1979 Legislative Session: ist Session, 32nd 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, JUNE 26, 1979

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

371 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

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

Introduction and first reading –– 371

Oral questions.

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

Zeballos health care. Mr. Gablemann –– 371

Timber licences. Mr. King –– 372

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

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

Funding for Bates inquiry. Mr. Skelly –– 373

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

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

Ministerial Statement

1.5 litre soft-drink bottles.

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 374

Mr. Levi –– 374

Routine Proceedings

Committee of Supply: Executive Council estimates.

On vote 6.

Mr. Barrett –– 374

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 375

Hon. Mr. Hewitt –– 385

Mr. Howard –– 387

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 389

Hon. Mr. Bennett 392

Mr. Lea –– 395

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 396

TUESDAY, JUNE 26, 1979

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

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

MR. MUSSALLEM:

In the gallery today is the president of our constituency of Dewdney,

Mr. John Gilchrist. I would appreciate it very much if the House would

make him welcome.

MR. KEMPF: It gives me great

pleasure to introduce five people from my home town of Houston. They

are His Worship Mayor Bas Studer, Alderman Norman Groot, Bill Wieden

and Dave Hamblin. Accompanying them, Mr. Speaker, is the clerk for the

district municipality of Houston, Mr. John Spanier. I would ask the

House to make them very welcome.

MR. LEGGATT: It is

my pleasure to introduce Bill and Joan Johnson, who are happily

visiting from Sonora, California, and spending some of that good

American money right here, where it should be.

MR. HALL:

Visiting us today, as the summer months are upon us and the schools are

closing, are a number of students. Among them are two groups from

Surrey. One is a group from the William F. Davidson Elementary School

with their teacher, Mr. Sihota. The second group is from the Bridgeview

Elementary School, accompanied by their teacher, Mrs. Ewan. I would

like the House to welcome them.

MR. HYNDMAN: Mr.

Speaker, it's always a very proud moment when members of this assembly

can introduce their own family to other members for the first time.

This afternoon, to my regret, the youngest member of the Hyndman clan,

Bryn, who is age 1, has had some pressing engagements in Vancouver and

can't be with us. But in the gallery are my wife Vicki, her mother,

also Bryn's brother Jamie, age 9, and sisters Tory, age 7 and Nancy,

age 5. I ask members to make them most welcome.

MR. BARNES:

I would like the House to welcome a group of students from the Lord

Roberts Elementary School in the constituency of Vancouver Centre, West

End, with their teachers Ms. Closter and Mr. Brear.

Introduction of Bills

UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA

FOUNDATION ACT, 1979

On a motion by Mr. Smith, Bill M202,

University of Victoria Foundation Act, 1979, introduced, read a first

time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading

at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

REPORT ON SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILDREN

MS. BROWN:

My question is to the Minister of Human Resources. The United Way has

just completed a report which they did for TRACY, a community

cooperative group committed to the protection of children, on the

sexual abuse of children in British Columbia. Has the minister received

a copy of this report yet?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr.

Speaker, I'm going to be meeting tomorrow with representatives of the

organization and I'm looking forward to that meeting when that

discussion will probably take place. I would be pleased to tell the

member of the program which the Ministry of Human Resources has in

place or coming on stream in that regard, but rather than take the time

of the House I would be pleased to share that with her at a later date.

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

HON. MRS. McCARTHY:

Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge I haven't read a copy of the report; I

believe the ministry may have received it through our deputy minister.

MS. BROWN:

Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether it would be possible for the minister to

read a copy of this report before she meets with that group tomorrow,

because I think that's very important. The report deals with the

program which is already on stream and the fact that it is ineffective,

and with the fact that the increase of prostitution among children in

this province is growing. Would the minister read a copy of that report?

MR. SPEAKER:

Order, please, hon. member. The member is clearly abusing the forms of

the House. I might warn her that it is the kind of behaviour which

makes the Speaker reticent to call on members, if there is any doubt

that abuse may take place.

ZEBALLOS HEALTH CARE

MR. GABELMANN:

I have a question for the Minister of Health. In view of the fact that

there are now no medical facilities in the village of Zeballos, would

the minister confirm that his ministry, together with the

Comox-Strathcona Regional District Hospital Board, is making

arrangements to provide a medical clinic in that community?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Mr. Speaker, the ministry is making some arrangements to attempt to

deal with the situation in Zeballos, but we don't have a specific

recommendation yet from the health officer in the area, who flew into

Zeballos immediately the two doctors — who were reported in the Colonist last week — made certain complaints about the existing facility.

Dr.

Benson, who is the health officer for the North Island area, made an

investigation of the present situation. I'm expecting that he'I

probably be making recommendations to the Ministry of Health today and

that we will then be able to act on those recommendations.

[ Page 372 ]

Further

to a question asked by the member before on an earlier occasion

regarding the situation at Zeballos, someone seems to have their

information incorrect or out of order in regard to the way this

situation developed. There has never ever been a letter to me from

anyone in the Zeballos area about the conditions in that area. There

has never been a letter to me from that member. There has never been a

letter since I took office from the previous member or from any member

of council in Zeballos, or from any medical or health officials. There

was one letter that came to my office, copied to me, written to the

Regional District Hospital Board in Courtenay on May 24. In that letter

they have very accurately outlined the state of the medical facilities

in Zeballos, starting from 1974, when there were some recommendations

made to council there and to the regional district from a Dr. Richards

of Gold River, who in 1974 wrote to the then Minister of Health

recommending that a clinic be set up. The village clerk at that time

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

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

Yes, this is in answer to the question I took partly as notice last

week from the same member on the same subject. This letter was referred

to and it was subsequently reported in the press that this letter had

come to me. I want to make sure they understand that it was never

addressed to me, and I've never had any mail on this in the four years

I've been in office.

The letter refers to Mr. Cocke, who

recommended to the Minister of Public Works, Mr. Hartley, that a

facility be established in Zeballos. In September of 1975 Mr. Hartley,

however, said that that was not possible, that the needs were not

sufficient in Zeballos to warrant the construction of a public service

building. Mrs. Kirk, the village clerk, then goes on to say: "Somewhat

discouraged by this response, council tabled the problem until

recently..." when there were some other things done. "Unfortunately a

Dr. Vesey of Tahsis announced that he was going to make recommendations

but never did make any recommendations to the Minister of Health." The

moment this letter came to our attention and the moment there was some

complaint through the press from the doctors in the area, Dr. Benson

was immediately dispatched. He has made a report. I expect to have it

today or tomorrow, and we'I take action on it immediately.

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. members, I understand that this was partly in answer to a question

taken on notice. It would be better advised, I would think, to make

lengthy answers to questions taken on notice outside of question

period, in order to guarantee as much time for questioning as possible.

MR. GABELMANN:

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the history lesson, but I would like to ask

the minister why, following discussion of this matter in this House two

and a half weeks ago during the budget debate, when I quoted at length

from this letter, which arrived on June 4 he did not take any action at

that point in encouraging Dr. Benson to go to Zeballos to investigate

the situation.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, we took action almost immediately.

I would really like to, but I don't hang on every word that that member

says in this House, and I'm not able to pick up everything that he says

in this House. I have a feeling that it is the responsibility of members to

ensure that if there is a specific problem in their constituency they should

make sure that the minister knows about it. That member, Mr. Speaker, has never

approached me on this matter in a personal way; nor did the previous member,

the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford), who also had some responsibility over the

years.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker

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

MS. SANFORD: It is a correction.

MR. SPEAKER:

If it is a point of order I can entertain it, or if it is a question I

can entertain it. But this is question period, and we cannot enter into

debate. Perhaps while the member is rephrasing her question....

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

TIMBER LICENCES

MR. KING:

Mr. Speaker, I asked a question of the Minister of Forests yesterday

with respect to the assignment of any timber material to the small

business program. The minister misunderstood my question, I believe. I

would like to rephrase it, Mr. Speaker, and ask whether or not the

minister has removed any timber from any existing licence holders in

the province of British Columbia, and assigned that timber to the small

business program. I am aware that the regulations have not been

promulgated as yet, but the mechanism resides in the Act, I believe.

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

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

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

The one that immediately comes to mind is the change in Can-Cel's tree

farm licence No. 1. A part of the area removed has been designated as

an area which will be available for sales under the small business

program. However, sales have not yet been made or advertised.

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

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

SALARIES OF CROWN

CORPORATION EXECUTIVES

MR. LEGGATT: My question is

directed to the Minister of Economic Development. It concerns the

recent resignation of Mr. Donald Duguid, president and chief executive

officer of that BCBC. Can the minister advise the

[ Page 373 ]

House

what salary level Mr. Duguid was at, and could he also advise the House

what salary level that corporation will be offering for his successor?

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

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

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

The

supplementary question is this. The minister's government has insisted

from time to time that they couldn't release the salary of Mr. David

Helliwell on the grounds that it's a public corporation in the private

sector. I'm asking a question about a Crown corporation, where public

moneys are being expended. Is the minister intending to change the law

in British Columbia so that the salaries of Crown corporation

executives are available to representatives of the public?

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

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The answer to the last question, Mr.

Speaker, is no. I will be most happy to provide the member the salary

level of Mr. Duguid. I understand it was on the order paper, and I'Il

look it up. At any rate, I'I make sure the details are right, and I

will take the questions as notice.

B.C. GOVERNMENT NEWS

MR. MACDONALD:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Provincial Secretary relating to

a question I asked him the week before last about public servants

getting out the B.C. Government News

in Vancouver. Can the minister tell me if glaring inefficiency in his

department and the public service is why he's not providing that

answer? Or is it a request from the Premier, whose estimates are now

before the House?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I think that on

behalf of the individuals who serve this ministry, I would want to

apologize for the member's inference that there is inefficiency.

Mr.

Speaker, I do owe the member an answer to the question. I had it here

one day, but, I'm sorry, I didn't see the member during question

period. I've noticed him here the last two or three days, but I do not

have the information. I undertake — through you, Mr. Speaker — to bring

the information back to the member at the earliest opportunity,

FUNDING FOR BATES INQUIRY

MR. SKELLY:

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Environment. Has the

minister made funds available to the Bates inquiry for public-interest

groups making representations to that inquiry, and if so, when were the

funds forwarded and in what amounts?

HON. MR. MAIR:

Mr. Speaker, funds are available to Dr. Bates. The amount, if my

recollection is correct, is $225,000, and it is for the purpose that

the member mentioned. I can't recall whether or not that money has

gone, but I can certainly find out, and I'I undertake to bring that

information back to the House.

MR. SKELLY: On a

supplementary, Mr. Speaker. my understanding is that none of the

public-interest groups have received any money at all. even though the

inquiry has been in progress for some time now. I wonder if the

minister could look into this matter and make sure that funds are made

available as quickly as possible.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr.

