1975 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

FRIDAY, MARCH 21, 1975

Morning Sitting

[ Page

887 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Premier's estimates

On vote 2.

Mr. McGeer — 887

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 890

Mr. McGeer — 892

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 893

Mr. Bennett — 894

Mr. Liden — 896

Mr. L.A. Williams — 898

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 902

Mr. Gardom — 907

Mr. McClelland — 908

Hon. Mr. Lea — 910

Mr. McGeer — 910

Mr. Gibson — 912

FRIDAY, MARCH 21, 1975

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

Mr. H.D. Dent(Skeena): Mr. Speaker, it gives me great

pleasure to draw to the attention of the House that sitting on

the floor of the House this morning, in the far corner, is Mr.

Sam Houston Johnson, the brother of the late Lyndon B. Johnson,

former President of the United States of America.

Mr. Johnson is visiting Victoria and is a guest,

coincidentally, of the man whose responsibility it is to read

the prayers this morning, Mr. Harald Bredesen and the church

which he represents. I would like to ask the House to join with

me in welcoming Mr. Johnson to Victoria.

Mr. Speaker: I'm sure he's not used to being in a

political atmosphere like this. (Laughter.)

Hon. D. Barrett (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I, too, was

going to welcome the late President's brother. I thank the

Member for Skeena for preceding me. I just wanted to add my

words of welcome to Sam Houston Johnson. I hope he enjoys his

stay in British Columbia very, very much.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: PREMIER'S OFFICE

(continued)

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

Mr. P.L. McGeer (Vancouver–Point Grey): The vote

wasn't going to slip through that early — think if I hadn't

been here, Mr. Premier, that vote might have gone through.

Hon. D. Barrett (Premier): Think if I hadn't been

here. (Laughter.)

Mr. McGeer: I'm sorry the Minister of Consumer

Services (Hon. Ms. Young) isn't here. I understand she's off to

Australia, studying the system. My, how they junket, these

cabinet Ministers. I think we should be fortunate enough there

isn't a consumer affairs services on the moon or we'd be

sending our Ministers there at public expense to examine the

methods.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: We're not like Pierre — always

goodbye, Pierre!

Mr. McGeer: I'm wondering how interested the Consumer

Services Minister is in consumers because just a short time

ago, but long enough ago, I wrote her a letter suggesting that

she should investigate, under the Trade Practices Act, an

advertisement placed by the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr.

Barrett). I'd like to ask the Minister whether she has

investigated this advertisement, and if she has recommended to

him any course of action he should take.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I believe the line of

questioning the Hon. Member is pursuing would be more properly

directed to the Minister of Consumer Services.

Mr. McGeer: No, no.

Mr. Chairman: I would ask the Hon. Member to....

Mr. McGeer: I take it for granted....

Hon. Mr. Barrett: She's not here.

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

Member under the responsibility of the Premier.

Mr. McGeer: No, no. You don't understand, Mr.

Chairman. (Laughter.) She was to ask the Premier.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: She did. I told her it was great,

and she agreed. (Laughter.)

Mr. McGeer: It that an official position?

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

....

Mr. McGeer: Would you say that was the extent of the

investigation, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman: Order! Just before the Hon. Member

proceeds, I would like to ask....

Mr. McGeer: Order! Just before the Hon. Member

proceeds, I would ask....

Mr. McGeer: She left for Australia....

Interjection.

Mr. Chairman: Order! Before the Hon. Member proceeds,

I would ask the Hon. Premier not to speak from his seat but

rather wait until he has been recognized and use his mike.

Would the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey

proceed?

[ Page 888 ]

Mr. McGeer: I gather from what the Premier said that

the Minister of Consumer Affairs (Hon. Ms. Young) undertook a

thorough investigation before she left for Australia.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: She's looking at those federal

energy Acts.

Mr. McGeer: Well, I wanted to deal for just a moment,

Mr. Chairman, with the energy question again. Though it may

seem a little repetitious, after all, this is probably the most

important decision the Premier will make in his time in office

as far as its long-term effects on the people of British

Columbia are concerned.

It is no secret, Mr. Chairman, that the Members of the

Liberal Party in British Columbia are a little disappointed

with his performance so far. The Member for West Vancouver–Howe

Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) asked rhetorically yesterday in the

House how they'd like it if you turned off the tap.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You anti-American, you.

Mr. McGeer: The Premier, I think, twisted the meaning

of that just a little bit, Mr. Chairman.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Scandalous!

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Mr. McGeer: He twisted it just a little bit.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You turn off the gas, or you take

gas: which is it?

Mr. McGeer: He doesn't usually do that, but on this

particular occasion, under pressure, he twisted it just a

little bit.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Ever since the Member said it, he

hasn't been back in the House. He's embarrassed.

Mr. McGeer: He's just weary of this Abbott and

Costello performance that's been going on here for several

days. (Laughter.)

Hon. W.L. Hartley (Minister of Public Works): Who's

the leader of the Liberal Party today?

Mr. McGeer: Mr. Chairman, as I recall, the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald), whose job it is to

provide the B.C. Petroleum Corp....

Hon. Mr. Barrett: The CIA will get you!

Mr. McGeer: He used to say when he was on the opposition benches that

there wasn't that much gas in British Columbia, and we shouldn't be exporting

it.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: But we have a contract.

Mr. McGeer: After all, using natural gas for heating

homes is a little like heating your home by burning $20 bills.

This is the natural feed for the petrochemical industry, and

we're going to need it in the future.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Boy, now you're going to get it.

I'm going to read one of your old speeches.

Mr. McGeer: Well, I hope you study them carefully,

because I've said right along that natural gas is something we

should conserve here in British Columbia. We shouldn't be

seeking to export it. It was necessary for a time in order to

justify the cost of building the pipeline down to the

distribution and industrial centres. It isn't necessary now. We

have contracts, but they should be for fair market value. We

should be phasing them out.

Do you know who agrees with us, Mr. Chairman? Yes sir, it's

in today's paper. Why, it's the B.C. Energy Commission.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Which you voted against.

Mr. McGeer: They agree with the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) — not with the Premier,

with the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound.

We want the Premier, Mr. Chairman, to give us a commitment

that he is going to protect the interests of British

Columbians, because by yielding under

section 109 of the BNA

Act the right of the federal government to tax provincial

natural resources, we're not just giving away revenue from

natural gas; we're giving away revenue from all our resources —

coal, copper, aluminum, timber, oil....

Hon. R.M. Strachan (Minister of Transport and Communications): We have

no bauxite in this province, and you know it.

Mr. McGeer: We don't yet. And I think that as long as

you're in power.... If it were to be discovered, Mr. Chairman,

it would be after the socialists left office.

An Hon. Member: Hear, hear!

Mr. McGeer: Because mining exploration in British

Columbia has disappeared.

Interjection.

[ Page 889 ]

Mr. McGeer: The Premier is in fine form this morning,

Mr. Chairman, really.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You're reading your old speech.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. McGeer: You know, he told us last night that he

was full of love.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Yup, I still am.

Mr. McGeer: He's full of love. The Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound was describing how the Premier went down

to Ottawa with his Teddy bear under his arm, full of love for

the federal government. But, you know, there is another side to

the Premier.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Ohhh!

Mr. McGeer: Mr. Chairman, there is another side, and

the Liberal leader was giving us a little vignette of that

other side. It was only a week after the Premier took office.

There he was with the members of the Egg Marketing Board,

threatening to kick the censored out of them if they didn't do

what he said.

