point I want

the Premier to understand.

It's a problem which he is faced with at the present time.

That is why I pose the questions — which are totally unanswered — about what requests he's made to other Ministers, and

specifically what

[ Page 726 ]

questions he's posed to other Ministers concerning gifts in

relation to trips overseas. And I repeat those two

questions.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I recognize that there is a problem. As I

said, there was no policy and is no policy, and I hope that we

are able to formulate policy in the near future.

It is a matter of concern to all politicians in this

country, federally and provincially. I'm saying quite candidly

there never was a policy on this issue of gifts, and I hope to

formulate a policy as soon as possible.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: (mike not on)...of a constant reference

to policy that he has not, in fact, asked any other Minister

about the receipt of gifts and he has not asked any members of

his staff, or any other person who accompanied him on trips,

about the receipt of gifts.

MR. McCLELLAND: Again, on the same subject briefly, the

Minister's statement in the House was: "I took the matter most

seriously." Does the Premier accept the Minister's statement

that he did accept the $200 and put it in his own personal bank

account, and doesn't the Premier find it at least highly

unethical in relation to what the elections Act of British

Columbia says?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon.

Member that you have strayed from questioning the Minister to

discussing the merits of the case, and I would rule the last

part of your remarks out of order. I would draw your attention

to standing order 61(2): "Speeches in Committee of the Whole

House must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under

consideration." We're considering the actions and the

responsibilities of the Premier.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's what it is.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, just perhaps, for our own information,

the Premier could interpret the elections Act for us and tell

us whether or not ...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. McCLELLAND: ...and maybe that's another area that needs

to be discussed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out again to the Member for

Langley that you are making judgments about this situation and about the actions

of the Hon. Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi), and this is out of

order in this particular debate. If the Hon. Member wishes to pursue that course

of action it should be done by other means, either by substantive motion or

by going through the courts. I would ask him to question the Premier only on

his responsibilities.

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Chairman, to the Premier, again noting that

the matter was answered with silence a few minutes ago, because

we're discussing the Premier's estimates, when did the Premier

first learn of this situation? Question 1. Was the Premier

informed of this matter by a member of his staff — and we're

again on his estimates — by Mr. Twigg, and, if so, when? Was it

on March 6 or 7 — or ever? Finally, why was no statement made

by the Premier on this matter until the afternoon of March 13,

the day the matter became public?

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, if the

Premier would like to deal with this issue, and if others have

questions on it, I'd be happy to yield my place. I was going to

raise another topic briefly.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Be our guest. Go ahead.

MR. McGEER: On March 10 I asked the Premier, with regard to

the purchase by the government of the Minnekhada stock farm in

Coquitlam which the Premier announced: "Could he tell us the

price paid by the provincial government by Daon Development

Corp., and what price the Daon Development Corp. paid to the

former owner, Mr. Clarence Wallace?" The Premier took it as

notice.

Prior to this question of mine, the Member for Oak Bay (Mr.

Wallace) had asked a similar question about two weeks

previously. The information that we requested, first the Member

for Oak Bay and then myself, could have been provided in an

afternoon, and I find it curious that these questions have not

been answered. Perhaps the Premier can correct me if I'm wrong

in my

interpretation of what has already appeared in print, Mr.

Chairman.

According to the record, Daon Development bought this farm

from Mr. Wallace, just over 1,000 acres, for $1 million. The

first report of that was on January 16. Two days later there

was an announcement by the general manager of the B.C. Land

Commission that Daon Development Corp. was taking a big gamble

by buying that farm for $1 million. Well, as it turns out, Daon

Development wasn't taking a gamble at all because 10 days later

there's an announcement that the B.C. government had bought the

stock farm for $2 million.

Gracious me! This development firm took this tremendous

gamble in buying a stock farm for $1

[ Page 727 ]

million. None other than the head of the B.C. government's

own Land Commission said that, because it was clear that the

Land Commission wasn't about to take this particular piece of

property off the reserve list. Unless Daon Development really

knew what they were doing, they were going to be on the hook,

Mr. Chairman.

But here we have, on February 1, a big headline in the

business section: "Daon Boss Has No Regrets." Yes, no regrets.

Within a month he made a million bucks. Who would regret that?

Well, Mr. Chairman, naturally the opposition want to ask a

question or two about that, and I'll bet the government took

that as notice. But it was the Premier himself who announced

that $2 million purchase and, as far as we can interpret from

what has appeared in the press, the million-dollar profit for

Daon Development. We've asked the Premier to straighten this

matter out and to tell us just exactly what happened. Perhaps

he could do that this afternoon.

Perhaps, as well, Mr. Chairman, since this kind of thing has

come up more than once, we might ask if, with the open

government that the Premier is now running, we might have a

policy of tabling all government contracts — the purchases, the

terms of agreement, and so on — so that we aren't continually

left having to ask questions about Casa Loma and about Daon

Development and about Dunhill and about.... What's that firm

in New York that's buying our newsprint?

AN HON. MEMBER: Gottesman.

MR. McGEER: Gottesman — buying it for $180 a ton and selling

it for $565 a ton. This is the kind of thing that people like...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. McGEER: ...Daon Development and Casa Loma and so on

wouldn't be encouraged to undertake with the government if

there weren't secret contracts.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. McGEER: Just yesterday, Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would just ask the Hon. First

Member for Vancouver–Point Grey if he's questioning the Hon.

Premier on this matter in his capacity as Premier and Minister

of Finance or as MLA for Coquitlam. I do think that the subject

matter is under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Housing

(Hon. Mr. Nicolson).

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I'm questioning him because he's the boss.

He's the No. 1 man in the government. He's the Premier; he's the Minister of

Finance; he's the one and only Member for Coquitlam; he's the man who announced

that they paid $2 million to Daon Development.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Read the rest of the note I gave you:

"young, handsome, intelligent." (Laughter.)

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'd just like to draw to the attention of the

Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey that you may not

discuss every Minister's responsibilities merely because the

Premier happens to be the chairman of the executive

council.