Speaker, it might be useful for the member to know the process that was

undertaken. Dr. Bates was asked to assess the various interest groups —

I suppose to say the "validity" of their position is not putting it

properly — to determine those which really have got a proposition to

put forward, those who could combine with others, and those who perhaps

do not need funding. He filed the full report with me a matter of ten

days ago, and the requests for money came at that time. We have

undertaken to give him the money. So even if he has it, I doubt if he

has had an opportunity to disburse it. He certainly will have it very

soon and you can tell the groups that they will have their funds within

a very short period of time.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr.

Speaker, I would like to answer two questions posed by the member for

Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) yesterday, if leave can be granted.

Leave granted.

IMPAIRED DRIVING

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

the present time, the law is that ICBC is legally obligated only to

cover minimum limits in the event of third-party victims as a result of

impaired driving. The minimum limit at the present time, I understand,

is $75,000. Would the Attorney-General advise the House if he intends

to bring forward a change in that law so that people in the position of

being quadriplegics or paraplegics have some assurance that there is

protection under the law if they are victims of impaired driving?

minister responsible for the ICBC to this House, I give you the

following answer. Since March 1, 1979, the Insurance Corporation has

been applying the limits of its insurance coverage limits rather than

the minimum limit of $75,000 in cases where its insured has breached a

condition of coverage. For example, if a person who has $500,000

coverage has injured someone while drinking and driving, the full

$500,000 is available to the injured party, A regulation to this effect

will be recommended to cabinet by the corporation.

The

second question, which was again to the Attorney-General but is being

answered by myself, was: "While the minister is taking that as notice,

would he also have a look at the impact upon the impaired driver

himself? Is the minister also considering some change in the rules of

subrogation against the insured?"

The answer is that a

person. In buying insurance, protects himself against financial loss

due to his negligent act, not his criminal act. In other words, a

person is

[ Page

374 ]

protected against those things that happen

accidentally; but crimes are not accidents. People who drink and drive

place in extreme jeopardy the lives of those around them, and should

therefore suffer the consequences of their actions. The corporation

feels that the motorists of British Columbia should not have to pay the

total cost for someone who has injured an innocent citizen while

committing a Criminal Code offence, if that person is in a position to

pay part or all of those costs. The corporation is not considering any

changes in the legislation or regulations as they apply to its right to

recover from a person who has broken the Criminal Code money that it

has paid to an innocent citizen. The corporation has had the right of

recovery for other breaches of Autoplan since 1973. These include

driving under suspension of licence, fleeing from police, drag-racing,

et cetera. I hope I've given a full explanation to the hon. member.

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

Leave granted.

URANIUM AND THORIUM

MINING PERMITS

HON. MR. MAIR: The question was:

have a new question on a specific permit. With respect to the uranium

and thorium surface exploration permit No. MX19/79, issued on April 17

to Lacana Mining Corporation for the Upper Adams River area, an area

that is very sensitive to fisheries values, was this ministry consulted?

staff tell me they received a copy of notice to work on the mineral

property, Form No. 10 11, on March 22 of this year, with respect to the

above. The form, I am instructed, outlined simple radiometric

prospecting under geophysical

section and detailed soil sampling under

geochemical section, with no equipment, and with minor hand trenching.

am also advised that such a simple survey, in the opinion of the staff

involved, would not impact fish and wildlife, and is of an extremely

low priority. They also offer the opinion that in approximately 40

mineral referrals they receive per month, this is probably of the

lowest priority.

They go on to say the mineral permit that

the member quoted is a federal government permit, but that the mining

company does have a provincial permit that covers the province. For the

House's information, the normal procedure in matters of this sort is to

refer such applications for comment to other resource ministries such

as Lands, Forests, Agriculture, Water, Fish and Wildlife. With regard

to the exploration in the Adams River area, adverse recommendations

were not received from any of those agencies.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Please proceed.

1.5-LITRE SOFT-DRINK BOTTLES

HON. MR. NIELSEN: With respect to the hazards associated with the 1.5-litre

soft-drink bottles, the federal government, through their Ministry of Consumer

and Corporate Affairs, under the Hazardous Products Act, is conducting an examination

of the hazards which may or may not be implicit with these bottles.

have been advised today that the Retail Council of Canada has advised

retailers to suspend sales of such bottles. Three major chains,

primarily in eastern Canada — Steinbergs, Dominion Stores and Loblaws —

apparently have agreed.

We have been in contact with the

major chain stores in British Columbia today — at least with some of

their representatives — and we are advised that Safeway stores and

Super-Valu stores will sell out their existing stock and will not

replace their inventory of the 1 1/2 litre bottles until the issue of

safety is resolved. I will later today be requesting that all retail

outlets cease the sale of this size of bottle, and I will be asking the

bottlers to cease bottling at this time for sale until the federal

government, through their ministry, have had the opportunity of

concluding their tests.

It would appear, Mr. Speaker, that

our legislation in British Columbia appears to be inadequate to order

to ban the sale of such bottles. Our legal staff is looking through the

statutes to see if such authority exists, but their early opinion is

that it does not. Therefore we rely to a large degree upon the federal

Ministry of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and their legislation.

Just

to recap, we will be making a request today that the sale of this size

of bottle be stopped until such time as the federal government

completes its examination.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Minister.

MR. LEVI:

Mr. Speaker, I'm pleased that the minister has made the statement,

particularly in view of some of the serious accidents that have taken

place in respect to the use of these bottles.

I would

suggest, perhaps, that the minister might be able to look at the

provisions in the Health Act and see whether in fact there is something

there that we might use. I would sincerely hope that we get adequate

cooperation from the stores and that they will not continue to sell

them. I was a little alarmed when Safeway said they'd sell the balance

of the product. I think that that really is selling to people what has

been demonstrated as being something of a time-bomb in terms of the

kind of accidents.

I must say that the government has moved,

but I would hope very much that they would look at other legislation

that we do have on the books that would be able to prevent this.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

(continued)

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

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Premier some questions under his

estimates which have yet to be answered, and I'd like to repeat those.

I'd also like to bring to the Premier's attention a correction perhaps

of an

[ Page 375 ]

impression

he mistakenly is leaving around the province regarding population in

British Columbia. He made the same statement again yesterday. Perhaps

somebody is ill advising him, but just a moment's notice to the library

will get the correct information.

The Premier has attempted

to leave the impression that population left the province of British

Columbia during the NDP administration. The population did leave at one

time in the last five or six years, but he was out in terms of what

year. To avoid the Premier spreading misinformation, I'd share with him

on a moment's notice the information that could be made available from

the library.

Statistics Canada publishes these population

figures for the province of British Columbia, and I think it’s

worthwhile to read them so that the Premier knows that when he makes

these statements about what happened during the NDP administration, he

will be absolutely correct. The Statistics Canada figures are as

follows: October 1, 1972 — 2,261,000; January 1973 — 2,280,000; April —

2, 292,000; July — 2, 307,000; October — 2,326,000; January 1974 —

2,349,000; April — 2,364,000; July — 2,382,000; October — 2,400,000;

January, 1975 — 2,418,000; April — 2,427,000; July — 2,437,000; October

— 2,447,000; January 1, 1976 — 2,457,000; April — 2,462,000; July 1,

1976, came the first drop in about eight to ten years — under the

Social Credit administration. It went from 2,461,000 down to 2,460,000.

The only drop was during the Social Credit administration time. And

then it continued to rise again. In 1976 there was a dramatic drop in

the increase. The increase was only 4,000 in six months and slowed down

again and did not pick up until later. The only drop, not in whole

numbers but in ratio of increase, took place under the Social Credit

administration.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I would like to

restate that more people were leaving than were coming. This is from

Statistics Canada. This is interprovincial migration, not the total

population increase, that is how many babies are born. It measures the

number coming into British Columbia. You were Premier and you've been

in the government for about 20 years in this Legislature, so you know

this information is available. It shows in-migration to the province,

and it shows out-migration. In 1971, 74,000 people came into the

province and 49,000 left. We had a net gain of 25,000.

1972, 72,338 in-migrated to British Columbia while 47,411 left. That

trend continued until after two years of the New Democratic Party.

In-migration dropped, instead of the gains of 25,000, 24,000 and

30,000. In 1975 we had the first drop. Only 61,135 came into the

province while 63,999 left — a tremendous reversal of in-migration to

B.C.

The Leader of the Opposition, the first member for

Vancouver East, looks a little pale because again he tried to deal with

accurately showing the people accurately who come to the province and

who left. In 1977 this trend reversed — 66,000 in, 53,000 out, for a

net gain of 13,000. In 1978, there were 68,000 in and 51,000 out, a net

gain of 17,000. You see the trend now; you see the trend had dropped

under the New Democratic Party. More people were leaving. Now you see

more people coming back than are leaving.

This information

is available; it is available to all of the members of this House. It

is from Statistics Canada and it's called "Interprovincial Migration."

That means, that after two years of NDP, instead of people coming in

record numbers, we had people leaving for the first time. Let's put

that on the record.

You know, it's like that Mexican gas

contract. I have written to the United States asking for a copy of the

$3.50 American-Mexican gas contract that the first member for Vancouver

East talked about during the election campaign and I still haven't got

an answer. They seem to have some difficulty finding it.

MR. BARRETT:

The fact is that there has been a steady increase in population. No

matter how the Premier tries to say that more come in and more out, the

facts are that the population has increased. He's just admitted it now.

Now

he gives the explanation. The fact is, Mr. Chairman, that he has

admitted now that there has been a net increase in the population.

which is exactly what he neglected to say all alone. I want to thank

the Premier for correcting that statement. There has been a net

increase in population all along, a net increase and you admitted it.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Quit changing your story.

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

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

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Chairman, with the Mexican gas price, the Mexicans are now

negotiating. If you listened to exactly what I said during the

campaign, I said negotiating.

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

MR. BARRETT:

The Premier dodged a debate during the campaign to correct it and then

tries to come in here and say something else. The Mexicans are

negotiating for a price, as stated by President Carter.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT:

The Mexicans are negotiating for a price of $3.20 per thousand cubic

feet. The pipeline has not been completed, and I made that very clear.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. All members will have an opportunity to participate in

this debate: however, if they all wish to participate at the same time,

the Chair has no option but to call the members to order. Please

continue.

MR. BARRETT: The Mexicans are negotiating

for a price of $3.20. They will not complete the pipeline until they

get a satisfactory completion of the negotiations. That is a fact and

the Minister of Energy. Mines and Petroleum Resources knows that very

well. The pipeline is not completed. They are negotiating with the

President; that's exactly what I said during the campaign. I made it

very clear.

[ Page 376 ]

know that the members are uncomfortable. I know that the members are

trying to justify the fact that in three and a half years the price of

natural gas we sell in the U.S. market has gone from $1.96 U.S. to only

$2.30 U.S. The international market price for natural gas is being

negotiated by Mexico. They didn't complete the line and President

Carter was involved in the negotiations because Mexico is asking for

$3.20. I asked in the election campaign and I ask now: if negotiations

for $3.20 are good enough for Mexico, why are we selling our gas for

$2.30? I'm asking the Premier of this province why we are selling our

gas at $2.30 when international market prices dictate a much higher

price. I asked him that during the election campaign and he never

answered.