Hon. G.R. Lea (Minister of Highways): Is that how

they say it in Point Grey?

Mr. McGeer: He turned to the Minister of Agriculture

and he said to him.... And the Minister of Agriculture (Hon.

Mr. Stupich) was sitting right there behind the Premier's desk,

according to the testimony that was presented in court,

daydreaming.

The Premier said, according to the testimony: "His head will

roll off or come off if he doesn't do as I say." That's pretty

tough talk. The Minister of Agriculture couldn't remember that.

He couldn't remember it in the House; he couldn't remember it

on the witness stand. I tell you, if my boss had said that to

me when I was sitting in his chair the week after I took

office, I'd remember it. (Laughter.) But he forgot it.

You know, my elderly aunt, when we were worrying about

whether we'd have to put her in a home, we could have counted

on her to remember something like that. If you have Ministers

with that sort of memory I don't know what you can trust them

with, because they might forget it between the cabinet room and

their offices. But apparently the Minister of Agriculture got

some kind of a message because he sure pushed the members of

the Egg Marketing Board around in a hotel room in the next hour

or two.

What I am trying to say is that we want the Premier, when he gets down there

to Ottawa with those nasty federal Liberals to be just as tough as he was with

the Egg Marketing Board. Go ahead and say, when you leave that conference room:

"If you mention a word of it outside the room I'll deny every word of it." Say

that to them, too. That's all right in one of those conferences. I don't think

any Ministers of the federal government are going to swear out affidavits. It's

far more important to show your tough side when you're dealing for rights of

the province, when the stakes are large, when the decision will stand through

history than to bring in those poor people on the Egg Marketing Board and show

your tough side to them.

The Premier not only capitulated, he never even put up a

fight. Get the full market value for our natural gas, of

course. But do more than that, Mr. Premier: defend our rights

for all mineral resources for all times. Don't leave your

backbone behind in your office here in British Columbia. Take

it with you, because it's going to be required. No one said

those nasty federal Liberals were a pushover. They aren't. No

federal government has been a pushover since Confederation.

Quebec had a little more success than British Columbia but they

have a history of going in there with a pretty well prepared

case. That's how they won the day on the Canada Pension Plan — by doing their homework more thoroughly than the federal

government had done it.

We can't go down there with a lot of love for the federal

government and a Teddy bear tucked under our arm and win. We've

got to be tough. If we can't win in the conference room, we are

not necessarily beaten. We happen to have a constitution in

Canada and we have a supreme court. Our constitution says that

the money is ours.

Hon. A.B. Macdonald (Attorney-General): I wish it

did.

Mr. McGeer: Mr. Attorney-General, we concede that

your record in the courts is not very good.

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: We won one the other day.

Mr. McGeer: I know, and that places your batting

average higher than the previous Attorney-General (Mr.

Peterson).

Interjection.

Mr. McGeer: Why not try a winning streak?

Interjection.

Mr. McGeer: Well, Mr. Premier, you haven't exactly

got a winning streak going with the federal

[ Page 890 ]

government.

Interjection.

Mr. McGeer: I just think that the Premier ought to

take a little of that reasoning that he expressed to the

members of the Egg Marketing Board. You were there, Mr.

Chairman; you know that he can be tough. The Member for Shuswap

(Mr. Lewis) was there. I see he is not in his place this

morning, again. He just comes to tell me I'm not here.

(Laughter.) I don't think either of you, Mr. Chairman, have

been tough since that meeting. So we know that if the

circumstances are right the Premier can take the.... I think

he's out tending to those chickens and eggs, myself.

(Laughter.) He's there as an exhibit.

Well, Mr. Chairman, I don't want to delay the House. I do

want to make a point that the Premier, neither in Ottawa nor in

this chamber here in British Columbia, has given any indication

that he is prepared to fight for British Columbia's

constitutional rights. In two weeks' time he's going back to

Ottawa, as far as we know, to capitulate again. That isn't good

enough for a Premier of British Columbia. What we want to hear

from him before his estimates are passed is that he is prepared

to stand up for our rights to the income from our natural

resources.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Speaker, the only thing that

stops me from being a little angry about the hypocrisy of the

Liberal Member is the irony attached to it. Now I'm not saying

the Member is hypocritical; I'm saying his position is. I'd

like to read something to the House to refresh the House's

memory of what this Member was saying just a little over a year

ago on this same issue, First of all, on the matter of going to

Ottawa he said: "...where the comments to the press, the

release of telegrams are made before the other government

receives notice of what the intention or wishes are of the

administration in question." You were attacking us for doing

that.

Mr. McGeer: What?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You were attacking here in your

speech. You say — I'll quote the whole paragraph:

And we've slumped with this new government into the same

sorry state of affairs that we had for so many years with

Social Credit. We enter into debate with the national

government by telegrams and press release,

whereas the comments

to the press ...

I'm trying to get the whole dramatic Point Grey emphasis in

here.

...and the release of the telegrams are made before the other government receives

notice of what the intention or wishes are of the administration in question.

The very thing that he said was wrong he's demanding today:

"Tell us ahead of time before you go." What a hypocritical

statement — not the Member. A year and a half ago he said:

"Don't do it that way." Now he says: "Do it this way." But it's

Friday morning and I'm not going to get angry.

Then what else did he say on October 23, the same Member?

Woe befalls those who don't remember that we've got a

Hansard now, where every word that's said is written

down. Listen to this: October 23, 1973, page 879:

To say turn down the taps this afternoon and turn it up tomorrow; turn it down when we're short and turn it up

when we think we can get a high price, isn't good enough for a

private corporation, a private enterprise government or even a

socialist government. It's not worthy of any individual.

Not worthy of any individual! And he's sitting with one who

said: "Will you consider in your arsenal of weapons turning

down the taps?"

How can they sit together?

Mr. L.A. Williams: The B.C. Energy Commission says

that.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: The B.C. Energy Commission? You

said it yesterday. And your colleague said a year and a half

ago that saying such a thing would be unworthy of any

individual. Are you splitting up?

Now I don't have to keep on reminding them of what they say

a year ago, but I think it's necessary. He came in and said

we're not getting enough. In October of 1973 he said: "Asking

for more money is being greedy and we have a greedy Premier."

Flip-flop, dive, swim around, change positions, run for high

ground, into the river, into the forest. You have no position.

You've changed your position so many times on this issue you'd

make a whirling dervish green with envy.

Mr. McGeer: That's not a good analogy.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Not a good analogy? In your case

it's pretty good, Mr. Member. And to show how important this

issue is, the Member even showed up on Friday morning. Friday

morning — a record of attendance! But he didn't think that his

own words would come back to haunt him.

Now look, Mr. Member, regardless of what kind of political

posturing your irresponsible group is taking over there, you

voted against the petroleum corporation.

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

Premier to withdraw the imputation of this group being

irresponsible.

[ Page 891 ]

Hon. Mr. Barrett: The position is irresponsible, not

the group. Not the group.

Mr. Chairman: I ask the Hon. Premier to withdraw the

remark. Would the Hon. Premier continue?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: If there's any way that you can

interpret that I was saying any individual Member was being

irresponsible, I withdraw. I say the whole group's policy is

irresponsible. The whole group's policy is irresponsible. They

can't help that; they're provincial Liberals. If they felt that

strongly about the position they're taking today, do they have

the nerve to stand up and say: "If the federal government

treats British Columbia this way, we'll quit the Liberal Party

No, they only go up to the edge. They never quite go all the

way because there is always the question of senator judge. You

don't want to go too far, Senator or Judge, because you will

ruin everything. You just go up to the edge before you can be

completely responsible.