MR. McGEER: No, I was merely asking that he might set a

government policy that would apply to the other Ministers. If

you prick one, they all bleed, Mr. Chairman. We saw that

earlier today. If the Premier were to set this standard for

everybody, why, it would make things a lot smoother. Our

debates would be over more quickly.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's going to be difficult to set the

standard because it'll be new in Canada, considering the lack

of any standard by the federal government. (Laughter.)

MR. McGEER: Mr., Chairman, was that the answer to all of

these questions?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I have a note, Mr. Member....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! One man on the floor at once,

please.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Thank you. I have a note, Mr. Member, and

I'll try to get the information for you this afternoon.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, people are sleepy this afternoon.

I'd like to ask the Premier another question with regard to the

Columbia River treaty, if we could just come back to that for a

moment or two this afternoon, and our efforts to get this

commission started, and so on.

One of the key figures is the representative of Canada on

the permanent engineering board, set up under

article 15. In

the past it has been the commissioner of water resources for

British Columbia. It was first Mr. Paget and then Mr. Raudsepp.

In view of Mr. Raudsepp's resignation from the government, who

will be the representative on the permanent engineering board?

Does the government

[ Page 728 ]

have any policy with respect to the duties of that

representative?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Raudsepp was a permanent member, and

he's resigned.

MR. McGEER: Well, he resigned from the government. Did he

resign from the engineering board? I presumed he had.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, that was his duty as well. He has

resigned from there as well.

MR. McGEER: Do we not have a representative?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, I'll find out from the two

members of the board what their action has been to replace

him.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the Premier a

question, if I might, about the B.C. Railway. In view of the

difficulties with the former contractor, who slipped his

equipment in the dead of night up the Stewart-Cassiar road into

the Yukon Territory, is construction on the

section up to Dease

Lake proceeding according to schedule? Is equipment in there

working? Who is doing the work?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, you've touched on a very

delicate area, as I have been advised by our lawyers. I've

asked the House to consider a full debate on the BCR when the

bill is called, related to further financing. I will have a

prepared statement to make at that time related to the

questions you've asked and the court cases we face. I'm advised

that because of the nature of the court case it would be wise

to confine my remarks to areas that would not be considered sub

judice. I'm asking the House to wait. There are serious

charges, as you know; serious charges have been laid.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, it does, partly. Yes, he's talking

about the contractor across the border — the whole thing. So I'm

asking the Members to wait until the bill is called, when we

will have full discussion on the BCR and its problems.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Construction is going on, yes. There have

been arrangements made for the continuation of winter work, the

details of which I will give during the calling of that

bill.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Chairman, yesterday

I was trying to find out just how the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett)

himself arrives at decisions in order to go to the market for long-term money

and the advisability of borrowing $100 million last September for the B.C. Hydro

Corp. The Premier admitted to the House that B.C. had the financial capability

to avoid going to the market at a time like that.

After some discussion as to who was to blame, whether it was

the underwriters or the staff or himself, he came to the

decision that he has the ultimate responsibility. It's

unfortunate that he tried to hide behind the staff — that they

were the only advisers. I always thought the Premier, in

selecting the Minister of Finance, would choose someone who had

the capability of making the final decision, of questioning the

staff, of questioning any advice they get; and the capability

to analyse and take the best information available to predict

the market.

The Premier said: "You're dealing in hindsight." We're

talking about six months. Yet his big smokescreen issue about

the Columbia is dealing with hindsight going back to 1964 and

before. It's amazing how we can have selective memory and we

can say it's hindsight for six months, but I advocate to this

House that the Minister of Finance must have the capability to

question his advice. We have to be concerned with the advice he

gets and how he gets advice and how things are taken to cabinet

now.

Last November, delivered to my office, was a memorandum. It

was delivered from the Deputy Provincial Secretary (Mr.

Wallace), and it said:

"With reference to my memorandum dated October 8, 1974, I am

enclosing a further memorandum dated November 4, received from

Marc Eliesen, planning adviser, cabinet."

Why would they deliver this memorandum and put me on the

mailing for the cabinet? Maybe they're anticipating what will

happen after the election.

The memorandum says:

"Subject: cabinet agenda.

"May I amend my previous memo concerning orders-in-council

and policy planning items to appear on cabinet agenda?"

HON. MR. BARRETT: Open government.

MR. BENNETT: It goes on:

"Firstly, would you have these submissions into my office

not later than noon on Tuesday each week. Secondly, in the

event you have no submission, would you please forward a nil

return by the same deadline time of noon every Tuesday."

HON. MR, BARRETT: And you never replied.

MR. BENNETT: "Thank you. Marc Eliesen, planning adviser to cabinet."

[ Page

729 ]

I want to know if the memorandum from Marc Eliesen to the

Deputy Ministers and the cabinet, setting out control

procedures and the cabinet agenda, applies to the Premier's

office and the Deputy Minister of Finance (Mr. Bryson). What is

the procedure followed by the Deputy Minister of Finance to get

an item on the agenda if he misses the Tuesday deadline each

week set by Mr. Eliesen? Does the Deputy Minister of Finance

under the terms of the memorandum file a nil return in the same

manner as all other Deputy Ministers? Were there any nil

returns before at times when we needed advice about decisions

requiring the decision of the cabinet or the decision to go to

market?

This is the government's own memorandum. It's the Premier

himself who suggested yesterday that he has new advisers, new

authorities. He attempted to say in this House that he took the

advice of the authorities he inherited and that somehow any

financial guesswork that was wrong would somehow he their

responsibility. I can only take that implication from the

Blues.

Yet here we have a decision made last September — only six

months ago — at a time when major national financial advisory

groups were saying: "Don't go to the market." Many financial

officers, who are there, who were appointed because of their

ability to be chief finance officers, not because they also

happened to be Premier, decided not to go to the market.