Interjections.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. I ask the ministers especially to restrain themselves. I

know it's difficult. I might point out, hon. members, that the

opposition has given the Premier the courtesy of silence during his

estimates, so you perhaps might like to extend the same courtesy.

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

Beyond

those questions which the Premier still has not answered, I'm asking

him if he's prepared to release the Schroeder report on external

investment, that was commissioned by this government, and the B.C.

Central Credit Union report commissioned under the financial

institutions Act of this province. Those two reports have not been

released publicly. Does the Premier intend to release them, and if so,

when? Since this is estimates, I'I wait for the answer now.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT:

Well, Mr. Chairman, I don't really think that it takes that much time.

Yesterday I asked the Premier two simple questions, and he got up and

filibustered for 40 minutes; then he got up and filibustered for 18

minutes.

Interjection.

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

I'm

asking two simple questions: Will the Premier release the Schroeder

report? Will the Premier release the B.C. Central Credit Union report

on the financial institutions Act?

HON. MR. BENNETT:

First of all, I'd like to get back to the gas pricing. I know there are

going to be a number of disillusioned people who heard the first member

for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett) specifically state during the election

campaign that if Mexico was getting $3.50 from the U.S., so should

British Columbia.

A young man came up to me at one of my

meetings and said: "I've just heard Mr. Barrett. I'm going to vote for

him because he's going to get us as much money from the U.S. as the

Mexicans are getting. He told us they were getting $3.50." I said:

"Look, there isn't even a pipeline." He said: "That's not what he says.

That's why I'm going to vote for him." I guess there are many more like

him to whom perhaps you had difficulty conveying the message. There are

thousands of people in this province who apparently attended meetings

and listened to you. In fact, I remember an interview with Laurier

Lapierre, during which I came to the conclusion that that's what you

said — I heard it very clearly.

Since we're on a subject

very close to his heart, perhaps the Minister of Energy, Mines and

Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) could get up in my estimates and

deal with it. I have said that since 1974 — as all members in this

House know — the National Energy Board sets the price of exports. It

does so on the recommendation of the provinces. Our provincial

government has made recommendations using the B.C. Energy Commission to

both supply the data and make the case to the National Energy Board.

We've had a number of increases.

I want to deal with another

incorrect statement which, again the first member for Vancouver East

has said on Laurier Lapierre and other times. He said that when he left

office they were getting $1.96 per thousand cubic feet. When we came to

government we were getting $1.60. We got two subsequent price increases

to $1.80 and to $1.96. That took place over a year. With additional

increases and with monetary change, we are getting substantially more.

We'I get more because we have a submission to the National Energy Board

now. This business of playing fast and loose with the figures confuses

the electorate, and your credibility is not only shaken in here but out

there. Wait until I go and tell the young fellow that you didn't say

what he heard you say. He voted for you.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) says that anybody who doesn't

finish high school is not very bright. If that is the view of the New

Democratic Party, I'I tell those young people out there the low opinion

he has of them. He called that across the floor; he doesn't think much

of them.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to deal with this business of gas because the member

talked as if there is some sort of jump. Now he says: "Oh, I didn't

say $3.50; that's what they're negotiating for." Well, I could

go down and say I want $10, come back and go around the province and say: "We're

getting $10." It might not be obtainable. That's like going and making

an offer on a used car or a new car, or a house, and offering 10 percent of

what they're asking.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

What's that about someone having to buy a used car? Is there something

wrong? That's all my son could afford. Do you think there is something

wrong with him having to buy a used car? [Laughter.] The

[ Page 377 ]

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please address the Chair.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Chairman, he doesn't like those who don't have the purchase price

for a new car; he says there's something wrong with buying a used car.

The member certainly is going to have to explain those statements later.

That's

what negotiating is, but don't ever sell it as fact. Don't tell the

people that the Mexicans are getting $3.50 through a pipeline that

doesn't exist. We talked about the way gas prices were arrived at. We

talked about the application before the NEB. We talked about the price

increases, and we showed the years in which the increases have been

achieved. All the information has been made public a number of times,

Mr. Chairman. All that information is public — when the rates were

achieved, on what date and what the rate was,

Now the

Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Hewitt),

offered, during the election campaign which the first member for

Vancouver East keeps bringing up, a large sum of money if he could

produce that contract. He wouldn't even answer. The first member for

Vancouver East wouldn't answer. How much did you offer — $2,000? It

must be embarrassing for the first member for Vancouver East. You

wouldn't respond because you didn't want the young fellow to find out.

Once you got his vote it didn't matter. Perhaps in four years he'll

forget.

Now in regard to reports to government, both the

reports the first member for Vancouver East talks about I have not

read. I can find out what they are. There is a lot of advice to

government and we'll deal with the reports. They are there for the

government to make decisions, and the minister can either choose to use

the advice or reject it. It becomes part of the advice to government.

It is quite logical that they do exist and that they are in the hands

of the ministry, and the ministry could be dealing kith them. When you

get to the appropriate ministry, whether it be the Provincial Secretary

or Economic Development — whoever commissioned them — certainly you can

deal with that minister. They certainly haven't been presented as full

cabinet documents to our government.

You can ask about all

the reports in the world, but there have been none delivered to the

Premier's office, to my knowledge, that were commissioned by me that I

haven't made public. If they were commissioned on my behalf, I've read

them.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, in the case of the

Schroeder report, perhaps the Premier is so busy his memory lapsed for

a while. It was his government that made the announcement shortly after

coming into office that this major report would be undertaken, and gave

it great public significance.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Who did that?

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

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

MR. BARRETT:

Well, you've had the report for some time. It is of major significance

in terms of capital formation for this province, and you're saying that

you haven't read it. Perhaps you've been too busy, but it is of major

significance. That's what you told us it was. I would suggest, Mr.

Premier, that perhaps someone jogged your memory about the Schroeder

report and the amount of money spent on it.

As a matter of

fact, as I recall, there was a debate in this House about the

connection between Schroeder and Mr. Bonner being on its board.

Nonetheless, I'm pretty much aware of the fact that it was an issue of

great discussion at the time. You participated in the discussion and

perhaps it just slipped your mind.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Probably.

MR. BARRETT:

Thank you. and you've given an undertaking that you're going to read

the report or check it out. I would like an undertaking....

HON. MR. BENNETT: No.

MR. BARRETT:

No! Before the question is even asked the Premier says no. Will you

stay on as Premier? No? Thank you very much. If you're going to give

"noes" before the question is asked, I've got a series of questions I

can ask. Are you happy with the cabinet? No? That's good; we're getting

somewhere. Is the cabinet happy with him? No? Okay.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Oh, Dave!

Interjection.

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

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

MR. BARRETT:

Well, Mr. Chairman, that's not the impression that I get in terms of

releasing the report. I think the importance was stressed by your

government. Now why has it been kept secret? I don't know — maybe

you've got a reason to keep the document secret. I'd like to know that

too. I accept that, but I'd like to know the reason why it's being kept

secret.

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

MR. BARRETT:

Secondly Mr. Chairman, the report on the B.C. Central Credit Union was,

according to my information, given to the Premier in February of 1976,

within 90 days of your assuming office. I understand it went directly

to your office. The B.C. Central Credit Union and the committee struck

by the Finance department were to report on implementing the financial

institutions Act that was passed in this House in the spring of 1975.

It's my understanding that the report was delivered directly to the

Premier's office, and has stayed there, secret, ever since.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Your information is wrong.

[ Page 378 ]

MR. BARRETT:

Okay, my information is incorrect. Would the Premier inform us where

the report is, and whether or not he intends to have the government

release the report? I'd like to know that.

Mr. Speaker, I

want to go back on to the energy question, because the Premier finds it

convenient not to tell the whole story. It's selective memory. I can

understand that — selection of memory is perhaps better than momentary

embarrassment. The fact is that the price of $1.60 was negotiated

during our administration, with a price increase to $1.96. That was

negotiated during our administration; it did not come into effect until

after we were defeated. But it was negotiated by our administration. Is

that not right, Mr. Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources

(Hon. Mr. Hewitt) ? A two-stage price hike was negotiated before we

left office at a dominion provincial conference, which is a matter of

public record. The fact is that the first step was $1.60 and the second

step was $1.96, negotiated in two steps before we left office.

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

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

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

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

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

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

What

I have pointed out is that after that second stage of $2.16, all it has

increased through all of your efforts — as you correctly outline, the

procedure is that representations by the provincial government must be

made to the National Energy Board — was from $1.96 to the $2.30, a

34-cent increase in a matter of approximately 36 months, while the BTU

comparable price for oil was rising much, much higher than that

particular price rise for natural gas.

Mr. Premier, you can

joke and giggle and titillate the ambitions of the backbench, who

respond by pounding their desks, hoping to make it into the cabinet.

But that still doesn't answer your responsibility in trying to achieve

a world market price of our natural gas into the U.S. market. Turn

behind you and ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources what Indonesia is getting for liquefied natural gas. The

Mexicans are not going to sell it until they get the price they want.

They're not fools. They're not about to give it away. I made that very

clear during the election campaign.

HON. MR. HEWITT: You misled the people.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Chairman, I love to hear those interjections from the Minister of

Energy, who really has not stated up to this time what this

government's policy is on the pricing of natural gas. What are you

aiming for? What is your goal? What have you said publicly that you

hope to achieve? Let the Premier know. Do you think $3.20 is a fair

price? Nod your head.

At $3.50 is Indonesia's price a fair

price for LNG with only 8 percent loss in conversion? Nod your head. I

made the claim during the election campaign and I say it again now:

this government has sold natural gas at prices far below the equivalent

BTU price for energy anywhere else in the world. We should be dealing

aggressively now that we've got a new administration. You've been down

talking to Joe. Did you raise the price of natural gas with Joe?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Joe?

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

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

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

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

The

Premier still hasn't answered my very brief comments about his remark

about "national socialism." He talks about the young man he met during

the campaign. I illustrated two people I ran across in the campaign.

You haven't answered that either, Mr. Premier. It would be worthwhile —

just a little gesture to show that perhaps you have a little touch of

humility. It would overwhelm the opposition, and it would please the

people of British Columbia to have the Premier admit that perhaps he

did offend some people with that remark.

I would like to

bring to the Premier's attention a position now espoused by Howard

Baker, Republican senator from Tennessee. Mr. Chairman, I want you to

understand that a Republican senator is not exactly your average

democratic socialist. A Republican senator is not exactly your average

flaming radical. A Republican congressman from Tennessee could hardly

be described as liberal at the best of times. But let's listen to what

he's saying about the energy crisis in the United States and the role

of their great federal government.