Last night we heard the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound

(Mr. L.A. Williams) ask: "Are you prepared to take in your

arsenal of weapons 'to turn off the tap'?" When I asked him,

"Is that one of your weapons?" he wouldn't answer. Oh, no. He

was playing a cute game. He was trying to leave the impression

that somehow the Government of British Columbia should threaten

to turn off the tap, but he is silent on whether or not that is

his position.

Mr. Member, you can't say one thing and not really mean it

yourself. What is your position? Would you turn off the tap?

Would you or wouldn't you? You are the one who came in the

House with those words, the very words that were attacked a

year ago by your seatmate, saying that any individual who

suggested that would be irresponsible. Now you are hoisted. You

made a mistake yesterday and you are uncomfortable. I feel

sorry for you, but under no circumstances will we go into a

position of threatening our American friends. Yes, we are a

democratic socialist government, but we are responsible. We

will not threaten our American friends with that kind of

irresponsible semi-threat that is not, backed up by a position,

but is thrown out as a hypothesis.

I am going to have to tell the federal Liberals what you

said because that reflects a political atmosphere that people

in this province are trying to create — trying to stir up bad

feelings between us and the Americans when we are talking about

a business deal, not about relationships between two foreign

countries.

I am going to have to tell them in Ottawa that an irresponsible position has

been taken. Then I am going to have to tell the British Columbia people how

a year and a half ago they said we were being greedy when we

asked for more money. Now today they say we are not asking for

enough. Who are they trying to kid? Then to ultimately suggest

that we consider turning off the tap, the highest degree of

irresponsibility, and then not putting their own position to

that hypothesis, who are they trying to kid? I say we have seen

a most irresponsible performance from the Liberals.

What is our position? Our position at the outset was to

establish a petroleum corporation to end the basic giveaway.

(1) They didn't agree with that. They voted against the

petroleum corporation.

(2) We moved the price of gas up; they

said we were being greedy.

(3) We asked for an increase. We got

it to $1. Now when the B.C. energy board says it is worth $2,

proving the case I made, they say two things: wipe out our

history and tell them down in Ottawa that we want more money;

and consider taking as a threat the idea of turning off the

gas.

How can they sit in this House and be on record in

completely opposed positions and then change overnight? How do

you do it, fellows?

Hon. Mr. Hartley: They are chameleons.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: How do you justify it? I don't

know. Not chameleons — they do that by nature. They are

politicians, Mr. Chairman. They have got a responsibility to

stand up to the people of British Columbia and say why they

have changed their position. I think it is politics, not based

on a demand of a consistent policy that we have had as a

government for the people of this province.

I want to tell you again and clearly, and I want it to get

across to our American friends: in no way can we be associated

with a suggestion that we take in our arsenal the threat to cut

off the gas to the Americans. That is disgusting in my opinion!

Disgusting for any Member to even suggest that it be in the

arsenal without even himself taking a position on whether or

not he would do it. All he said was "perhaps you should

consider taking that in your arsenal" without himself having a

commitment to that very theory which he suggested and to which

his colleague is opposed. and the positions we took all along.

We could have threatened months ago and demanded an immediate

increase. The federal Minister requested that we wait until

April. We accepted that compromise. Now what is wrong with

reasonable negotiations with Ottawa? We know we are going to

get an increase, We will say how much we want and over what

period of time. But I will not in any way tolerate my

association with the position outlined by that group, which has

flip-flopped in the last year and a half, including the

suggestion of threat to our American friends. I say shame!

[ Page 892 ]

Mr. McGeer: The Premier made a wonderful speech.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I appreciate your comment.

Mr. McGeer: He has made a lot of speeches this week.

Some might have judged that he was filibustering his own

estimates. But what he has been short on is answers.

We wanted a commitment from the Premier that he would fight

for the constitutional rights of British Columbia, which is to

keep the revenue from the natural resources, whatever those

natural resources and whatever the revenues. The Premier is so

keen to get a nickel more for natural gas that he'll give away

our future. That's the problem with the Premier.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You made a big mistake

yesterday.

Mr. McGeer: I voted against the B.C. Petroleum Corp.

and I'm proud of it...

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Mr. McGeer: ...because what should have been done by

the government was to take royalties on the natural gas, which

they're entitled to do, without attempting to slither by Ottawa

instead of facing up to them. The federal government wouldn't

tax a Crown corporation. You formed that B.C. Petroleum Corp.

to avoid the constitutional issue. You didn't have any backbone

then and you don't have any backbone now. That thing should

have been laid right on the table on a royalty basis. It should

have been made quite clear that royalties belong to the

province. That's constitutional right under the BNA Act, and

that's the right you haven't had the backbone to fight for.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Oh! That wasn't your position in an

earlier speech.

Mr. McGeer: Of course it is. You take the income from

natural gas, or any other natural resource in British Columbia,

on royalties. If you think you can slip by the federal

government by forming a Crown corporation, the answer is that

you can't. You learned that last time you went back, because

what did the federal government do? They just turned around and

said they were going to tax the private companies on fair

market value. You can't try and sneak by them, Mr. Premier;

you've got to face up to them. That's what you haven't been

prepared to do.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Will you turn off the gas?

Mr. McGeer: You can go and stand and make all the

flowery speeches about flip-flops of Liberals Members and so

on.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Would you turn off the gas?

Mr. McGeer: That's not going to do future generations

of British Columbians any good.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Would you turn off the gas?

Mr. McGeer: Only defending our constitutional rights

would do so.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Would you turn off the gas?

Mr. McGeer: I said before in the House ...

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Would you turn off the gas?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. McGeer: A contract is a contract ...

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Oh, oh!

Mr. McGeer: ...and we live by it. We get fair

market value, but that doesn't mean to say we carry on

exporting our natural gas forever. That's foolish. Even your

own Energy Commission, the commission that you appointed

yourself, agrees with us on that.

Interjections.

Mr. McGeer: Your Attorney-General agreed with us when

he sat in opposition. Don't tell us that we're flip-flopping.

It's your Attorney-General and you. You're going against your

own Energy Commission.

We said it independently, but they agree with us. In the

long term, we don't export our natural gas. It's foolish. We

don't have enough.

Sure, we've got to turn the taps off. It's just a question

of when it can be done consistent with the contracts we signed,

that's all. Of course, if some vast new supplies of natural gas

were to be discovered.... They never will be under your

government; the drilling rigs have packed up and left. As a

result of your ineptitude, we've lost a winter of drilling in

British Columbia, which just shrinks our serves that much more.

Isn't that right, Mr. Attorney-General? How much drilling has

gone on in British Columbia this year?

[ Page 893 ]

Interjections.

Mr. McGeer: Half the rigs have gone, and it's your

bungling that sent them away. You're a disaster for northern

British Columbia, and you're a disaster for future British

Columbians.

Interjections.

Mr. McGeer: You don't understand the issues and

you're not prepared to fight for our rights, When you're

confronted here in the House, you bring out old copies of

Hansard and twist the words around and give a beautiful

speech. But, Mr. Premier, you don't have the backbone to fight

for British Columbia, and you don't deserve to be in that

office.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: To suggest that I don't have the

backbone and that I shouldn't be in that office doesn't wash

away the record. Let me read some of that Member's own words to

this House. I'll read them calmly without his emotion so that

he will digest them and recognize how much he has changed his

position.