It may seem a small thing to the Premier — that 1.375 per

cent interest differential between then and now, just six

months. It is not very much to him, but over the 25-year period

of this issue, if we compound this differential at 9 per cent,

it adds up to $116 million. You could do a lot of rural

electrification for that, Mr. Premier. You could do a lot for

the people of Hydro in picking up losses on the transit system,

which seem to be affecting the financial balance sheets of

Hydro — great losses in transit. You might be able to do that

if you were able, or had the ability, as the Finance Minister,

to analyse the advice you get and make a decision on your own

ability. Six months isn't much hindsight.

Those areas, those companies, those people who were able to

have flexibility to delay their decision to go to the market

last September and not come until March saved their investors

and saved their people a lot of money. Here we have a situation

where the Premier says we're dealing in hindsight, yet the very

subject he keeps wanting to introduce, make the major

discussion in B.C. as a smokescreen for many of the

deficiencies of his government, the Columbia River, is a lot of

hindsight.

Yet he pleads hindsight; he pleads the advice of the staff he inherited. Nowhere

do we see that he takes accountability for the 1.375 it costs this Hydro, and

if it was compounded, as I say, it would come to $116 million.

I'm concerned. It doesn't take a genius. Nobody is saying

that they have abilities to do great predictions. I'm saying

that somewhere somebody has to make decision based on their

ability to do so. Many people made the correct decision last

September. This Minister of Finance made an incorrect decision

and cost the Hydro a lot of money in excess interest.

The Premier may wave his hand. Apparently he's used to

saying "What's $100 million?" on Human Resources, so he says

"What's a $100 million in interest benefits?" — compounded at a

loss because of this one marketing procedure on just one of the

many bond issues that he's floated on behalf of Hydro. Just

$100 million of the $375 million effects that type of cost, and

he must take responsibility for the decision. That's what it

adds up to — benefits lost, compounded, of $100 million. That's

a lot of money.

It's a lot of money when the public in this province is

concerned that perhaps the direction isn't there, that the

money isn't being managed wisely. Perhaps the concern of the

public has that unemployment is out of control and the Premier

has no answer, that he can't even market a bond issue correctly

... perhaps the rumours and the stories of government

incompetence are true in all areas.

Perhaps when they say $100 million overrun in Human

Resources — the first excuse, I remember, was that it was a

clerical error. It's a government of great excuses — they run

for cover every time. "A clerical error." "I got the best

advice of the staff I inherited." "It's the Americans' fault" —

we haven't heard that one in this yet, but we certainly heard

it when the Premier finally decided to get back from China and

Hawaii. Then he went through the Christmas period and, finally,

in January he decided to deal with a very serious question of

resource revenue sharing which the federal government and other

jurisdictions had dealt with.

Alberta had made sure that they dealt with the situation in

November and December so that exploration could continue in the

north of their province. Gas exploration can only take place in

the winter. The area has to be frozen to support the rigs —

everybody knows that. Yet in British Columbia there was a sort of a two-and-a-half-month gap, then all of a sudden, bang, in

January a complete British Columbia network on radio about some

proposal that's shocking. All of a sudden our gas exploration

isn't happening, but I noticed it was happening in Alberta. It

just so happened that their Premier had been tending to

business before the Christmas season and did make sure that the

exploration continued.

It is important to areas of not only local economies like

Fort St. John and others, but it is also important to the

economy of British Columbia.

[ Page 730 ]

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): The Alberta government is going

to fix the Socreds too.

MR. BENNETT: Without getting partisan I say that the Premier

there did his job in Alberta, and I think we are concerned in

British Columbia that perhaps when the Premier is on the job he

doesn't do it correctly.

I'm concerned about the procedures for marketing,

particularly as it has been announced that we are going to go

for almost $1 billion in new issues in the near future for

the funding of the new projects on Hydro for Site 1 for power

for the Province of British Columbia. We are blessed by not

being critically short, like other areas. It's going to cost

some money, and now that we've departed from the norm of

financing internally and have this new policy of going outside

the province, perhaps the Minister of Finance can advise if....

Then there was some question about the amount paid to the

underwriters — amounts that were $875,000 or $750,000. Perhaps

in British Columbia, if this were a new policy and we had all

this money we are going to the market for, we would set up our

own mechanism so that we could save this commission or this

underwriting fee.

That's a lot of money when we talk $1 billion. It's possible

for the province then to cut out the middleman in the marketing

of money and save that money for the people of B.C.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): I'm rather

surprised to hear the Leader of the Opposition suggesting that

if the Government of British Columbia is going to go to the

public market for money we should somehow cut out the people

who have the kind of advice to offer to the government that the

leader is talking about, The financing of large loans of the

nature of which the Leader of the Opposition speaks requires a

great deal of skill, and that's what I think, quite properly,

he was critical of the Premier for. But if we're going to cut

out the people who know the answers then we're not going to get

the advice.

Interjections.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I don't want to deal with the past. The

former Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Bennett) had no trouble

whatsoever in divining in advance what the interest rate was

going to be because he borrowed it all from his own trust

moneys and he paid them the rate of interest that he

decided.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's right.

MR, L.A. WILLIAMS: He never had to go to the public market. He never

had to concern himself with what the interest might be in the market from time

to time.

Interjections.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Well, the pension funds. You know he paid

the pension funds the interest rate he wanted to pay them, not

what the market wanted to pay them at all.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What about schools and hospitals?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Anyway, I don't want to deal with the

past. We should be forward-looking in British Columbia, and

that's the matter I want to deal with for a few moments with

the Premier.

Last evening, as the debate drew to a close, I think we had

reached the situation where the Premier admitted that, within

limitations, the identity of the dollars we were borrowing for

this province was not of major concern to him.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's not equity money.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: That's right. It's not equity money but a

straight loan, and we don't have much identification on

dollars, but there would be some limitations, I suspect, on

this or any other government as to the source from which they

would borrow. But we have a situation where the government has

gone to the public market — actually it's gone to a private

segment of the public market — for two loans of $100 million

each under an agreement whereby some details are known of the

nature of the loans but not the identify of the borrower.