I was aware of Howard Baker's statements some weeks ago, but I was reminded of them again by the Victoria Colonist

of June 26, a newspaper that has moved up in my estimation recently by

writing a certain editorial. I quote Glenn Somerville of the Canadian

Press: "One of the more popular ideas around Washington these days is

that government involvement is needed in the oil industry" — in the

United States, that bastion of capitalism and free enterprise? —

"possibly even nationalization of the industry to get some order back

in the system." Shocking!

Where does this idea stem from and

this discussion among senators take place? "As Senator Daniel Patrick

Moynihan (Democrat — New York) puts it, the American attitude toward

the oil cartel run by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries

should be: 'How can we break it up? How can we smash it?'" We're

dealing with a cartel, and they recognize it now in the United States.

[ Page 379 ]

The

feeling is growing as Americans realize there is no relief coming from

steady price increases by the OPEC producers, none at all. As a matter

of fact, the Premier is aware and deeply concerned, I'm sure, that OPEC

ministers are now meeting in Geneva and talking about increasing oil

prices. One of them stated it may go to $21 a U.S. barrel.

quote again from this article, and I quote it slowly: "Even such

Congressional conservatives as senate minority leader Howard Baker

(Republican — Tennessee) warned recently the oil giant companies are

'risking nationalization' by profiting hugely from recent fuel price

increases while failing to increase production."

Is this a

national socialist, as the Premier would describe it? Is this a

dangerous socialist in the American milieu, as the Premier would

describe him? This is a conservative Republican senator clearly saying

that the best interests of the United States in energy must come ahead

of the private profit of the oil companies dominating the energy field.

I want to tell you that when Senator Baker says that, he's not applying

for membership in the New Democratic Party. I'm sure he would withdraw

if the Premier called him a national socialist. But Senator Baker is

speaking as a voice from the conservative point of view. He is

representing major concerns in the United States which are paralleled

here in Canada — that there must be some national oil role for the

federal government.

He's talking about nationalization. I'm

not suggesting nationalization. I've suggested national control and

orderly marketing of non-renewable energy resources in this country.

I'm not ashamed of that proposition. I said yesterday, I've said

before, and I say again: I am a Canadian first. Anybody who doesn't

understand that there is a role for an agency such as Petro-Canada

doesn't understand the energy crisis.

I want to tell you

this: I am absolutely delighted that after the gnashing of teeth the

Liberal administration moved towards setting up the instrument of

Petro-Canada. I wish they would go the next step and set up an

instrument for orderly marketing, as we did with B.C. Petroleum

Corporation.

I have sceptical views of the National Energy

Board when it says that after President Carter reported the Mexicans

were asking a price beyond what the United States could pay, all of a

sudden Canada, through the National Energy Board, discovered two

trillion cubic feet of surplus gas and was able to sell it at the new

price of $2.30.

It is interesting from the time of the hon.

Joe Green up to the present administration — although I don't blame Mr.

Clark's administration — how the National Energy Board has adjusted its

estimate of reserves based on price negotiations external from Canada.

It found two trillion extra cubic feet within 14 days after Carter had

been rebuffed by the Mexicans. I said that publicly, too. Perhaps you

will explain that to that young man, who must be the first person in

British Columbia who was allowed to ask you a question after a public

meeting. I was shocked to hear that somebody got to ask him a question

after a public meeting, but be that as it may....

MR. KING: He asked Dan Campbell first.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, he asked permission first.

They

go on in this

article by Mr. Somerville to talk about possible

remedies: "A possible remedy receiving attention is a suggestion from

some leading members of the Washington Foreign Policy Committee for a

government-owned synthetic oil industry to produce up to five million

barrels a day within five to ten years." Do you hear that, Mr.

Chairman? They want a government-owned synthetic oil industry to give

the United States an alternate supply of oil so that it is not at the

mercy of the international cartel of OPEC. Essentially the plan calls

for an amount that represents about half the total now imported daily

to meet American needs.

This proposal comes from Lloyd

Cutler, a lawyer who has handled several top negotiating jobs for the

administration — including the recently concluded Canada-U.S. fishing

treaty — with some of his associates. You are familiar with Mr. Cutler,

Mr. Member. You've pointed out the fact that British Columbia has a

weak position in those recently concluded negotiations. Obviously Mr.

Cutler is a pretty tough customer.

The

article continues:

"Essentially the plan called for the same type of effort that permitted

the United States to develop a synthetic rubber industry during the

Second World War when natural rubber supplies shrank. It involves a

government-owned corporation offering market-guarantee contracts to

private companies." Shall I read that again? It says: "It involves a

government-owned corporation offering market-guarantee contracts to

private companies." Where is that being done? Why, here in British

Columbia, under the B.C. Petroleum Corporation with natural gas. It's

not a tax-collecting agency but a market guarantee through a government

corporation now being asked for in Washington, D.C., to deal with

synthetic oil, the model of which already exists in British Columbia as

the B.C. Petroleum Corporation.

The Premier likes to give

oversimplified answers to questions that he asks himself. It is safer

for him to answer questions that he asks himself because he might be a

little more sure of the answer.

The fact is that the B.C.

Petroleum Corporation was voted against by the Premier of this

province. The fact is that it is a successful Crown corporation. And

the fact is that there are some spokespersons in the United States who

are probably not aware of the B.C. Petroleum Corporation, but who are

asking for exactly the same instrument in the United States to deal

with their energy needs.

Is the Premier opposed to

Petro-Canada and a nationally owned energy company playing a major role

in providing oil and giving security of oil supply for Canada? Is he

opposed to Petro-Canada?

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

During that period of time, the United States has been buying

gas from Mexico, and while we've been selling it to the United States at $2.16.

Mexico was selling it for $3.20 U.S.

That's

exactly what he said. That's what misled all those people. He said they

were "selling." That's not a slip, because a little later on he goes on

to say:

... why it allows its natural gas to be sold into the United

States market at today's price of $2.16 U.S., while Mexico gets $3.20.

He goes on to say:

If I was a Mexican. I'd come up and contract to buy gas from

British Columbia for $2.16, ship it down to Mexico and sell it back to the United

States at $3.20.

[ Page 380 ]

That's

in the pipeline that hasn't been built. He says they've been selling it

— not negotiating but selling it. That's what you said in the election

campaign all around this province. It wasn't true. It says it in Hansard .

Interjections.

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

has been stated by Mr. Schlesinger that Canada will not get less than

Mexico; that means British Columbia. Further, I would point out that

the price increases we get are the same as Alberta is getting. Through

negotiation we've been able to move up in tandem with the NEB. These

presentations — are now before the Energy Board. We do not negotiate

gas prices at First Ministers' Conferences. While they talk oil and

they talk internal gas, export gas is dealt with by the NEB. That is

the way it has been since I've been Premier.

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

I'd

like to deal with the matter of a national oil agency. The first member

for Vancouver East says that his proposal was aimed just at getting at

the multinational oil corporations and getting the profits they were

making. What he was doing in his proposal to our government and his

Columbia's resources and the profit of the government and people of

British Columbia. That's what he offered to do.

On November

10 last I stated that British Columbia would surrender the oil and

natural gas rights granted it by the constitution. That is giving away

whatever money we get from export gas. We're giving them all the rights

under the constitution. We're losing that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Read the rest.

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

November 10 last I stated that British Columbia would surrender the oil

and natural gas rights granted to it by the constitution if the

petroleum reserves and ownership. What you're giving is the

constitutional right to our resources and all the money that British

Columbians get for them. That money would go somewhere else; you would

give away our resources. What you're saying is that Ottawa could manage

them better than British Columbians. I've got to tell you that under no

circumstances will we ever turn over or make conditional offers on the

offshore resources rights granted to British Columbia by the

constitution, which have been unclear and which we're trying 'to

maintain.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Yes, they were going to give away those constitutional rights. They

were put on the table; they were offered; they were in the poker game.

The people of B.C. didn't have a chance to be asked about them. If they

could have made a quick deal then they would have given them away, and

it would have cost us hundreds of millions of dollars in direct revenue.

want to know how much, by taking away this large part of British

Columbia's tax base, you're going to put up taxes on individuals to pay

the cost of hospitals and schools, because that's where the money would

have to come from. If you give away the resources to another part of

the country you no longer have control of the money that those

resources give to government, nor do you have control of the way the

development is carried out, or if it's carried out at all. We reject

that, and it's not because we're poor Canadians.

The

development of B.C. resources over the years in all its aspects has, as

has that in other provinces that have resources to develop, done very

well for the province and made a significant contribution to the

country. I would point out that two areas that have done a good job of

developing their resources, Alberta and British Columbia, make large

contributions to Canada in equalization. Money isn't being hoarded; but

we're getting the development. We're getting economic activity and

we're proving up our gas reserves. That's what you want when you talk

about some agency: you're talking about proving up the provincial and

the Canadian oil and gas reserves — and that's been happening. Instead

of declining they're increasing.

The Grizzly Valley pipeline

opened up a whole new area. We're getting substantial finds. Oh, I

remember someone over there in this House saying we wouldn't find any

gas, that the gas wasn't there. Well, it was there. You're afraid to do

anything. You'd drive exploration out. That's what you wanted because,

when we came into office, there were very few rigs working in British

Columbia as a result of the policies of your government. I don't take

any comfort in that and the fact that there are over 80 rigs working

now.

The member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) may wish

to enter this discussion, because he can bring a practical perspective

to all the quotations about what's happening in the United States and

what Senator Baker says. I think he could talk about British Columbia,

because that's why he's here. He wants to talk about the Peace River,

and they want him to talk for them.

[Mr. Davidson in the Chair.]

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

You said $3.50 — that's something that's in the record. I'm not asking

for anybody to retract; the election is over, and saying that worked

for you during the election.

I just want it clearly

understood that we will not surrender our constitutional rights on any

conditional offer at any poker game played in Ottawa, that the

resources of the people of British Columbia will continue to remain

owned by the people of British Columbia and that this government of

British Columbia will guard them and provide the opportunity to develop

them in an orderly and proper way for the benefit of our people. We

will also prove up energy reserves to guarantee our future. That gas is

our greatest insurance that British Columbia has energy as a provincial

resource. It is a great guarantee to our people.

To give it

away, whereby it could be designated anywhere, to give away all of the

constitutional rights.... I wonder if the people of British Columbia

fully understand the implications of that offer. Even though you try and

[ Page 381 ]

make

it conditional, it is an offer to give away something of permanence,

and an offer made without consulting the people. To give away

resources, constitutional rights of major value and major importance in

the field of energy, without even.... I don't remember — it may even

have been done — whether the Legislature was asked before that offer

was made, or whether we debated it. I'll have to check on that to see

if that was debated as a position to be taken.

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

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Mr. Chairman, it's obvious that a lot of figures have been bandied

about and a lot of statements have been made on natural gas. It sure as

heck has been shown today that you can say before the election that the

United States is paying Mexico $3.20, and then you can amend it now

because the election's behind.