On October 23, 1973, this is what that Member said, right

here in black and white:

There is no relation at all to the cost of exploration or a fair

return on the investment, public and private, that has been made. It reflects

only one thing: greed. I don't think greed is any help if it comes from a government

or from private enterprise because greed works against the interests of the

ordinary citizen. Governments that are greedy are just as much to be condemned

as private corporations or individual citizens. When the Premier stands up and

talks about the $100 million we should be getting for our resource, that's

a reflection of greed. It is an inaccurate representation of the situation we

are in today.

Eighteen months ago, when I asked for a modest increase to

allow us to get a $100 million return, he said that it was a

matter of greed. Now what is his position? He's saying: "When

it comes to greed, follow us Liberals. We can be the worst

greedy hogs in the whole world."

What a position to take! Eighteen months ago, saying:

"You're squeezing too much money out." Then saying two weeks

before I go down to the conference: "You're not being greedy

enough." Do you know what has happened to him? Logic hasn't

caught up but political vibes have. Political vibes. They know

that the people of this province are finally....

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Shhh! Shhh! Political vibes are catching up. They

know the people of this province are beginning to understand what's involved

in the export of natural gas. They know that the people of

this province are beginning to understand how much money is

involved with the sale of natural gas. They know that the

people of British Columbia have already had a demonstration of

a major increase to general revenue for the higher increases in

natural gas. So they have flipped their position to outdo the

doers. They have gone from the position of crying havoc and

attacking us for being greedy to saying: "You're not greedy

enough."

Now how do you do that? How do you sleep at night and do

that? Is it purely politically motivated? Is there no

continuation of logic with you fellows?

Then last night I had to repeat it again — it's in

Hansard — and I'm going to have to take it to Ottawa:

the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams)

suggesting that I should consider taking in my arsenal the

threat that we turn down the tap. Those were his words. On the

record we have his seatmate saying the same day, October 23,

1973:

To say "turn down the taps" this afternoon and "turn it up"

tomorrow; turn it down when we're short and turn it up when we

think we can get a high price, isn't good enough for private

corporation, a private-enterprise government or even a

socialist government. It's not worthy of any individual.

Did you read, Mr. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound, what

your colleague said about that? Or has he changed his mind too?

Neither of you have answered this question. After playing

around with the edges of threats, after talking all the tough

talk we're still a province in Confederation. What is your

position? Would you turn off the tap if you couldn't get your

way? Yes or no? Yes or no? Would you turn off the tap if you

couldn't get your way?

Mr. McGeer: Sit down and we'll answer.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Yes or no? It just takes a nod of

the head. Yes or no?

Mr. McGeer: Sit down and we'll give you an

answer.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You sit down and obey the

rules.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Yes or no? Nod your head. In the

case of the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound, he stuck it

out so far, if he nods it, it might fall off. That was the most

irresponsible suggestion ever made in this House, and you

regret it. We know you regret it. But we're going to have to

tell Ottawa what kind of position is represented by almost 20

per

[ Page 894 ]

cent of the vote in this province. If we don't get a better

price, that group will pour gasoline on the flames of

separatism in British Columbia because of their position —

that irresponsible position. That's what it is. They would defy

our law outside of Confederation, that's what they'd do.

They've joined the Quebec Liberals now.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Pretty soon they'll bring in their

own language bill. Pretty soon they'll bring in their own

language bill and, judging from the record in 18 months, it'll

be on doublespeak.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: The language bill on doublespeak

sponsored by the Liberals in British Columbia — that's what

we've seen Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Would the Hon. Premier

return to the vote, please?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I am, Mr. Chairman. I can only

presuppose a language bill on doublespeak from the Liberals to

match what their colleagues have done in Quebec.

I say again that a contract is a contract. It was stupid and

foolish of Social Credit to sign a 15-year contract. I've said

publicly many times that we would never again sign a long-term

contract like that. But we're going to honour it. You even said

that 18 months ago that that's what has to be done. Are you

changing your position on that? Inconsistent, irresponsible,

and I want no part of it. But I'm going to have to tell the

Liberals in Ottawa how you've been behaving, as much as it

grieves me.

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

Chairman, we heard a lot this morning about reasonable

negotiations with Ottawa from the Premier. Reasonable

negotiations. Yet a negotiation over which he has some control,

which is called reasonable negotiation with the municipalities,

isn't taking place.

He's great on province-wide radio broadcasts before he goes down to negotiate,

on saying everything in advance, on taking his hard position in advance. No

room for conciliation, no room for discussion. He talks about reasonableness

when it applies to them, but here we have the municipal governments in this

province that are starved for revenue, that are looking for a more reasonable

source of revenue — a part of the growth taxation of this province — and that

can no longer afford to finance off the property tax. The people who live in

those municipalities want service. They don't care about the silly arguments

between governments. They're not concerned with the performances of the Premier

as to how he's going to be reasonable with Ottawa when he's not reasonable with

them.

Today he talks about some iffy revenue last year before he

went down. Before he went down, he talked about $60 million for

the municipalities — $60 million of iffy revenue, because it

was going to be "if we win a lottery, if we win a sweepstake,

if we get a windfall profit this year, you'll get part of it."

But this says nothing about the continuing problem of financing

next year or next year or next year. We know that the type of

financial aid he offers as pie-in-the-sky is just that.

The very arguments, the very discussions he's used in the

Legislature this morning about what the B.C. Energy Commission

said in Ottawa.... What do they say? They recommend that

export contracts be phased out. Even if they got this iffy

money this year, with the — position of phasing out export

contracts, what about next year and the year after and the year

after?

The municipalities of this province want to deal with a

government that recognizes their financial problems, recognizes

them in more than a public relations way, and is willing to

allocate to them a share of growth revenues that will continue,

growth revenues such as a share of the income tax or a share of

the sales tax or a share of those resource taxes that have an

opportunity of continuing, so they may participate in the

growth of the province and in the growth of revenue.

Right now the Provincial government just loves inflation. It

certainly gives big dollars for the Minister of Finance to play

with. It gives him big dollars to play big spender with the

people's money. Yet the municipal governments, who have

suffered the most during the worst period of inflation we've

ever had since this government came to office, the worst

inflation British Columbia has ever seen.... The property tax

can no longer support increase after increase after increase.

Property taxes are going up and the people of this province are

questioning the type of negotiation that this Premier and

Minister of Finance conducts with their local governments. All

he seems interested in is talking about whether the federal

government is reasonable, talking about some iffy money he may

get if he wins a lottery, if the government gets so much money

in export gas, giving a share of a revenue source which the

B.C. Energy Commission says we're going to phase out, giving a

share of an income source that the government and the B.C.

Energy Commission say we're going to phase out.

Now that's not offering the municipalities anything. That is

not guaranteeing a continuing financial relationship between

governments. That's not the responsibility of a provincial

government, a

[ Page 895 ]

Finance Minister, in meeting and discussing and solving what

will be a continuing problem. Instead, we get the same

grandstand approach, ad hoc seat-of-the-pants solutions that

are developed out of the blue.

He wasn't here to deal with the gas problem when he was in

Hawaii, in China, and when other governments were dealing with

it. Suddenly, in January, he discovered that exploration wasn't

going on in the north. It's hard to realize that we need the

cold weather there when you're lying in the sun in Hawaii. It's

hard to be responsive to the needs of the northern communities

and the gas exploration that can only take place during the

winter.