I'm not too much concerned about the identify of the

borrower but I am concerned about one aspect, and that is the

extent to which the Government of British Columbia is obliged,

when negotiating these loans, to provide the prospective lender

with information concerning B.C. Hydro, the nature of its

operations, its future debt requirements, in order for them to

be encouraged to make the loan in the first place. We have not

had, in this province, any exposition from the government with

regard to B.C. Hydro and its present and future financial

position.

HON. MR. BARRETT: There was a prospectus available to the

public last fall.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: That's right, last fall, but not in respect of these

two $100 million loans, and I'm concerned to know what kind of information was

made available to these lenders beyond the scope of what may have been in the

prospectus. The reason I raise this is because it, too, has been historical

in this

[ Page

731 ]

province, under the methods of financing for B.C. Hydro,

that we were never told anything about B.C. Hydro and its

operation. Not until 1967, when the former government went to

the public market and was obliged to file a prospectus, did the

Members of this House, and the citizens of British Columbia

generally, have an opportunity to really see into that Crown

corporation.

Therefore, my question to the Hon. Premier, as Minister of

Finance and chief fiscal agent for B.C. Hydro, is: in respect

of these negotiations for the two $100 million loans, what

information was made available to those lenders with respect to

B.C. Hydro, its future operations, its future financial

position, and the financial position of this province, which

has not been disclosed generally to Members of this House or to

the public? That's question No. 1.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Member, the information that was

available through the prospectus was the same information that

they used — nothing more, nothing less.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Thank you.

May I also inquire of the Hon. Premier what the future

lending requirements of B.C. Hydro are, within his knowledge?

We know there's an $800 million obligation that we face in

order to complete the Columbia River. We know there's Site 1;

we know there's the Pend-d'Oreille. We know that other

hydro-electric generating programmes have been considered, and

a year ago it was contemplated that the future capital

requirements of B.C. Hydro were in the neighbourhood of $3

billion. We have this year on the order paper legislation

increasing the borrowing power of B.C. Hydro significantly. I

would like to know if the Premier can advise us now as to the

future debt requirements for B.C. Hydro that he can foresee,

within the limits of the information made available for B.C.

Hydro. That's one part of the question.

The second

part is: bearing in mind the size of the

borrowing that B.C. Hydro faces, does the Premier believe that

he will continue to go to the public sector, to the public

money markets, in order to meet those borrowing requirements,

or are we going to be in a position within the financial

ability of this province to meet all or part of those capital

fund needs?

HON. MR. BARRETT: In the prospectus, Mr. Member, on page 15, you have

a detailed outline of the capital projections. Certainly we can have more detail

in the debate on the bill itself, but everything that is in the prospectus is

available publicly at this very point. I don't have intimate details under the

general policy commitments, so I can't give you exact figures off the top of

my head. My knowledge is that the commitments are in three major areas. One

is the completion of all our obligations under the Columbia River treaty and

maximizing that through the machining of Mica, which was an obligation from

the past. Site 1 and the Pend-d'Oreille: those are the two major projects we

are faced with now.

We will go to the Canadian market, the American market and,

as is being advised by the federal Minister of Finance, we will

go to the offshore markets as well. We have received a release

from the Finance Minister's office on February 27 of this year.

The subject is withdrawal of foreign borrowing guidelines.

"Finance Minister John Turner announced today" — that was

February 27 — "the withdrawal of foreign borrowing guidelines

introduced by the government in 1970." It goes on to explain

withdrawals.

We have not accepted the advice that the Municipal Financing

Authority accepted: that is, borrowing outside of Canadian

currency. I want to assure the House that not only did we

bargain for the borrowings offshore, but we borrowed in

Canadian currency. You speak about hindsight. I am not blaming

anyone. But I think, if you logically follow the course of the

tortured argument by the Leader of the Opposition, you would

somehow come to the shocking conclusion that everybody —

because of his hindsight — at the Municipal Financing Authority

should be sacked. The tragic fact is that they made a decision

with the best advice possible to them, and I am not knocking

that. They made a decision to borrow in foreign currencies and

they are in for a nosedive of $8 million cold cash...

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: If not more.

HON. MR. BARRETT: ...if not more. I hope that it is not

more, Mr. Member. But I think I find it a little bit difficult

to swallow the self-professed genius of the official Leader of

the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) knowing back then what was going

to happen and, also, with the implication that others somehow

knew too. If that advice had been available, I am sure that the

Municipal Financing Authority would have welcomed it and

avoided the disastrous situation they are faced with.

We are not faced with that. We borrowed in Canadian funds.

It is not equity. I am saying that the advice I got was a lot

better than the advice the Municipal Financing Authority

got.

MR. BENNETT: Are you advising them now?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I am not advising them, Mr. Member. They

have not asked for my advice. But your presumptive remarks

demand some comparison by analysis. I don't want to even

embarrass the Member sitting behind you. It is a decision they

made, and that's the way it bounces. I would never

[ Page 732 ]

borrow in other than Canadian funds. I made that

decision.

We are faced with massive borrowing, Mr. Member. I welcome

Mr. Turner's guidelines. We will be looking to all three

markets. As for the exact details, we will of course be

discussing the bill itself.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: If I may just continue that matter one

step further, the Premier didn't indicate the extent to which

he and his government were taking steps to ascertain whether or

not we could meet any of these borrowing requirements, or part

of these borrowing requirements, within the funds available

within the government itself. The reason I raise this question

is one of which the Premier must be wary.

If, in fact, we are faced with large capital requirements

for B.C. Hydro and if we must go to the public money market in

Canada, the United States and overseas.... I appreciate the

limitation you have placed upon us, Mr. Premier, that you will

borrow in moneys which are repayable in Canadian funds. That

only means it costs you points of interest. In one way or the

other the lender is going to consider also what his situation

will be as the moneys are repaid. So while it is possible to

guard yourself against unpredictable shifts in exchange rates,

the lender will also have that in his mind and will compensate

for it by interest rates.