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

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

MR. BARRETT: You called me a Nazi too.

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

MR. BARRETT: "National socialist"?

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Don't twist what I say. You have a great habit, when you're in trouble

because of a statement like this, of trying to run and hide from it.

You have to misinterpret everything to try and find something to take

offence at. I've seen that tactic, and it's not relevant to debate.

Now

we've dealt a number of times in my estimates with energy, and I'm sure

the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) wants to deal with it in his

estimates. If we're going to deal with his estimates in my debate, he

may wish to join in. I invite him to because he can go into some of the

detail that he carries as the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources.

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

MR. BARRETT: What about Petro-Canada?

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

MR. BARRETT: What about PetroCan as a concept?

HON. MR. BENNETT:

If you want me to debate nationally, wait till I decide that I may wish

to carry on national debate. Right now I'm talking about British

Columbia, my friend.

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

HON. MR. BENNETT:

I say that Petro-Canada has taken parts of what logically should be in

the private sector of British Columbia, and you watched Alberta take

over PWA while you were government. You saw what happened, and I

understood then that you would watch another government take over

Westcoast Transmission and use it for their benefit.

I say

no government agency should control part of the economic instruments in

another province, and I say, Mr. Chairman, government could deal with

the private sector. It's not as if there was improper management, or as

if management would be improved of these existing pipelines like

Westcoast Transmission that were taken in the Pacific Petroleum’s

purchase. It's being well managed in the private sector. They were

proving up gas; they were carrying on exploration in this country, and

they have found a large number of the producing gas wells of British

Columbia.

What was deficient about them that made them the

subject for a federal agency takeover? What has it been able to do with

those assets since they took it over that wasn't being done for the

benefit of the people? Certainly, where they operate in the province of

British Columbia and deal with the government, we're still getting the

money. But what's the strategy, and why an additional move to take an

additional percentage of Westcoast Transmission, a pipeline that

delivers British Columbia gas to British Columbia communities and also

carries the export contract? Is the idea to make it part of a national

agency to carry Alberta gas or Yukon gas? Will it cause a depression in

our oil fields so that because they aren't being utilized there'll be

no exploration and we'll take a sudden drop of revenue into government,

Mr. Chairman? Could we allow that to happen? That's what could happen.

That's not acceptable in British Columbia.

The member for

North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) might want to talk about that because

those are a number of the concerns that we have that were raised by

people working in the ministry, people advising government in the

energy field of all the possible ramifications of such a thing

happening that couldn't have happened before. We saw that when another

government can move into your territory and take over a company, such

as Alberta did with PWA.... That wasn't just a carrier in Alberta. That

was an interprovincial carrier that provided routes, and those routes

meant a certain way the economy develops. They meant jobs for British

Columbia. The head office was here.

It was done before we

became government. We fought it after the fact in every court,

including a direct appeal to the federal cabinet. But it meant that the

head office was taken from British Columbia. We couldn't stop it,

either legally or through any of the agencies, or through a political

appeal. It means that routes that we anticipated would be developed

north, utilizing British Columbia and Prince George and our cities,

will now possibly go through Edmonton.

MR. LEA: Name one.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

I say that there is a possibility, Mr. Chairman, for this type of

interference. You can use it as an economic instrument. You can do it

at any time. I have the best of relations with the Lougheed government,

but what about the governments to follow having that power, having that

ability, and changing the focus? It may be subtle at first. but as

those changes take place, what was a company that operated in an

economic way, developing

[ Page 382 ]

the

logical extension of routes, now instead of economic considerations has

political considerations as well. That's why it's dangerous to let

other governments in. It's not that we are in collision. The member for

Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) is nodding his head to that. He agrees

with that.

The same possibility exists with what could

happen with our petroleum industry in the northeast of British

Columbia, and other priorities in British Columbia's economic strategy.

If someone were to give away all the oil and natural gas rights granted

to it by the constitution, that's what could happen. You might trust

the people there now, the people who run PetroCan, or the government;

people change, governments change. That's why all governments should be

careful in assuming power and taking powers they wouldn't want to see

in the hands of any other government. That's what we should be careful

about.

We should be careful also about what could go beyond

our own jurisdiction into other areas. I want to talk about the broad

energy policy for British Columbia. I think we should get it clearly on

the record, because I'm not against future hydroelectric development in

this province. I'm not against it. We should clarify that, because

there is some suggestion that there are those who have said during the

election there would be no further or future hydroelectric development

in British Columbia.

I say we won't. It's one of the more

acceptable energy alternatives. There will always be questions raised,

and we have the mechanisms and the hearings to deal on individual

projects. Above all, it is a continuous, renewable energy source. It

provides more than energy. It provides flood control, water storage and

a host of opportunities in British Columbia, and it's not irreversible.

It is one of the more acceptable uses.

MR. LEA: What would you do with Hydro?

HON. MR. BENNETT:

I could say that by the year 2050, if they didn't need them, those

which can be put up can be taken down, or modified, or adjusted, but

you don't reverse the amount of coal. You take it out of the ground.

You don't reverse in a number of other areas. Those are future

considerations we would never face. But I say it is a consideration for

someone. You have only to travel through the major countries — in

particular the ancient countries — in Europe, to see that what were

major monuments or construction works of one time are no longer used.

Some are preserved, some are in ruin. Through them we recognize our

brief time on this earth is not a matter of permanence and that things

can be changed for the better. Things done can be irreversible, and

called irreversible change. One of them is depletion of the

non-renewable.

Anyone who rejects, out of hand, further

hydroelectric development is being neither practical nor concerned

enough about the future of this province to consider the logical energy

needs and what we must do to fill them. We have to consider them.

Any

government faced with making decisions on projects is going to have to

make a decision, project by project, time by time, that will not please

everyone. It's a matter of priorities and where your priorities for

development are. And I state clearly: there will be hydroelectric

development in this province, and further hydroelectric development.

It's one of our more acceptable sources.

We have been

looking into other areas, some of them not yet as efficient, as

commercially attractive or as useful as we would like. One is coal, and

that process has been negotiated and discussed with the British Coal

Board. It's not yet available on a commercial basis.

One of

the significant things which I think you should pay attention to is

what has been done since we've been government. Hydro, is dealing with

the Coal Board. They're paying money for development of that technology

and, lo and behold, you know what we found? They continue to maintain

ownership of that technology while we're paying the bill.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Since that time, and since we've been to the Coal Board, we have

changed that. It is changed, now that the hydro technology we pay for

belongs to British Columbia. It will be ours to utilize for sale around

the world. That is one of the useful things about going over there, Mr.

Member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea); that change has been effective

since that trip. I'm glad you brought that up. It gave me the time,

because it's easy to spend money. But there are more benefits than the

immediate project; the purchase of technology and the development of it

should be for those who pay for it for further development.

That's

one of the things we're going to have to have in the future, and we've

got to make sure we don't spend a lot of money developing someone

else's technology. No matter how friendly we are with them, or what

good friends we are with the government of that time, what we've got to

say is that British Columbians are paying the bill. We're going to own

that technology, and that's what is happening now with Hydro and the

process that is being studied for them by the British Coal Board.

Again,

that is some time away from practical construction for commercial

adaptation. Experimental models do not mean yet they have the type of

efficiency or process that British Columbia could use.

When

we look at energy and we look at energy policy, there are a number of

areas. One thing you can't have is profit such as the government gets

from natural gas once you've given the very rights to that gas to

another government. In British Columbia that's hundreds of millions of

dollars.

MR. BARRETT: I asked the Premier a simple

question, and I got another 20-minute dissertation on things I didn't

ask about. I simply asked the Premier what his position was on

Petro-Canada in the marketplace as an instrument affecting oil policy

in this country. He still didn't answer that question. He talked about

Westcoast, and he talked about dams and everything else. Are you in

favour of the federal government maintaining effective control of

PetroCanada as an instrument for developing oil policy in this country?

Would that take 20 minutes, or do you not want to answer? Just say you

don't want to answer; that would be just as easy. But I think we should

know because it is a matter of great public importance, and we don't

know what the government of British Columbia's position is. Are you in

favour of maintaining Petro-Canada as a public instrument in meeting

Canada's continuing supply of oil?

[ Page 383 ]

Perhaps

the Premier didn't hear it. Are you in favour of Petro-Canada remaining

in public hands as an instrument for the federal government in

developing secure supplies of oil for this country? I would like to

have that answer.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman,

I've already told him that, given the time to see if there are useful

parts in Petro-Canada, then I would be willing to make such a

statement. What I have studied as Premier of British Columbia are those

areas that should not be part of another government's ownership. Their

ownership could affect us seriously. The job that I have been elected

to do I've done; I raised our objections right from the beginning.

Should I ever seek to enter the federal field or be given the job of

dealing with PetroCan and assessing each part of its holdings and its

usefulness, then I'll make such a statement. But to deal with it

without any of the information from study would leave me vulnerable,

such as some people who would say: "We're getting $3.20 for Mexican gas

in the U.S." I wouldn't do that. But I've said that Westcoast

Transmission should not be owned by Petro-Can.

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Chairman, I would like to give the Premier some time to consider

this. I hope at some time he states a position, since he will be going

to national conferences where this very matter will be discussed and

has been discussed. It is the role of the Premier, as you have assumed

it in past conferences, to talk about national energy policy —

otherwise, why go to Ottawa?

All of a sudden we have this

overwhelming modesty. It's dropped on the Premier when he's asked an

opinion about national energy policy. He has stated in the past — and

is obliged to state now and will be obliged to state in the future —

British Columbia's policy on national energy development. He has this

overwhelming modesty when asked a specific question. The former

Minister of Energy knows the importance of Petro-Canada; he wouldn't

have any hesitation on what advice to give. But the Premier has

overwhelming modesty on a simple question. One can only interpret it

that the Premier is waiting to see which way the wind blows before he

determines his policy.

Who owns the oil and gas in this

country? Ninety percent of all oil and gas in this country is in

private hands and a large majority of that is foreign-controlled. Now

you tell me how you're protecting British Columbia's interest when 90

percent of all oil and gas in this country is owned by private

companies, most of whom are foreign? Is that fighting for British

Columbia? Is that fighting for Canada? The Premier only read half of my

statement, didn't he?

It's about time Canada grew up; it's

about time Canada stopped depending on the international oil companies

to dominate our oil and gas fields. The oil in Alberta, Saskatchewan

and British Columbia is important to all of Canada to keep this country

together. We need a national instrument to ensure that oil supplies are

maintained for every single region of this country, and I don't

apologize for that statement. I do not believe that Exxon, Imperial or

Shell have as their primary interest the very best interest of British

Columbia, or Canada for that matter. The primary interest of those

companies is to look after themselves. Shell isn't looking after

Canada; Imperial Oil is not looking after Canada other than "Hockey

Night in Canada"; and Exxon doesn't have a primary interest in meeting

Canada's needs.