The municipalities have suddenly announced to him they are

going to have to put up big tax increases this year. In a panic

he tries to find some way to believe in the principle of

revenue-sharing which he pooh-poohed in the Legislature last

November when we offered this as a solution, rather than

continuing to deal with the property tax as the only means of

financial involvement and financial financing that the problems

of the municipalities have. All of a sudden he's aware of the

problems of the municipalities. tie's aware that he's got a

problem of gas exploration in the north and he tries to put the

two together. Does he present it in a reasonable brief? Does he

present it in the nice, reasonable manner he talks about here?

No, he goes on a hotline show, a British Columbia radio-wide

network; and this is his reasonable negotiation.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: That bothers you, doesn't it?

Mr. Bennett: He goes across the province and

announces his great new plan to try and take the political heat

off. Well, that was a political move, and this Premier has said

that he doesn't like being political. He doesn't like being

political. You are being political to the detriment of the

municipalities of this province. And don't believe that those

same taxpayers who are faced with the problems of meeting the

high cost of municipal taxation and having trouble receiving

services.... They're the same taxpayers who you are taking the

$3.2 billion from. Don't think that they don't realize that

part of their local problem is your unappreciativeness of

meeting a continuing solution to the solving of the financial

problems of the municipalities. Not at all. Not at all.

Instead, we have had five days of comedy routines — and they

were good. But you can get better in Las Vegas and it doesn't

cost the people of the province $50,000 a year. It would just

cost them the price of a plane ticket.

This province and this Premier will use the gas position to support his position

one way. But the municipalities have been saying that this isn't a promise of

a specific revenue. Here in the paper we find the B.C. Energy Commission says

that it isn't even a continuing revenue if it happens that the gas export is

phased out. Last fall he talked about $60 million. Well, the municipalities

don't see anything in your budget about $60 million. They don't see that figure,

Hon. Mr. Barrett: But they see a lot more than they ever got under the Socreds.

Mr. Bennett: They don't see that figure. Here we've

had an economy that's doubled the provincial budget in a very

short time — given you big dollars. That wasn't created by this

government; that was created by an economy that was a boom in

Canada, North America and the world. That economy is threatened

now. But those big dollars you didn't invent, Mr. Minister of

Health. You didn't invent those dollars. That wasn't to your

credit. It's easy to collect. To spend wisely, to spend fairly,

to make adequate and fair distribution of those dollars for all

levels of government — that's the responsibility.

Hon. D.G. Cocke (Minister of Health): Yes, put the

squeeze on them like your old man did.

Mr. Bennett: Right now there's a very good reason why

the municipalities are upset, and it's come home this morning

more clearly than ever that what was offered was an iffy share

of an iffy revenue, a revenue source that's going to be phased

out. That's why the municipalities are concerned in this

province.

You know, in this session of the Legislature we've been

sitting for many weeks now. The idea of the Legislature is to

present legislation, yet as of today how many bills have come

in for consideration by the legislators? Where is the

legislative programme to indicate to the public what this

session is all about.

We have a budget that gives no clear indication because it

deals with iffy revenues. The municipalities aren't sure

and now the public isn't even sure they've got a legislative

programme because to date we've only got a couple of bills and

a couple of borrowing bills before the Legislature to solve the

further borrowings of this government. The public is concerned

about the borrowing because it's concerned about the method of

borrowing and why the government is borrowing. The public is

concerned about the financial ability of this government to

spend and collect their money wisely.

In the Legislature just the other day we questioned the

government's intention of purchasing shares in Can-Cel. Do we

get an answer from the Minister of Finance? Did he confirm that

he bought the shares? No, he didn't confirm it to the

Legislature. Did he tell us why or who is buying the shares —

whether it was

[ Page 896 ]

the government or the B.C. Cellulose Corp.? No, he doesn't

share the information with the people's elected

representatives. Then he went off on some long-winded routine

about whether there were charges or something improper that

could be settled in the courts, and whether we were making that

specific sort of charge.

We talked about whether the Lands and Forests Minister (Hon.

R.A. Williams) had been indiscreet in creating the impression

that the government was to be selling shares when, indeed, it

was buying them. The very same day the Attorney-General brought

in a very tough bill about insider trading. The

Attorney-General is very concerned about insider trading.

The Attorney-General must further appreciate the

responsibility of government not to mislead the people. The

government has an additional responsibility not to mislead the

people when they are the major shareholders in a corporation

and can affect its profitability in the future, and through the

weight of Ministerial statements can create an impression in

the public that may affect the price of those shares. I know

the Attorney-General realizes this, Mr. Chairman, and he

realizes the discretionary nature that must surround such

statements, particularly when a government is embarked on a

course opposite to that which was alluded to.

Even if they were misquoted in the newspapers it's incumbent

upon responsible Ministers in this position to clarify for the

public exactly what the government situation is so that no

false impression that may affect the price of the shares be

created, so not even one person is misled by the announced

government intentions that have been alluded to and are

repeated in journal after journal after being reported in a

responsible newspaper in the Province of British Columbia.

An Hon. Member: Name names.

Mr. Bennett: The Vancouver Province among

others.

During this debate we've heard a lot about the financial plight of the municipalities

and why they are concerned. Many different municipal governments have written

and phoned to express their concern to our office and to myself. The very concerns

they've expressed have been highlighted here today with the further announcement

by the presentation of the Energy Commission that the very iffy tax share that's

offered to them will be phased out in the future and that, indeed, they have

nothing specific to go on. What they've been asking for is the type of reasonable

responsible negotiation on their financial matters with this provincial government

that the Premier talks about when he goes to Ottawa. But they haven't had such

a negotiation; they haven't had such a discussion. They have no assurance that

such discussion will take place. Instead they learn, as everyone else does,

on a public relations-type radio broadcast across the province, that there may

be some revenue, there may be $60 million. When you look for it in this budget,

it is not there. That's why the people of the province are concerned.

The high property taxes and the increases are a direct

result of this government, and the Minister of Finance is

directly responsible. When the people get their tax bills this

year, they'll know with whom the responsibility lies.

Mr. C. Liden (Delta): Mr. Chairman, I notice the

Premier has had some difficulty with the tough positions that

have been raised by the opposition. But they have been raised

so many times that it is time we started looking at something

new, something else that is important in this province.

I notice that we all get Beale's Letter and we all

read it, I hope. But just in case you missed, there was

something very interesting in one of them here a month or so

ago.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: He's not a supporter of ours.

Mr. Liden: Well, I'm not sure. You never can tell.

Things are changing. He says that when he was in the lobby of

the Grand Hotel in Stockholm....

Mr. Bennett: How about the town of Stewart?

Mr. Liden: He says:

"It seemed like a cold and uninviting winter afternoon in

February, but it doesn't much matter because the man I'm seated

with around a vast, circular marble table commands my absolute

attention. He is a distinguished head of one of Sweden's big

pulp and paper firms, and he is detailing for me, in simple

layman's language, exactly what the fluctuating U.S. dollar

means to Sweden's export sales. Then this top, rather austere

industrialist, pauses a second and says, 'All the time,

of course, we must constantly keep in mind what is best for

Sweden.'"

"What is best for Sweden" — and that's a phrase he said he

heard many times while he was travelling around

Scandinavia.