My point is, Mr. Chairman, that with massive capital

requirements of B.C. Hydro to be filled in the public money

market here and internationally, we may find ourselves in the

situation that as the public money markets shift and as the

cost becomes too expensive, the wisdom of proceeding with large

capital projects for B.C. Hydro is placed in doubt.

When we embarked upon the Pend-d'Oreille of $50 million,

when we embark upon Site 1 and the other hydro-electric

projects and maybe some of those non-hydro-electric projects so

far as B.C. Hydro is concerned, we get ourselves committed to

capital tasks at a time when we do not have control over the

funds needed to pay for those projects. If we're left at the

mercy of the public money market, then we may find that the

wisdom of proceeding with any particular project is seriously

diminished.

In fact, we run into exactly the same situation as the Premier has mentioned

with regard to the Columbia River. We enter into a project, thinking we know

what it's going to cost both in the direct dollar outlay to build the project

and to finance it. But by reason of changes in financing cost, we suddenly

find that it costs much more. Therefore we have an overrun, not because of any

inability to perceive what is happening to inflation and the cost of the construction

itself but because of what is happening in the money market. It is at that time,

if the government has made proper provision to assume part of the financial

requirement within its own funds, that we can guard against those shifts in

money costs.

We in this House among the Liberals, over all the years that

we've been in opposition and when the NDP were in opposition,

urged the government of the day, when money was comparatively

cheap to what it is today, to go into the public money markets

and not to use the trust funds which should be made available

for schools and hospitals and so on.

We agree with that programme, but there still has to be some

balance. What we do is conserve our own moneys for schools and

hospitals and the like, but we leave ourselves unguarded on the

flank when we have to deal with fund requirements for our Crown

corporations. I'd like to know to what extent the government is

protecting its flank in that regard.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, you very accurately describe

the situation that we found ourselves in. Whether it was us or

someone else, it was the situation the province was in because

of the deliberate decision, as you described, to cut back on

other priorities. That's a government policy: to cut back on

schools and hospitals. Internal financing was available. We've

said that we will not cut back on the schools and the

hospitals. The railway, then, is the next large borrower in

that order.

At this point, we've made the decision to go ahead with both

projects — Site 1 and the Pend-d'Oreille — based on the advice

that we received not only from Hydro but evaluating the

diminished demand for hydro that our own Energy Commission has

presented us. This is new information. We have never had the

balance of another. I think it's very, very valid. I think

people hastily criticize a commission like this without

examining its great worth. I think they've done a tremendous

service, these people, and Dr. Thompson should be recognized

publicly. We've been able to gather, federally and

provincially, some very good people.

At this point we've made the decision and we are quite sure

that we are able to handle these amounts of borrowing. The

difference, of course, in terms of the availability of funds,

is not the lack of the availability of funds; the thing that

has been confusing is the shift in who has the funds. The

traditional market was, of course, the United States, but now

the funds have shifted to the Arabs. Some few years ago, there

was a huge surplus in Japan of some $32 billion that they were

seeking to alleviate themselves of.

I think funds will be available. The question is: at what

interest rate? Not possessing any genius but listening to the

best advice possible and being very, very cautious, and

sticking to the rule of Canadian funds, we'll compete in that

marketplace as the funds are needed.

The two $100 million loans were very good loans

[ Page 733 ]

— very good loans. All the information is available except

the country of origin; everything else is available.

I am anticipating beyond the Pend-d'Oreille and beyond Site 1 a gap of time that, hopefully, we can have some rational

discussion within about where next in power. I have said

publicly that I'm not pro-nuclear. I have had no evidence given

to me, despite a lot of attacks both emotional and

non-emotional about my position. But I'm still not in favour of

the development of nuclear power in this province.

I think that with the Pend-d'Oreille and with Site 1

maximizing the Peace, we're going to have that gap that the

power commission predicts. I'm inclined to believe them that

our power demands won't be as great as Hydro has been pressing

upon us.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, the former commission had a growth syndrome related

to it — right. It bent almost backwards.

So we've taken what we were obliged to take — that is, the

completion of the Columbia, Site 1. Site 1 would have been made

by us or anyone else because it was in the works by the time we

got elected to the point of almost no return. The final

decision was a compelling one. We would have had to scrap

everything and all the work. It was the former government's

policy to go to Site 1. The engineering was done; we were

pretty well locked in. There was no reason to say that it was a

bad decision. I think it was a good decision to maximize the

Peace.

The Pend-d'Oreille decision we made. Now that brings it in

the area that I think you're discussing. Are we over-extending?

I don't think we are. I think that our position is such that we

can do the financing of the schools and hospitals, and I

announced yesterday what our projected commitments were in

schools for 1974 and 1975.

The railway is a bit of a problem, not because of financing

but because of contracts we inherited.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, there are allegations made

about the inaccuracies of those contracts which I want to steer

away from because they are a matter of a court decision. We

think we can handle it. Remember, too, that we've changed the

policy of subsidizing Hydro but of the pension funds by low

interest rates.

You might question sometime how easy it is to be a financial genius when you

carry your argument logically a step further. And the argument is quite valid

when you can play Harry the Horse with the interest rates and you can look in

and call the numbers out. That's exactly what it was — Damon Runyon's famous

story about Harry the Horse throwing the dice in the hat and calling the numbers

out.

AN HON. MEMBER: You did it the hard way.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, do it the hard way — three and a one.

The former Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Bennett) was not only

able to do that but also keep the interest rates down lower,

and those interest rates on pension funds were subsidizing

Hydro. In effect, all those people's pension funds were being

managed — were being used. They were not getting a fair shake.