Petro-Canada was the only instrument

available to stop offshore selling by Imperial Oil of oil destined for

Canada. That's a matter of public record, Mr. Chairman. When the oil

companies could make an extra buck by diverting oil that was intended

for Canada, they proved they would divert it. They did divert it, and

threatened shortages of our own oil supply, and threatened jobs in this

country because of that.

If the Premier advocates that the

international oil companies should dictate to this country and to this

province what the oil policy should be, then he should stand up and say

so. But I say this clearly: no Canadian business and no Canadian job

should ever be put in jeopardy because of international control of

energy in this country. Why should any Canadian worker, any Canadian

family or any Canadian business be allowed to be manipulated without

any government say in terms of supplying oil needs in industry and in

farming?

I tell you this: 90 percent of all oil and gas in

this country is owned by oil companies. It’s not in the name of the

people of British Columbia, as the Premier likes to spin it out to be.

It's not in the name of the people of Canada; it's owned by the oil

companies. So let's get that straight. Now when the Premier says

"giving it away," it's already been given away. Who's it been given to?

It's been given to those international oil companies by blind, foolish

governments in the past who have had no understanding at all of the

need to get revenue back to the public from those oil supplies.

The

Premier asks: "Who will make up this tax money?" Before the B.C.

Petroleum Corporation came into being there was no equivalent amount of

money coming from those fields. Mr. Chairman, we were selling, our gas

for a pittance. The B.C. Petroleum Corporation filed a report to the

public of British Columbia showing a return of $228 million. The

Petroleum Corporation that you voted against returned $228 million to

the people of this province. What's wrong with that? What is wrong with

the people of this province or this country getting a fair return from

their own energy supplies?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT:

Now the Premier says: "You're going to give it away." Mr. Premier, tell

us who is going to make up the loss of revenue from the gift you gave

to BCRIC in terms of gas and oil leases? If your argument is to hold

water.... If we allow Canadian domination of oil and gas, you are

giving away from the taxpayers of this province a share of the

development of those oil and gas leases. You took it right out of the

public purview and you put it into private hands, and you said: "You

shareholders who can buy a share of BCRIC will have a reward from these

assets no longer in the hands of the people of British Columbia." So

you defeat your own argument. Was there one public, competitive bid for

those oil and gas leases? No. Was any oil company allowed to bid on

those leases? No. Was any gas company allowed to bid on those leases?

No. They were given away by the Premier to BCRIC. It follows from your

argument — through you, Mr. Chairman — that, in giving away oil and gas

rights, somebody has to pay for the loss. Who's going to pay for the

loss in British Columbia when BCRIC makes a profit or finds a

development in that oil and gas?

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

[ Page 384 ]

you,

Mr. Chairman — who made this great speech about how bad giveaway was,

how some of the taxpayers are going to have to make up the money. The

only giveaway that's taken place is under your administration to BCRIC.

You can't have it both ways. You're a free-enterpriser. Why didn't you

have proper competitive bidding on those oil leases and those gas

leases?

You just went over a map and said: "This goes to

BCRIC." Will industry feel secure in a pattern of government if BCRIC

shares start to drop in value? Will you pick out some more oil and gas

leases and throw those in too? Or will BCRIC have to compete like any

other company, and bid on oil and gas rights? Has BCRIC been sent a

bill for those oil and gas rights comparable to what might have been

received if free competitive bidding and free enterprise had been

allowed to take place? The burden of the argument you make about giving

away shares has taken place only under BCRIC. The taxpayers of this

province will have to pay for that giveaway to BCRIC. You can't have it

both ways, Mr. Premier. You have no answer on Petro-Canada and no

answer to the fact that 90 percent of all oil and gas in this country

is privately owned by the international oil companies. It's too bad,

isn't it? I believe the B.C. Petroleum Corporation demonstrated what a

public marketing instrument can do. It's been darn good. Just take out

of the history books the fact that it was started by the NDP, and you

could really be proud of it. But the fact that it was started by the

NDP embarrasses you a little bit, hurts a little bit. Okay, I won't

refer to the fact that we started it; but I sure as heck don't want to

see it endangered. The Premier has been asked other questions and he

doesn't seem to want to answer them. The Premier talks about the

depletion of non-renewable resources vis-à-vis hydroelectric

generation. If you're so concerned about the depletion of non-renewable

resources, what is the provincial government's energy policy on

maintaining a constant supply of natural gas once our existing

contracts with the United States run out? What is your target? What is

your philosophy?

MR. LEA: Why is he giving away coal?

MR. BARRETT:

Well, coal is another thing. Renewable annual leases in terms of

giveaways were pointed out by the former Liberal leader. There was a

giveaway to Shell Oil. I want the Premier to be apprised of this report

filed by Mr. Horner on the Foreign Investment Review Act as it applies

to new major resource projects. While the Premier was fighting CP

Investments in British Columbia, his government was on record, in

Horner's own document, as being opposed to the Foreign Investment

Review Agency. Not true? I'll read this document, signed by Mr. Horner,

and I hope it's not true. I quote from this document, and it says

clearly:

"Alternatives:

"To

discontinue the practice of trying to negotiate during the FIRA Review,

a reasonable degree of compliance with the policy objective of 50 to 60

percent of Canadian equity ownership of now major resource projects.

Instead, the practice would be the same as for reviewable investments

in all sectors for which no specific ownership policy has been declared.

"To

maximize Canadian ownership and management, participation to the extent

that it is reasonable, predictable and negotiable in each case. The

principal advantage would be a removal of the major potential cause of

federal-provincial conflict, especially with British Columbia."

Did

Mr. Horner make this up? He refers to the fact that British Columbia

objected to the Foreign Investment Review Agency; he refers to the fact

that British Columbia was the one they wanted to accommodate by

changing the rules. When the minister was asked publicly about that, he

said their only objection was not about the foreign investment but

about the slowness in making decisions. Not once, Mr. Chairman, did

British Columbia object to one sell-out or takeover that was in front

of the Foreign Investment Review Agency. Name one of the takeovers that

you objected to.

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

MR. BARRETT: That is my opinion.

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

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

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

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

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Chairman, I hope the Premier gets as animated when he starts

talking about Petro-Canada again. What was the position of this

government when you sold Panco Poultry to Cargill? What was your

position on that? Were you in favour of that, Mr. Chairman, or did that

happen beyond your nose? What about the bus line here in Victoria? Who

sold that off to the Americans? Why, it was this government. These

things took place under your administration with your approval, and you

at the same time were protesting the role of the Foreign Investment

Review Agency. Is Mr. Horer's document incorrect? Is Mr. Horner stating

in this document that there was no conflict with British Columbia over

the Foreign Investment Review Agency? Was it just a matter of delays in

decisions? That's not what's indicated in his document — not at all.

The sell-out of British Columbia companies to foreign interests has

gone on at an unparalleled rate under the Social Credit administration.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Nonsense!

MR. BARRETT:

Nonsense? Well, look at the record. You aided and abetted it. Who sold

Panco to Cargill? You did. Who sold the bus lines to the Americans? You

did.

MR. RITCHIE: Who wanted to buy Panco Poultry?

MR. BARRETT:

Oh, my goodness gracious me! Listen to that, we bought it for about $5

million and the total assets were sold for $11 million in three years.

Who would buy it, eh? That's really a loser. Two and a half times your

[ Page

385 ]

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

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

MR. BARRETT:

You're asking who would want to buy Panco Poultry. You had a tough time

getting rid of it to Cargill, didn't you? We'll cry crocodile tears for

Cargill, because they got skinned, did they?

You know, Mr.

Chairman, I find it very interesting that when these federal documents

come to light, they deny that it is taking place, and when they're

selling out British Columbia at a unprecedented rate, it's all a

mistake — you make these decisions and you live by the decisions. In

1974 there were 3 foreign takeovers, 11 in 1975, 9 in 1976, 26 in 1977,

and 39 in 1978 — 74 foreign takeovers! How many did you protest? To my

knowledge, none. To my knowledge, not one protest was made against

those 74 takeovers.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT:

Prove me wrong. To my knowledge, there was not one single protest from

the provincial government. We still don't know the Premier's position

on Petro-Canada. As far as selling out British Columbia assets, he's

the one who's led the way. We've had that explanation from the Minister

of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips). I would be pleased to

hear, and to have tabled, any written submission that your government

has made in opposition to any specific takeover. Would you do that? I'd

like to have a copy tabled in this House of any specific submission

you've made to the Foreign Investment Review Agency in protest to any

one of those takeovers.

Interjection.

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

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

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

The

Premier of the province finds it very, very convenient not to answer

any of these questions. He gets up and talks in circles about other

areas and doesn't answer other questions — for instance, little

questions which have been on the order paper for a long time. Check the

number of questions on the order paper which you haven't answered from

your office. Could you do that?

I would like to know what

the Premier's position is on foreign takeovers. Does he personally vet

any of the takeovers presented before the Foreign Investment Review

Agency? Has he given a report on every single one of those cases going

before the Foreign Investment Review Agency? I'd like to know the

answers. Do you personally vet all of those takeover applications

before the Foreign Investment Review Agency?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Did you?

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

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

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

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

MR. BARRETT:

Would you list with us the number of objections you or your minister

have made to any one of these takeovers, and would you table those

documents in this House?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I'm very

pleased that I have the opportunity to get up during the Premier's

estimates to maybe clarify some of the somewhat misleading statements

made by the Leader of the Opposition over the past months. I could even

go back into the election campaign.

Interjection.

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

What

he doesn't mention in this House is the fact that we must be

competitive in the world marketplace when we talk about natural gas. He

knows full well that back in the 1973-74 era we were getting something

like 31 cents Canadian per 1,000 cubic feet. In 1973 we got 61 cents;

in 1974 we got $1 — when I say "we," I'm referring to the

administration at that time. In 1975 it was $1.40; in November 1975 it

went to $1.60. You can see the escalation during that period.

The

interesting

part is that early in 1974 the federal government commenced

to review energy pricing in Canada, not British Columbia — not the NDP

administration, but the federal government. Why? Basically because the

OPEC nations had decided to increase prices of their export oil, so the

federal government figured that we had to look for a fair return for

our source of energy.

The export pricing of natural gas has

always been by the federal government: it’s always been within its

jurisdiction. All price increases have been as a result of federal

action. The Leader of the Opposition knows full well that the

representation is made by British Columbia and by the other provinces

to the NEB in regard to support or intervention on a proposed price

increase for natural gas for export.

When we came into

office, the prices, of course, kept going up in the world marketplace

for energy. In 1976 it went to $1.80 Canadian; in January 1977 it went

to $1.94; on September 21, 1977, it was $2.16. There were a number of

increases between late 1975 and 1979 when we went to the polls. Since

that time, there has been one increase to $2.30 U.S. for export gas to

the United States.