But what kind of phrases and what does he say about the sort

of thing that takes place here? He says:

"I don't think I've ever heard a top businessman in

Vancouver, New York or Toronto say that we must consider what's

in the best interests of Canada or of America. It's always a

question of what's in the best interests of the company."

[ Page 897 ]

I think we have got to look at that. I think the Premier has

got to look at the kind of things we might be doing in the

future to have these industrialists take some interest in what

is happening to the country, not just what's in the interests

of the companies.

John F. Kennedy said something about that some years ago

when he said: "Think not of what my country can do for me but

what I can do for my country." I think that applies far more to

the corporations and to the large industrialists than it does

to some of the little people that are referred to often. I hope

that the Premier is planning in the future some way of getting

these corporations to become better citizens and work in the

best interests of the people.

I also have another question that comes out of something

that J.V. Clyne raised. One of my constituents has written a

letter and asked about this whole business of a transferable

ballot, the matter that J.V. Clyne raised here a month or so

ago.

What my constituent says is that Clyne is trying to devise a

system that will make winners out of losers in this

transferable ballot thing. I think it is very important; I

think you should all be aware of what he is saying. I think

J.V. Clyne is on to something. His proposed vote-tallying

system in the Sun on January 25 would result in the election of

losers rather than winners, and this is truly revolutionary. I

believe that the concept underlying this scheme has a wider

application than perhaps he's even realized.

Take, for instance, the Stanley Cup. Last year I was shocked

and dismayed when it was won by the Philadelphia Flyers. In the

first place, their style of play is foreign to our way of life.

They do not play the game at all as it was taught in Point Grey

or in Cadboro Bay.

Secondly and more importantly, they did not receive the

majority of the points in their division. The sum total of the

teams that finished below them was much larger.

What I would really like to see is the Stanley Cup victory

for the Vancouver Canucks. Last year this same person proposed

a point-tallying system that would have met that objective. He

suggested that teams be given five points for each victory over

the team higher than themselves in the standings and only one

point for a victory over teams lower than themselves. Last year

that system, the Philadelphia menace would have been checked

and the Canucks would have been elevated to their rightful

position. That's the kind of thing that Clyne proposes to

do.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: How to win a ball game.

Mr. Liden: This year though, those kinds of rules create a real quandary

for the Canucks, because this year the Canucks are on top of the division. So

this scheme actually would thwart rather than aid the desire

to have the Canucks become the Stanley Cup winners.

Hon. W.S. King (Minister of Labour): How about the

Socreds?

Mr. Liden: Despite the Canucks' success, I am still

worried that Philadelphia might again win the cup. We therefore

propose a new system for this year. We would like to propose a

new system for this year. We would like to propose that if five

points were given to a team for each of the serious injuries

that it inflicts on another team, and the number of penalty

minutes were subtracted from the goals scored, then we might

once again get the Canucks to the surface.

So he ends up by saying: "I feel, like Mr. Clyne, that there

are times when rationality and democracy must give way to meet

the more important ends." That is the kind of thing Clyne was

trying to do. I wonder if the Premier has given much

consideration to that new system of tallying up the votes so

that you might make winners out of losers.

Mr. McGeer: Has he figured out a way the Liberals can

get provincial election?

Mr. Liden: The Liberals tried. It seems to me they

tried in 1952. They tried with that system and it didn't

work.

There is Howard Johnston who is the MP for

Okanagan-Kootenay. He is a Conservative but I believe he was a

Socred at one time. He speaks of Clyne's proposal as a whiff of

something dead.

For those people who will recall, the transferable ballot

was proposed in 1952 when that shaky coalition of the Liberals

and the Conservatives wanted to try and keep the CCF out of

office. Somehow or other, they thought that they would all vote

second choice for their friends, their own part of the

coalition. Then after the election they might put the coalition

back together. But the people changed that. They didn't go that

route.

Now we have the whole thing proposed again. I think we

should take note of what Mr. Johnston says in his last

paragraph:

"A bemused electorate has watched both the Majority Movement

and the Unity Party surface and sink. It's too late for the

third unhappy hybrid to climb to the platform of electoral reform with any hope of paddling it to victory."

I hope when the Premier is considering all these proposals

for electoral reform and that he bears in mind some of the

things said by these people.

I've another letter that I received from one of my

constituents. I notice that the Member for West Vancouver–Howe

Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) is also on

[ Page 898 ]

this Member's mailing list. He deals with some of the things

that really bother him. This person is 92 years old, lives in

White Rock, and his name is Joe Early. He does a fair amount of

writing. He says:

"Saturday's Sun acts like it is the government of B.C. and

the NDP is outlawed. I used to write for the Sun . A few

times they did my write-ups in the press, but they returned

some and did not answer some others so I quit writing. It is no

use. Now I see the reason. I was boosting Mr. Dave Barrett. The

Vancouver Sun must be against him."

So his letters were returned.

"The Vancouver Sun had some excuses for not

publishing, but the excuses were a joke. When the press of B.C.

is determined to go against the citizens of B.C. who voted the

NDP into office, the NDP has some checking up to do on the

press of B.C.

"Right now it is important to the citizens of B.C. who are

not millionaires, those who are not lawyers, who are plain

citizens, to understand the meaning of justice. It is not to be

made a mockery of by the Vancouver press, as they are doing in

their publications. It is a ripoff that needs checking.

"The NDP must find means and ways in having the truth

published — the reason for the NDP's progressive laws for the

citizens of B.C. and Canada, progressive things the citizens

should know.

"The facts are: the opposition is not interested in the

welfare of the people of B.C., but for themselves. They act

dumb in parliamentary debate, but on the outside in a huddle,

the opposition knows all the answers. They don't know while

they are in the House. While the NDP Members, in the interests

of justice of all citizens' welfare, none will be isolated. It

is good government striving for a standard of living for all

people. Let no man pull asunder."

That is signed by Joe Early, a citizen who is 92 years old,

a person who has been following a lot of things that are

happening in British Columbia. I hope that the Premier also

takes his views into consideration.

Mr. L.A. Williams: If I got it correctly, the Hon.

Member for Delta was comparing the NDP politically with the

Flyers in hockey. I think that was the analogy he used. I think

it is very appropriate because I remember being told last year

during the Stanley Cup play-offs that the Philadelphia Flyers

were a team consisting of a centre man and 13 thugs. I think

that it is pretty appropriate for the NDP. (Laughter.)

An Hon. Member: No hope for them.

Mr. L.A. Williams: We've enjoyed a game this morning,

one of the Premier's performances. I am happy to take my place

in the debate and provide, I hope, some answers to some of the

concerns he has raised.

He talked about people flip-flopping and made a great amount

this morning about how he was going to live up to contracts and

so on. But I remember vaguely that someone connected with the

Government of British Columbia made some comments that, as far

as he was concerned, the people in Washington state and Oregon

could sit in the dark and freeze. I don't know who it could

have been who said a thing like that.

Interjections.

Mr. L.A. Williams: I think it was a Minister of the

Crown.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Name names.

Mr. L.A. Williams: The Hon. Premier.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: When?

Mr. L.A. Williams: Quoted in the press.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Where?

Mr. L.A. Williams: Quoted in the press when there

were discussions about the availability of gas supplies to the

United States. As far as he was concerned, the people in the

northwest states could sit in the dark and freeze.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I never said that.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I never said that to the press.

Interjections.

Mr. L.A. Williams: I can never understand how it is

that the press that the Premier.... Maybe that's why he

dislikes the press so much: because they're so inaccurate in

quoting the Premier.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Where is this

article quoting me as

saying that?