It's great to be a financial genius if you've got the hat and

you've got the dice and you call out the numbers and the people

who are victimized by it have no option.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): You have not changed

hats. Look at ICBC. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, not at all. We are paying current

interest rates on the internal borrowings from our own pension

funds. We've made that change and that's good news. That's good

news. It will have cost the British Columbia people a bit more,

but we should not use those pension funds to subsidize Hydro. I

don't anticipate any serious problems in terms of commitments

we have at this point. And we have a gap of time to make

further commitments which we will certainly look at it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before the Hon. Member begins to speak, I

would again remind Hon. Members not to speak from their seats

because they should realize they are not recorded in

Hansard .

MR. PHILLIPS: It would be interesting to find out what rate

of interest Can-Cel is paying versus the rate of interest B.C.

Hydro is paying and what other little gifts, what other little

gratuities, what other little favours Can-Cel is receiving from

the government to make their profit position look so well. It

would be very interesting.

It is also interesting to listen to the Minister of Finance

talk in glowing terms on the floor of the Legislature about the

profit that Can-Cel has made this year. He doesn't stop to tell

the entire truth to the people of British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member if

Can-Cel falls under the responsibility of the Hon. Premier?

MR. PHILLIPS: I just have to presume that it does because

the Minister of Finance in glowing terms spoke yesterday

afternoon in this Legislature, during

[ Page 734 ]

his estimates, about the profits of Can-Cel. So I presume

that it naturally falls under his jurisdiction. He was telling

us how Can-Cel made $60 million profit last year. He didn't

even bother to delineate how much of that was real profit on

the operation and how much was recaptured income tax from the

previous year. But in this Legislature we're getting used to

having the Premier not tell the whole story — sort of give us

part of the story — I won't say in a deliberate attempt to

mislead the people, but certainly in an attempt to cloud the

issue — to sort of bring in an overall view to say that his

government looks good.

He isn't completely candid with the Legislature, and it

bothers me to see the Premier take this position because I know

he is trying to change his image. I thought during the

estimates we might get some complete truths from the new

Minister of Finance. But, Mr. Chairman, with trying to change

the image and a new office of Planning adviser to the cabinet

he hasn't even put the cost of that department — $276,131 — in

his own Department of Finance under the Premier's estimate, he

has tried to hide it under the Provincial Secretary's budget so

that maybe the people won't realize he's paying out an

additional $276,000 for planning advice in an endeavour to

change the direction of the province and maybe get it back on

an economic basis again. We're certainly headed into the

economic wilderness, going the way he was going. I'm not sure

whether the new whiz kid from Manitoba will be able to convince

the rest of the cabinet that this province is in for economic

chaos.

If the Premier is going to continue to bring all the social

services he's trying to bring in, he must have a tax base to

work from. I sometimes think that the Premier realizes that

himself, although he just recently tried to tell a group of

students at the University of British Columbia that he wasn't

going to continue to give the natural resources away, and he

tried again to create the image that before he came upon the

scene everything was not so rosy; everything was being given

away.

But he had another group of students in Fort St. John who were a little more

perspective — you know, who had a little broader view of exactly what is going

on in the province. These children had their fathers unemployed, and they asked

the Premier: "What are you going to do about it?" You know, Mr. Chairman, they

had that Premier stumped. He couldn't answer them. I don't know whether that's

the first time the Premier has ever been stumped or not; but here's a couple

of high school students from Fort St. John asking the Premier about his economic

policies, asking him about unemployment, concerned because at home their fathers

were one of the 107,000 unemployed people in the province. They had the Minister

stumped. They said: "What are you going to do to put my father back to work?

Are you going to change the course...?"'

The Premier talked in vague terms about a new policy change

for next year: "Maybe your father will be able to go back next

year. We're sorry this happened." I didn't hear the whole

conversation, but I was really dumbfounded, Mr. Chairman, to

read a report of this in the paper and find out that as the

Premier walked away these kids weren't happy and they called

him a "bloody communist." I think this is disgraceful that the

young people of this province should have to go to that depth

of despair that they would have to call the Premier of our

province a bloody communist. That really hurt me.

But, Mr. Chairman, I would like to just move on to another

subject here. I realize that the new economic planning

commission is not costing the taxpayers as much as the previous

one.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon.

Member that there is a vote number and we will be able to

discuss this particular item when we come to vote 191.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'm just trying to cover in broad,

general terms the Minister's responsibilities to the taxpayers

of this province. He is the chief tax collector. That's really

what he is, a tax collector, and he is doing a good job at it.

He's brought in punitive taxation not only on the people, but

he's brought it in the back door to increase the price of

gasoline, through the increased cost of natural gas and through

the increased cost of hydro. So he's a past master at being a

tax collector.

Now when he collects those taxes, it is up to this

Legislature to see that they are spent in a prudent manner.

That's why I say this new group of advisers he's got (it's only

costing us $276,000) is a little better deal than we got from

the previous think-tank — you know, the think-tank that was set

up with the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources

(Hon. R.A. Williams) and a group of people out at the

University of Victoria. The purpose of this think-tank was to

advise the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources, who at that time was his

right-hand man.... I understand he's been replaced now by the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald), but after this afternoon

I'm not sure the Attorney-General hasn't been replaced by

somebody else for not obeying the orders of the Premier this

afternoon to stand up and bring the Second Member for Victoria

(Mr. D.A. Anderson) to order when he was speaking.

However, what I am saying, Mr. Chairman, is that this

$276,000 is quite a bit less money than the $5 million we

funded Dr. Mason Gaffney and his think-tank out at the

University of Victoria. It bothers me to try.... I've done

some research, gone

[ Page 735 ]

to the library and looked through various books to find out

just exactly what return the taxpayers of British Columbia have

received for the $5 million.

Mr. Chairman, $5 million would build a lot of roads and open

up a lot of.... It would do a lot of good in your area, for

instance. This $5 million has been taken out of general

revenue.

The Minister of Finance has left the Legislature again, and

that really doesn't surprise me. Practically all of his cabinet

have deserted him both this afternoon and yesterday afternoon,

and certainly most of his back bench have deserted him. I can

understand. I noticed yesterday afternoon that some of his

cabinet and some of his back bench were sort of smiling in

shame while he was trying to justify his position. They have

deserted him, and I can understand this because....