My ministry has advised the NEB that they

should have a constant review of that export gas price in order that we

remain competitive, but that at the same time we get a fair return for

our natural gas for export.

So it's nothing spectacular that

the Leader of the Opposition did, other than to look at the

marketplace. When he was in office, the market price indicated that

they were getting something like $1 per 1,000 cubic feet. Because of

increased costs of energy, of course, it goes higher. As a result, we

must be aware of the increases on the world market and we must be able

to respond by advising NEB what our position is and whether our support

is there for increased prices. But you always must remain competitive.

[ Page 386 ]

Mr. Premier, I just wanted to mention something regarding the famous Mexican

gas. I just want to read a newspaper article, Mr. Chairman, which says: "Social

Credit Gutless Over Gas" — a statement by the Leader of the Opposition.

Here is how he somewhat misleads the population during an election campaign

and infers that this government has been doing something terribly wrong and

that the people of the province are suffering.

speaking to a partisan overflow crowd of about 1,200 people at a high

school, a good crowd to hear the leader of the New Democratic Party, he

states that the New Democratic Party, if elected on May 10, would not

sell natural gas priced cheaper to the United States than that supplied

from other countries. "'The selling of B.C. natural gas at a lower rate

has cost $150 million in provincial revenues to British Columbians at

the time when schools, hospitals, municipalities were feeling the

pinch, the former Premier said in a rousing speech." Can you imagine a

man standing up at a speech in front of 1,200 people and having the

nerve to make statements that are basically not true, stating that

we've lost $150 million in revenue, stating that our hospitals, our

schools, our senior citizens are suffering because of it?

continues: "Barrett said the price of $2.30 per 1,000 cubic feet

charged by the province for natural gas is 90 cents less than the $3.20

currently charged by Mexico." Now just think for a minute. That's a

statement to 1,200 people damning the provincial government, stating

that people are suffering in this province, that revenues of $150

million are being lost and stating the Mexico is getting $3.20, when he

knows full well that Mexico isn't getting $3.20. He knows that they

made an approach to Schlesinger. He knows that Schlesinger said: "No

way." He knows that and he knows that the natural gas pipeline is not

into the United States as of this time.

"Barrett stated that the Social Credit government has sold out the province

and it is time for the voters to say they are sick of it." That's

the type of misleading statement about which every free-thinking British Columbian

should stand up and ask that man how he has the audacity to make statements

like that in an election campaign that he knows are not true. I would suggest

to you, Mr. Chairman, that he said it all through my riding. I went around and

I started at $100. I said at the places where I spoke, when I read that, that

if he could prove me wrong, if he could prove that the Mexican people were getting

$3.20 per 1,000 cubic feet, I would contribute $100 to his campaign fund. Every

night I raised it $100. I got up to $2,000 to his campaign fund and I never

heard a word. My little children asked me about it and said: "Dad, you

can't afford $2,000." I said: "Son, don't worry about it,

because he's never going to ask for it." But that's the type of

statement that was being made.

Just

to carry on in regard to that, Mr. Chairman, I further point out

statements made in regard to energy policy by the Leader of the

Opposition. People must wonder what the alternatives are because in

another statement it is: "No More Dams, NDP Would Insist." No more dams

in this province. If you can't have the sources of energy in this

province, how can this province develop? How can we support industry,

trade and commerce? How can we supply power to our hospitals and to our

people?

These statements are made as outright blank

statements. I could accept his rationale if he said: "We would look

seriously before ever making a decision for another dam in the province

of British Columbia. We would not do it unless we were positively

assured that there was need for additional energy or we explored all

the renewable sources of energy like solar, like wind, and like tidal

power, and we looked at our natural gas reserves and looked at our coal

reserves." But no, it's a blank statement: "No more dams in British

Columbia." A statement like that, I think, tries to mislead the

audience with statements that the local people would like to hear

because it affects them personally if such a development goes ahead.

just think it's wrong for the Leader of the Opposition to make

statements such as he did during the last campaign. He made a statement

in the campaign — again in my riding — that he was absolutely opposed

to uranium mining: "I've been opposed to uranium mining for 20 years,

ever since I came into this House." Absolutely definitely opposed.

MR. STUPICH: Whose estimates are we on now?

HON. MR. HEWITT:

We're talking about energy, Mr. Member, about which we've had to listen

to the Leader of the Opposition wander all over the ballpark.

would like to state, for the information of the House, that while the

Leader of the Opposition was Premier of this province, and while he was

going around the province making statements that in no way was there

ever any thought of uranium mining in this province, it's strange that

in 1974 a permit was issued to the Power Nuclear Corp., a Japanese

firm, to carry out exploration west of Beaverdell, in my riding. Then

he wanders around, and when the press informed him of this after we did

a little bit of research, he said: "Well, that's just an excuse. I

never saw it. It was something to do with the bureaucracy." Whatever

the answer was, it was pretty vague.

Never yet has he

admitted that, yes, it wasn't something that we'd started in this

province; it was going on while he was Premier of this province. At

least this government has taken steps to do a thorough study before we

allow uranium mining to proceed, a thorough study to make an informed

decision as to whether or not it goes ahead.

The other thing

is in regard to the statement he made in this House: "Ninety percent of

the oil and natural gas is owned by the private companies." He said

that. That may well be the case, because I haven't done the research to

find whether it's 89 percent, or 90 percent, or 91 percent, or

whatever. But if he's making that statement, which would imply that

they have free title to it at no cost, I wonder how we collected the

$227 million out of BCPC. I wonder about the bonus bids we get, when

they apply for the permits to explore and to develop, if it's all free.

Where do we get those revenues? I don't think he can answer that.

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

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

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

Interjection.

[ Page

387 ]

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

The

point of order is this: the minister is not speaking on the Premier's

estimates. He's rambling all over the place, wasting the time of this

House. When can we get on with the business of this House, which is the

Premier's estimates?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for New

Westminster raises a somewhat valid point. Both the Premier and the

Leader of the Opposition have engaged in very wide-ranging debates, as

is traditional under the Premier's estimates.

The Chair

will, of course, carry on the role of the Chair. In the meantime,

however, the members themselves must use some discretion in what they

wish to discuss.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, to continue

my point of order, would it be within the realm of reason if I were to

debate, now, the Minister of Energy, or the Minister of Mines, or any

of the backbencher's estimates? Because that's precisely what we're

doing. I could get up now and criticize the member for North Peace

River, but it's not his estimate time.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Again, hon. members, debate on the Premier's estimates has

traditionally been wide-ranging. The points being covered now have

already been discussed by the Premier and the Leader of the Opposition.

HON. MR. HEWITT:

I apologize to the member for New Westminster if he felt I was straying

beyond the bounds of the debate. However, you will recall that the

Leader of the Opposition covered all these points. The Premier also

made a comment, inviting me, as Minister of Energy, to assist the

Leader of the Opposition in understanding just how effective this

government was in the field of energy. That's what I'm attempting to do.

wanted to say, in regard to BCPC, about which the Leader of the

Opposition said: "That vehicle has achieved $227 million Well, I'm the

minister responsible for that agency, as you well know. The Leader of

the Opposition has stated that if it wasn't for that agency, we

wouldn't have the $227 million revenue for the province of British

Columbia. Well, you know that's not right. Mr. Member. You know very

well it's a tax-collecting marketing agency which assesses levies. It

buys the gas and gets the revenues.

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

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Well, Mr. Member, you know full well you can do it that way, you can go

through a royalty system; you can go through taxation: you can go

through anything. You know that. You know you didn't invent the wheel,

Mr. Member. You know it's a vehicle to be used, and you know it darned

well.

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

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

HON. MR. HEWITT:

Because the Premier invited me to participate in the debate, I wanted

to comment that BCPC is not the be-all and end-all. It's a vehicle and

it operates well, but I'm suggesting to you that it is not the be-all

and end-all as a tax collection agency in the province of British

Columbia, with respect to natural gas.

Mr. Chairman, I

wanted to clear up some of the somewhat misleading statements that have

been made regarding revenues from natural gas exports, BCPC and other

issues that the Leader of the Opposition raised. I could go on to other

assets that party purchased, such as Panco and Swan Valley Foods. but I

won't do that. I'd like to save those for my Ministry of Agriculture

and other things to do with the Ministry of Energy, Mines and Petroleum

Resources.

MR. HOWARD: Last week, Mr. Chairman, the

Premier had the opportunity to, I understand, visit Ottawa and meet

with the Prime Minister of Canada and then came back home. Yesterday,

when the estimates for the Premier's office were called and he rose in

the House, I, for one, anticipated that we would have the normal full,

detailed report of what it was the Premier discussed with the Prime

Minister, what responses he got from the Prime Minister and what

expectations he can hold out to the people of B.C.

We do

have, so we are told, a responsible government a government responsible

to the Legislature. I had, as I said, thought the Premier would give us

an account of what it was he discussed. He didn’t, and I, for one,

consider it to be, if nothing else, lacking in propriety and lacking in

respect for the Legislature for him to rise in the House in such an

offhand way and make general, arm-waving comments with nothing

specific, except the reference the Premier made to the interest in

offshore resources. Beyond that there was not a whisper.

have some very deep concerns on the north coast about such matters as

coastal transportation, and I would have thought that the Premier, with

his interest in coastal transportation matters and his concern for the

north coast, would have at least had the sense to discuss that matter

with Prime Minister Clark and to come back and explain to the

Legislature why it is that on the north coast we are denied adequate

and full transportation, and why it is that — and I take these figures

to be correct because they were enunciated by a federal cabinet

minister during the campaign — the federal government, when it pulled

out of the coastal shipping field, made an agreement with the province

and has paid, at least up until the spring of this year, some $17

million to the provincial government in lieu of subsidizing Northland

Navigation. The Premier shakes his head, and I take him to mean that

there was no $17 million payment. The former Minister of Fitness and

Amateur Sport. who comes from Skeena, did make that statement and did

use that figure, and I have no way of knowing whether it is accurate

or otherwise, and neither do people on the north coast.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

[ Page 388 ]

What

we do know is that we don't have a satisfactory coastal transportation

system in effect, and we do know that there is an agreement between the

federal government and the provincial government with respect to that

matter. We don't really care whose responsibility it is in a

constitutional way. We're not really interested in being pushed off

with "it's a federal responsibility," or "no, it's now provincial

because the feds have pulled out," or anything of that sort. What we

are concerned about — and this is on the whole coastal area — is a

coastal shipping facility.

There is an undeniable

responsibility — in my mind on the part of the Premier to have at least

raised that question with Prime Minister Clark. We don't know from the

report the Premier gave to the House yesterday whether he did or not.

We don't know what his view is about the potential of an oil port in

Kitimat, a subject that's currently in a valid application forum before

the National Energy Board. We know that the province has a concern and

an interest in that matter....

MR. KEMPF: Are you in favour of that?