Mr. L.A. Williams: I'm getting it. It will be

available to me as soon as they find it from the library. I'll

be happy to send the Premier a copy.

[ Page 899 ]

The Premier made a lot, as well, out of statements made in

this House by the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey

(Mr. McGeer) and statements I made last night. But he fails to

put these statements in the perspective of events which have

occurred since they were made.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Twenty-four hours.

Mr. L.A. Williams: No, I'm talking about the

statements in October, 1973. The Premier does not seem to

recognize or will not admit the reality of what has occurred

since those debates in October, 1973.

What we had was an attempt on the part of the Government of

the Province of British Columbia to pull an end run on the

petroleum industry and on the national government through their

incorporation of the British Columbia Petroleum Corp. and its

involvement in the acquisition and distribution of natural gas.

The Premier thought he had it made.

But the trouble is that the national government is pretty

quick on its feet too. With their ability, they thwarted that

end run in a manner which was telegraphed in May, 1974. After a

general election in Canada, when the Liberal Party was returned

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Why did Macdonald take a different

position?

Mr. L.A. Williams: Because the Minister of Finance in

Ottawa (Hon. Mr. Turner) happens to control the budgetary

policies of that government, which would appear to be somewhat

different than is the case in the Province of British

Columbia.

The Premier won't recognize the change that has taken place

since October, 1973 — a change in which he himself has been

involved as a major contributor. When we talk about what the

Government of British Columbia must do today in its

negotiations with Ottawa, we're talking about a situation which

was to a large extent manufactured by the Premier of British

Columbia in his attempts to use his philosophical approach

against the oil companies and the national government.

It has resulted in actions taken by the national government

which have affected British Columbia's position in

Confederation, a position in Confederation that the Premier now

says is so terribly important to him, after he has given most

of it away, after he has acknowledged the right of the national

government to obtain taxes from the provincial governments

through its Crown corporations.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Would you turn off the taps?

Mr. L.A. Williams: I'll come to that in a moment, Mr.

Chairman.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Oh, yeah!

Mr. L.A. Williams: I'll come to that in a moment. I

told the Premier I would indicate to him what my position

was.

The Premier is going to go down in a couple of weeks and

again engage in discussions with the national government,

apparently without recognizing what he has done to this

province's position in Confederation and, indeed, to the

position of all the other provinces in Confederation. We had a

debate last spring, a year ago, about the natural resource

situation, particularly petroleum and natural gas, and the

position which was being taken by the Province of Alberta at

that time. In that debate, the Premier agreed with me that it

was wrong for provinces individually to go and make their deals

with the national government. It was wrong.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Alberta did it.

Mr. L.A. Williams: Yes, Alberta did it.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Saskatchewan did it.

Mr. L.A. Williams: That's right, and you said it was

wrong. Now you're in a position, you see, as a result of steps

that they have taken, where you have to go and make your own

private deal. But because of the way in which you've done it,

you find yourself changing Confederation without changing the

constitution of this nation. Through dollars, through deals,

through tax deals....

Interjection.

Mr. L.A. Williams: Of course they're doing it.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please! The Hon. Member for West

Vancouver....

Mr. L.A. Williams: That's the whole point, and I'm

glad the Premier has suddenly recognized the point that we

...

Mr. Chairman: Order, please!

Mr. L.A. Williams: ...are trying to make from this

side of the House.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please! Before the Hon. Member

proceeds I would ask.... The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound has the floor, and I would ask the Hon.

Premier to wait until he is finished before he responds. Thank

you.

[ Page 900 ]

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. L.A. Williams: Of course the national government

is involved in it. They are responding to your actions.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Of course.

Mr. L.A. Williams: So what we've got is play and

interplay on tax matters, which is destroying Confederation.

It's the first step.

The Premier says that we're pouring gasoline on the fires of

separatism. Nonsense! Nonsense! The Premier's the only one who

ever raises the matter of separatism in these debates. My

position is quite clear. Under the British North America Act

the Province of British Columbia has control of its natural

resources and the revenues from those resources. That's a

position which this' government must maintain consistently, and

which this particular government has not.

Once we have realized our revenues from our resources, then

we sit down and discuss with the national government the way in

which there might be some equalization or sharing of wealth

throughout this Confederation. What the Premier has done is to

accept the proposition from the national government which gives

them the control of those revenue resources. And the central

government, as the Premier well knows, is controlled by the

central provinces, and, again, those western provinces lack for

consideration. That's the issue.

I'm not talking about the breakup of Confederation. We just

want Confederation to be a government of equals between the

provinces and the national government, each with their separate

responsibilities but equal together so far as Canada is

concerned. The Premier with his philosophy is, unwittingly I

suspect, seeing the end of such a system.

Would I turn off the taps? I've done some investigation, and

I assume the consultants available to the Premier have also

advised him that, no matter what happens, the best advice the

government can get from its Energy Commission is that before

the end of the existing gas contracts British Columbia will be

in a deficit situation, so far as natural gas is concerned, to

meet our own requirements and to meet the requirements for

export contracts. He's also been advised by his Energy

Commission that it would be difficult to terminate the export

of gas at the end of the existing contracts, in 1989. To cut it

off dead would be difficult, if not impossible.

We have the Energy Commission announcing yesterday that the export of gas should

diminish. I support that position by 1989, and if it is going to be difficult

if not impossible at that time to terminate those contracts immediately, then

it is appropriate now, regardless of any other arguments that may be going on,

to begin to diminish the flow of gas outside of this province. That's a matter

that should be under negotiation, as well as the subject of price. What is happening,

if we don't sit down and talk to our customers....

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Would you turn off the taps?

Mr. L.A. Williams: I'll come to that in a moment.

Interjection.

Mr. L.A. Williams: I'm dealing with the subject

now.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Interjections.

Mr. L.A. Williams: It's most amusing, Mr. Chairman.

When the Premier has a question he wants answered, he's

impatient beyond belief in getting it answered. But we've been

here for five days in this House asking questions of the

Premier, and we haven't got any answers from him.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Nonsense!

Mr. L.A. Williams: Now if I may continue, Mr.

Chairman, without interruptions from the Premier....

Mr. Chairman, — I can understand why the Premier has

difficulty convincing us that he can't get reason and logic to

work in Ottawa, because we never hear him use it in this House.

If he gets in a tough position, or any of his Members, they see

fit to use personal attacks, because that's the kind of

politics this Premier understands.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You never do that. Oh, no. You're

so sweet.

Mr. L.A. Williams: Since it will be difficult, if not

impossible, to terminate our export contracts in 1989, we

should be embarking on discussions now with our American

neighbours, who are our customers, and make them recognize that

they must seek alternative forms of energy and that we, for

their best interests and ours over the period longer than 1989,

must begin to reduce the flow of gas south of the border.

As the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey

[ Page 901 ]

(Mr. McGeer) has said, if we suddenly find a vast pool of

gas available in British Columbia, then we can reconsider those

negotiations. But on the best advice the Premier can get from

his B.C. Energy Commission, we are not in that position today.

We are living in a fool's paradise and we are leaving our

customers to live in a fool's paradise to believe that the

present situation can continue.

The present situation itself is not that good. We can't meet

our full commitments under those contracts. Whenever there is a

shortfall, for whatever reason — if a field has to be shut down

for maintenance work or if there are problems with the weather,

or anything of that kind — then the flow of gas south of the

line diminishes. Because of that situation recent negotiations

have gone on with the Province of Alberta for the supply of

additional volumes of gas south of the line from that province.