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): Not on your life!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. Would the Hon. Member kindly relate his

remarks to vote 2?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, it's very difficult to talk to an empty

seat, Mr. Chairman. The Premier has gone out. I think that when

the Premier wants to leave the House and his estimates are on,

we should adjourn the House.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: We have to stay in here. We could certainly

adjourn the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member is always

entitled to make a motion of adjournment.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, maybe the Premier had to go to the

bathroom, and that's fine. I'll just wait until he gets back.

But maybe he has deserted; I don't know. He didn't say "excuse

me" before he went.

My entire point is that I do hope this new whiz kid from

Manitoba and all of his group of advisers that we're paying

$276,000 for would give us some direct benefit for these taxes.

If you consider the $276,000 versus the $403,000 that the

Department of Northern Affairs is using up, we wouldn't have to

get very much in return because neither one of them is....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would again ask the Hon.

Member to discuss vote 2 rather than vote 191 and the other

votes.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'm just trying to relate it to revenue versus tax.

It does disturb me that we haven't had any direct return from this $5 million

from this great think-tank that the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources

and Dr. Mason Gaffney set up at the University of Victoria.

I understand that some new directors have just been

appointed to that and there may be some direct benefits

forthcoming to the taxpayers for their $5 million. But, Mr.

Chairman, you relate because you're from the north and you know

what $5 million is when you're going to try to get some

farmer's road fixed that maybe only costs two truckloads of

gravel — maybe a total of $200. But they don't relate to this

$5 million waste for the think-tank.

But with the new image, Mr. Chairman, we have a change in

direction of bookkeeping. This really concerns me — a complete

change in direction. In the comptroller-general's interim

financial statements which were tabled in the Legislature for

the nine months ended December 31, 1974, in the

section where

it says "Contributions from Government Enterprises," we

have details of revenue for the nine months. In that particular

section we have the net profit from the liquor administration

branch; we have the returns from the B.C. Ferries division; we

have the curriculum resource branch sales and rentals; we have

in that the dividends from the British Petroleum Corp. In the

amount of $26 million. Now this says "dividends" so it could be

that it is not the entire profit of the British Petroleum Corp.

made in those nine months. Or it might be any figure at all.

But if the Premier wanted to show that the B.C. Petroleum Corp.

had been a good deal, I imagine he would put in as much revenue

as he could.

Then we go to the new estimates which are before us for the

fiscal year ending March 31, 1976. We have a change in there,

Mr. Chairman. Under the

section where it says "Contributions

from Government Enterprises" we have again, as we had in the

comptroller-general's report, the net profit from the liquor

administration branch — you might say a very healthy increase

in the coming year — and we have the revenue from the British

Columbia Ferries division, the same as we have in the

comptroller general's report. Well, that's a fairly hefty

increase there. Then we have the curriculum resource branch

sales and rentals, the same as we have in the "Contributions"

in the estimates.

But there is one very glaring error or deviation from

previous bookkeeping methods in the budget. In the estimates of

revenue which we have before us there is no revenue in the

section on "Contributions from Government Enterprises." There

is no revenue whatsoever from the British Columbia Petroleum

Corp.

Now I know, Mr. Chairman, and you know that the British

Columbia Petroleum Corp. is going to be functioning in the

fiscal year 1975-76. We know that it's going to make more money

in the current year than it made in the last year because it

will be

[ Page 736 ]

operating for a full 12 months. We know that the Premier is

going to endeavour to get an increase in the price of natural

gas. We know that the taxpayers of British Columbia are going

to be paying for a full year the increased punitive taxation in

their gas bill which the Premier is taking back into revenue to

try and prove that he's getting a great deal more from natural

resources. I hope the people of the province realize that a lot

of the return on the natural resources is coming right out of

their back pocketbook, particularly in the north were they have

to heat their homes 10 months out of the year. We realize

that's going on out there. It's another form of punitive

taxation, the same as the gasoline tax which people in the

north will be paying for to subsidize transportation in the bus

system in the south.

What really bothers me is that I've asked the Premier just

where he has put the revenue from the B.C. Petroleum Corp. and

he says that it's under "Privileges, Licences, and Natural

Resource Taxes." They say it's a change in bookkeeping this

year. But under that section, Mr. Chairman, there is no mention

specifically of the B.C. Petroleum Corp.

So the Premier said yesterday afternoon that there's a

financial figure under the

section "Petroleum and Natural Gas

Royalties and Fees" — which is a figure of $230 million. But how

are we to know, Mr. Chairman, how much of that figure is from

the B.C. Petroleum Corp.?

I don't know, Mr. Chairman, whether this is a direct

endeavour on the part of the Minister of Finance or his

advisers to mislead the people of British Columbia or whether

it's an endeavour to actually hide the facts from the

Legislature.

You know, we're talking about a lot of personal increase in

taxes in the coming year. The Premier has made certain

commitments to the municipalities to give them a large sum of

money from the increased price of natural gas. What we'd like

to know, and what I'm sure you'd like to know, Mr. Chairman, is

what is the revenue going to be from the British Columbia

Petroleum Corp.? I have a very strong feeling that the Premier

is trying to mislead the people of British Columbia. The reason

I have to say that is because if....

HON. MR. BARRETT: You don't believe that.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes I do, because you won't tell me.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'll tell you.

MR. PHILLIPS: No. You said "a substantial sum." If you tell

me how much money you plan to take in of this $230 million, I

won't have to think that you're misleading.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You've got the total figure.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I've got the total figure. I'd like to

know what basis it's on.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would just point out to the

Hon. Member that you are imputing an improper motive to the

Premier, and I would ask you to withdraw it.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I have no other alternative until the

Premier answers the question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member knows the rules

of the House. You cannot impute an improper motive to another

Member of the House. You may state something like this and say

that the facts appear in error, but you should not impute an

improper motive. I would ask the Hon. Member to withdraw the

imputation.