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

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

What

we would like to know on the north coast and in Kitimat is what the

position of the provincial government is with respect to the proposal

of the consortium of Kaiser and Ashland Oil with regard to an oilport.

It is a subject that concerns the federal, government as well. I think

he displayed a lack of concern, if nothing else, when he did mention

this yesterday. Whether he discussed it with Prime Minister Clark we

don't know, but he should have given some indication to the House that

it was a subject matter about which he had some interest.

We're

interested also in the question of fisheries; that's a matter that was

raised yesterday as an aside when the Premier was talking. He made some

general reference to it. It's a subject matter, Mr. Chairman, that I

think the Premier should have dealt with. It was a pretty skimpy report

the Premier made about his discussions at the federal level with regard

to these important matters. The only one that he had any interest in,

or exhibited any interest in, was the general question of offshore

resources.

I must express my dismay at the reference the

Premier made during the election campaign. He called members of the NDP

national socialists.

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

MR. HOWARD:

My friend opposite may not appreciate that it's a matter of some

concern or dismay. It was to me. I know it touches a sore point with

members opposite, Mr. Chairman, because they are embarrassed for their

Premier. That's why they're sensitive about this. If he was a man, if

he had a little bit of intestinal fortitude in him — I notice he's left

the chamber now — he would have had the decency as a human being to

have stood up in this House yesterday when so invited by the Leader of

the Opposition, not to apologize to those of us who are here, but to

apologize to the hundreds and hundreds of citizens in this province

whom he offended by that remark. That's what he should have done.

Interjection.

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

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

MR. BRUMMET: Not for what you make up.

MR. HOWARD:

It's my opinion that he should have apologized, because he did offend

the sensitivities of hundreds of people in this province. He hasn't yet

indicated to them.... All that happened, Mr. Chairman, is that the

Premier made a mistake, made an error, didn't appreciate what he was

saying, and then was either too churlish or childish to admit it.

But

the opportunity was afforded to him yesterday. He didn't take advantage

of it as an honourable gentleman would. Because he didn't, we got

another insight into why the level of debate in this chamber

degenerates as it does. The Premier is one person who should lead the

way in debate. He should set the tone in debate. He should be the type

of person who elevates the level of conversation in this Legislature,

not one who drags it down and degrades it.

I want to make a

comment with respect to something the Premier was involved with in

Smithers during the campaign. It has to do with a facility for elderly

citizens called Bulkley Lodge, an intermediate-care facility. Bulkley

Lodge operates under a society, and it has prepared its budget earlier

in the year. They submitted it under the Hospital Programs Act. At that

time 47 residents were there, and they prepared the budget at a $40 per

day rate. When Bulkley Lodge filled its full 50-resident capacity, they

examined the rate again and it came out to $38.32. It's still full and

there is a waiting list.

The department came back to the

Bulkley Lodge directors and said they couldn't have $40 or $38.32. They

could have $30.10. The board of directors and the administrator felt

that amount was insufficient, and that if they had to accept the $30.10

per diem rate, they would either have to operate at a deficit of some

$11,000 or $12,000 a month, or lay off five positions. They raised the

matter during the course of the election. I was involved in it to an

extent; I sent a telegram to the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr.

McClelland). The Minister of Agriculture at that time, Mr. Shelford,

was also involved in the discussions with the Bulkley Lodge people.

The

Premier was in Smithers on May 3, and met with a group of people in a

shopping centre. He was there for about an hour or two. The chairman of

the board of directors of the Bulkley Lodge facility and the

administrator met with the Premier and told him what was necessary for

them. They relayed to me that the Premier said to them that he would

have to talk to Mr. Shelford first, and that he would have that

discussion with Mr. Shelford that afternoon on the plane when he went

to Terrace. The following morning, May 4, Mr. Shelford phoned Mr.

Goodacre, who

[ Page 389 ]

was

the chairman of the board, and said: "It's all fixed; you've got

nothing to worry about. The Premier has authenticated it; he's approved

it; you'll get your $38.32.

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

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

HON. MR. BENNETT: Who said that?

MR. HOWARD:

Mr. Shelford phoned on the morning of Friday, May 4. He told Mr.

Goodacre that the Premier had approved the $38.32 per diem rate, and

they could go ahead and bill the Hospital Programs at the $38.32 rate,

which they proceeded to do. In fact, they submitted the bill for the

previous month, April — billings are done on a monthly basis — at

$38.32.

On May 17 they received a letter from somebody by

the name of Kelly, who I understand is in charge of the long-term care

program, or one aspect of it. The letter from this Kelly person — Mrs.

Kelly, I believe — reached Smithers on May 28 and said that they could

not accept the $38.32, and they were only going to pay at the rate of

$30.10. It was at that point that the officials of Bulkley Lodge got in

touch with me and asked me if I would try to deal with the matter — as

a matter of fact it was just last week that I was talking with them

about this — and ask what went wrong.

What happened? Why

don't the people who are in the long-term care program, in the public

service part of the Ministry of Health, know the commitment that was

made by the Premier? Why don't they know about the commitment that the

Minister of Agriculture made as a result of his discussions with the

Premier? When the Minister of Agriculture said that the Premier

promised faithfully that they would get their money, was that a

breakdown in communication? I see the Premier looking askance at me and

doubting what I'm saying. The facts of the matter are there. The

Bulkley Lodge people were promised during the election campaign by a

minister of the Crown, on behalf of the Premier, as a result of

discussions with the Premier, that they would be able to bill at $38.32

a day; they are now told by the civil service that they can't, that

they're only going to pay $30.10 a day and that's it.

As I

said, if that's the case I would take it to be a breakdown in

communications someplace, and I would appreciate it very much if the

Premier would tell me just what the situation is so that I can get in

touch with the people up there and say: "Look, it's a mistake. The

Premier has straightened it all out — it's just that the word didn't

get through to the people in the staff." To do otherwise at this stage

means either that.... Bulkley Lodge, having to pay attention to the

needs of the older people who are living in that facility — their

medical needs, their emotional needs — are not going to lay people off

and thus impair the level of attention provided to those older folks,

pioneers in this land, and they are going to operate at a running

deficit of $11,000 or $12,000 per month. How long they can continue to

do that nobody knows. I would certainly appreciate having an answer

from the Premier about that one.

In another commentary the

Premier told us yesterday that he is desirous to resolve Canada's

balance of payments situation, in which we are running at a deficit

position. I applaud him for that attitude, but would point out that one

of the reasons we are in a deficit position, in terms of our balance of

payments, insofar as British Columbia is concerned, is that for many,

many years we have been shipping out of the province raw, or near raw,

materials and importing back again the finished product, and that

contributes to a deficit position on balance of payments. We have been

shipping out copper concentrates by the ton to Japan to smelt and we

import back again the copper tubing and plate and wire and whatever it

is that they produce and smelt and refine over there. We lose on that

position, Mr. Chairman, because we know full well that in a mining

operation all we employ are workers underground in the mine or open

pit, and we employ workers in a concentrator, in a mill, and then we

dump the concentrates on a boat and we ship them over to some other

country and they employ the workers in the smelter and in the refining

processes and in the manufacturing processes. They add that work value

attached to it to the price of the product, and we buy it back again.

We ship out raw logs to other countries — shipping out jobs....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: How many?

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

ship raw logs out of this land, and we have in the past. That's

shipping out jobs. We ship out raw fish in the round, and that ships

out jobs. When we ship out raw materials and bring back the finished

product — the manufactured product — we are on the losing side of the

balance figures.

So while I say I applaud the Premier's

resolve to deal with the question of balance of payments, I say to him,

Mr. Chairman, that the way to deal with that resolve is to promote

secondary and manufacturing industries in this province so that we get

the jobs, we get the employment and we sell the finished products on

world markets. That's what you need to do. If you are not prepared to

go ahead and do that, then all this talk about resolving Canada's

balance of payments and the desirability to do it insofar as the

provincial government is able to is just a lot of froth and foam, and

ten years from now will still be talking about the same sort of thing.

that’s the way to resolve balance of payments. I wish the Premier would

have dealt with that question when he spoke the other day. I wish he'd

expanded upon it, outlined how he intends to approach it, and not just

said that he has a concern about it.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

I'm disappointed, Mr. Chairman, that the Leader of the Opposition, as

soon as I got up to my feet to talk about some of the statements that

he made during the Premier's estimates, saw fit to leave the House. But

I can understand it, Mr. Chairman, because what we've witnessed here in

this Legislature again this afternoon is the leader standing up and

making statements which have no basis in fact whatsoever. When his

errors are pointed out to him, he says: "Oh, in my opinion...." He's

done this for years in this province. He did it during the election

campaign and he's noted for that. The problem is that the Leader of the

Opposition has no conscience. He doesn't have any responsibility for

what he says and takes no responsibility for what he says. It's been

proven time and time again. He'll say anything to anybody if he thinks

he can get away with it with no basis in fact. He's been caught

[ Page 390 ]

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

had two examples of it here this afternoon. Before I start talking

about what the Leader of the Opposition says, I want to say that we've

just had an exercise in the socialist view of economics. It's very

simple: ab. [Laughter.]

Interjections.

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

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

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Well, I'll tell you, my friend — why don't you keep your mouth quiet

and we'll all think what we do of you. You don't have to open it and

remove all doubt, okay?

What we've had is a very simplistic

view of a very complicated situation. I must say, Mr. Chairman, that

this complicated situation existed while the socialists were government

and they did absolutely nothing except drive investment and jobs out of

the province. Now that they're in opposition again they've got all the

answers, but they did absolutely nothing when they were government.

The

Leader of the Opposition stood in this Legislature and said that the

present British Columbia government opposed the Foreign Investment

Review Act. I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that is an absolute

falsehood! In our endeavour to create jobs and to hold existing jobs in

British Columbia, we became frustrated with the length of time that the

bureaucracy in Ottawa was taking to process proposals for investment

money that wanted to come into the province of British Columbia.

did not sit idly by; we went to Ottawa and said: "There is no reason

that it takes six months to process an application for somebody who

wants to invest money in British Columbia and create jobs." Six and

eight months it was taking, so we went to Ottawa and said: "Look, cut

down your decision-making time. There is no earthly reason why it

should take this amount of time to process a simple application."

What

we did do was cut down the small ones to two weeks and the major ones

from six months or eight months to two months. Now when somebody wants

to invest money, they want a decision. Markets change; attitudes of

directors change. That's the opposition that we gave to the Foreign

Investment Review Act people in Ottawa. We did not say we were against

the Foreign Investment Review Act.

As a matter of fact, Mr.

Chairman, I do want to point something out to you. We are talking of a

three-year total of 74 acquisition cases and 57 new businesses — a very

small total compared to an average of well over 10,000 new businesses

being established in British Columbia under the Social Credit

government in the last three and a half years.

We're talking

about just slightly over 100 new businesses when there were 12,355 new

British Columbia busin