MR. PHILLIPS: What would you think if you were in my

position?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I am asking the Hon. Member to

obey the rules of the House, to obey the rules of parliament. I

would ask the Hon. Member to withdraw the imputation.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll obey the rules of parliament, and maybe

the Premier could explain to me.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I did yesterday.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, Mr. Chairman, the Premier didn't

yesterday. He said "a substantial amount" but I know that the

Premier has in this estimate figured on the price for natural

gas he hopes to get from Ottawa, and he has included it in this

revenue.

He is saying in this that the British Columbia Petroleum

Corp. will make up approximately $150 million to $180 million

of this figure. Now based on last year's performance ...

whereas I pointed out that in the first nine months the

dividends from the petroleum corporation were only $26 million.

The licence fees and so forth were not even half of the $230

million figure. What bothers me about this, and the thing I

would like the Premier to explain to me, is that if he has

estimated the increased revenue from the petroleum corporation

based on an increased price of natural gas which he hopes

Ottawa will agree to, then I'm being misled because nowhere in

the estimates does he show the figure coming out. Do you

understand what I'm saying? He's putting the big figure in and

he's taking it into his total revenue, but

[ Page 737 ]

in his estimates there is no estimate of expenditures to

share this resource with the municipalities.

If the Premier could explain this I'd be happy to have him

explain it to me. I'd be most happy to have it explained to me

because maybe it's just an oversight on the Premier's part. But

he can't have it both ways. If he's going to put the increase

in, he's got to show where that money's going out to the

municipalities.

If he doesn't explain it, I say that he isn't telling the

entire truth in his estimates. The taxpayers of this province

have a right to know and the responsibility of Her Majesty's

loyal opposition is to get the answers to these questions. I'd

like the Premier...

Maybe if I take my place, the Premier would explain this.

Possibly it's an error on my part.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'll explain it, but I cannot guarantee

that you will understand it.

MR. PHILLIPS: If I don't understand it I can always question

you on detail. Would the Premier try and explain?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, and I will go through it very slowly

because I know the Member prefers that approach. The Member is

very quiet today, subdued with embarrassment about not

understanding yesterday. I appreciate that and I don't want too

many people to know that.

Now here we go again.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, I'm not really mean.

AN HON. MEMBER: Just like Napoleon. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: I accept your definition. (Laughter.)

We are going to go back to Ottawa next month and ask for an

increase in the price for natural gas. We have a commitment

from the federal government that there will be an increase. I

am not in a position to say publicly what figure we are going

for because I think the federal government has a right to know

that specific first.

However, if you want to estimate the range, I think I can

refer you fairly to the court decision that was upheld today

related to the export of 55 million additional cubit feet per

day from Alberta to Idaho. That court decision, which was

upheld by United States Energy Commission, will allow the price

to range from a minimum $1.61 to $1.93.

For those skeptics who said that my position was incorrect in asking for a

substantial increase in gas, and to the editorial writers of unnamed papers

who scoffed at the figures I was using, I would hope that they would write editorials

today saying that if the 55 million cubic feet per day additional export from

Alberta is worth the range between $1.61 and $1.93 today, what the justification

is for allowing B.C. gas to still be sold in the U.S. at $1 per thousand cubic

feet. I'm sure those editorials would substantiate and agree that I was correct

in my request for an increase.

The equivalent British Thermal Unit price, at a minimum, for

oil used as heating versus natural gas is $1.93. I made it

clear when I was in Ottawa last time that I didn't expect them

to go to $1.93 immediately, but I took the position, Mr. Member — and I think underneath you'll agree with this position — that

I could not stand by and allow our natural gas to be sold to

the United States, under federal order, at a price far below

its real worth. Unfortunately, I was attacked by an American

newspaper after that statement as a blue-eyed Arab. They should

do a little research themselves. (Laughter.)

Nonetheless, withstanding that cavalier attack from our

American friends, I had the opportunity of receiving unexpected

support, but not from some Members of this House who should be

fighting for British Columbia. I have yet to hear the official

opposition say: "Right on, Mr. Premier." I got one telegram

from the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer)

urging me on to my fight, but I never heard from the official

opposition. The official opposition's position, when I asked

for more money, was to quiver with fear; and the official

opposition leader said they might retaliate.

MR. BENNETT: I said your methods.

[Ms. Brown in the chair]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, my methods!

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, Mr. Member! If you want to justify

giving away our natural gas....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Listen to who's talking about publicity;

they go out and buy hours of television time, radio time. How

do they justify the position of saying we should sell our gas

at $1?

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): It runs in

the family.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, you said: "Don't upset the

Americans." They're paying....

[ Page 738 ]

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, Mr. Member, I'm glad you're back in,

because I like to see you around once in a while. Now that

you're here, why don't you just sit and listen? The position

you took was that if we raised the price, or asked for a price

raise, the Americans would retaliate. Now, Alberta has just

today been granted the right to export gas — 55 million cubic

feet at $1.61 to $1.93, on a ruling by an American court. Will

the United States retaliate against the state court in Idaho?

That decision, made in an American jurisdiction, says the

Americans must pay $1.61 to $1.93, and the official

opposition's position was: "Don't ask for a raise because the

Americans might retaliate." The Americans have more

understanding, and their courts have made a decision with more

justice to Canadian gas, than we can get out of the National

Energy Board or the timid Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Bennett).

Far be it for me to be the upholder of the Idaho court, but

I wish we had that kind of leadership in Canada. Now we will go

back to Ottawa with the case strengthened because of this Idaho

incident — and I don't intend to flog the federal government

with that matter of record. It's enough to be embarrassed to

read it, without me reminding them of it. I'm not the kind of

politician to go running down to Ottawa and say: "See what the

Idaho court did?"

MR. WALLACE: You'll mention it, of course. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'll mention it. You're right, Mr. Member,

I'll mention it.

MR. WALLACE: In passing.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'll draw it to their attention, and I'll

your friends, explain to me how I'm going to tell the people of

British Columbia, when