Those should be discussed with our customers if they are our

great friends — as the Premier suggested a few moments ago —

and not to take the kind of action which he has taken, which

results in senators of the United States of American suggesting

that they should send Henry Kissinger to talk to the Premier of

British Columbia to see if we can't solve that problem. Surely

we should approach this matter on the basis of reason and

logic, which is so important to the Premier in the conduct of

his responsibilities.

Now would I turn off the taps? Mr. Chairman, when the

Premier has been down to Ottawa in recent times (and he's come

back a loser) and when he goes down on this next trip in April

(and we trust that he won't come back a loser) he has described

to us the way in which negotiations are carried on. I said

yesterday that he must take his full arsenal. I say, in case I

didn't make myself clear yesterday, that if I were in that

position and going to Ottawa, I would take the position with

the national government that if they persisted in interfering

with the natural resource revenues which are properly those of

the Province of British Columbia under the BNA Act, I would

take the alternative available to me of reducing the flow of

natural gas to the Americans. That is one thing that disturbs

Ottawa, and it has to disturb British Columbia as well. They

recognize that our economic relationship with the United States

of America is of vital importance to Canada, and I recognize

it.

But when you have been left by the Premier in a position where you are negotiating

from weakness, you have to use all weapons at your command. Now the Premier

may disagree with that, but it is my belief that at this current stage in the

history of Confederation this government has to stand up or it is going to become

weaker and weaker in relation to the central government of this country. All

provinces are going to be affected, not only British Columbia. What happens

in April, so far as British Columbia is concerned, is going to affect the Province

of Alberta and the Province of Saskatchewan with respect to all of their petroleum

resources. What is of greater concern is that what happens in April with regard

to our petroleum resources may one day come back to haunt us with respect to

other natural resource revenue.

May I remind you that a former national leader of the NDP,

the Hon, Tommy Douglas, asked a question of the Minister of

Finance regarding the non-allowance of royalties as expenses

for income tax purposes of companies — whether the national

government would take the same position with regard to stumpage

and royalties in the forest industry. The response he received

from the national Minister of Finance was that it wouldn't

occur unless stumpage and royalties assumed the guise of some

other kind of tax.

So he didn't get an absolute no and he didn't get an

absolute yes, but he got a warning. He got the same kind of

answer as the Premier got, when he went back earlier this year,

from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in the

national government (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) about the export tax.

He got a "not necessarily" answer — not an absolute no and not

an absolute yes, but "not necessarily."

This is the situation that faces this province and faces the Premier. He is

not getting absolutes from the national government. They are always retaining

their options. But when he comes back from Ottawa, we don't have any options.

It is all gone when he comes back. The deal is made. We continue to operate

from a weaker and weaker position. That is no way to run a province. That is

no way to run Confederation.

The Premier has indicated that he is going to tell the

Liberals in Ottawa when he goes down there what has been said

by the provincial Members. Mr. Chairman, I would just like the

Hon. Premier to know that he is wasting his time. He is wasting

his time. I happen to know that the Members of the Liberal

Party in Ottawa are already getting copies of Hansard

from British Columbia to find out what it is we are saying

here.

I make this final point: if they don't like it, they know

what they can do. It happens that I belong to a party which is

broad enough in its scope to accept some difference in

viewpoint. I thought that the Hon. Premier belonged to the same

kind of a party. I thought that he took positions much

different from those taken by the former leader of his national

party on some very important issues.

Mr. McGeer: And he didn't resign from the party?

Mr. L.A. Williams: He didn't resign from the party at

all.

[ Page 902 ]

Mr. McGeer: Gracious!

Mr. L.A. Williams: He and David Lewis had some

startling differences of opinion. He and the officers of the

NDP in British Columbia have had some startling differences of

opinion. But he still belongs to the party. I am not sure

whether the president and the executive officers who disagreed

with the Premier are still president and executive officers. I

think there may have been some shift of position, but at least

he is still in the same party.

I am sure that the Premier would take exactly the same

position on this that I do. If his party ever said to him, "We

can't stand you and we want you to go," I'll bet you

that the Premier would not change his position, his principles,

and bow down to his party. He would say: "Fine, if you want me

to step aside, I will do so."

I make exactly the same position. I happen to feel strongly

about what I say. If my party wants to say to me, "We can't

have you because you disagree with the national policy,"

all they've go to do is get on the phone.

Hon. Mr. King: There's a phone call in your office,

Allan.

Mr. L.A. Williams: No, the bells are ringing. I

understand that I disagree with the Premier and he with me on

these matters. I trust that everyone in this House dealing with

this subject — the position of British Columbia in

Confederation and its rights to its own affairs — will deal

with it as British Columbians and the Premier will support

it.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: First of all, Mr. Member, there are

just a couple of inconsistencies in your position, although I

welcome your final analysis that British Columbia should not be

dealt with badly by Ottawa.

On the question of speaking out on exports: shortly after we

had the first increase after we established the petroleum

corporation, in February of 1974, I went to Seattle and spoke

on this issue. Since that time I have met with Mr. MacMillian

of the Northwest Gas Co., also with the people at the petroleum

corporation who run that board for us, and informed them of the

government's policy. It was public information.

In February of 1974, I spoke in Seattle and said two things. The first was that

there would be no new contracts on the export of natural gas as long as we were

the government of British Columbia. That was No. 1. That was on the record over

a year ago, so you can't come in here and say that we haven't said this clearly.

I recall saying it and being attacked by some Members. I'll have to go back

and find out which ones they were who attacked me for saying it. The other thing

I said was that I knew they regretted that the price had gone up, but the price

must go up again. I told them in Seattle. It is a matter of record since February

of 1974. That has been my position.

It is unfortunate for your own research, perhaps, to come

into this House and suggest that I had not made that position

clear to our American customers. As I recall your words, you

said that I had not given an indication to the Americans that

there would be no more contracts. Indeed I have — over a year

ago.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Yes, you did. You'll have to get

the Blues , and it indicates certainly that you said I had to

have that position clear. I hadn't made it clear; we haven't

got answers. You go back over your own words. Read them

again.

Now I appreciate the embarrassment that your remarks brought

you last night. But I find it a tortuous explanation. Last

night you weren't sure whether or not you'd say, yes, you would

go that last step and turn off the tap. But you did say this

afternoon that an unnamed cabinet Minister — and you alluded

that it was me — said "let the Americans freeze in the dark."

That's what you said just a few minutes ago. I didn't say that,

and I don't see a clipping or anything else that you're

alluding to. If you're referring to some other cabinet

Minister, let me know.

After having made that allegation against me, what did you

go on to say? And being regretful that perhaps that allegation

was true from your point of view, then you went on to say that

you would turn off the gas, which means, in effect, let them

freeze. If you can't get your way in Ottawa, you said, if you

couldn't get your way in Ottawa — let's follow your logic —

that yes, regretfully, you would turn off the gas. Ergo, who's

going to freeze?

[Mr. G.H. Anderson in the chair.]

The very thing that you came in and suggested a cabinet

Minister here had said, you said with emphasis today. You said

that if you couldn't get your way in Ottawa you would turn off

the tap, which means that the end result of that policy, Mr.

Member — is it not true? — would mean, "let the Americans

freeze." Is that not correct? Oh. When you say it, it doesn't

come out that way. When someone else says turn off the gas, it

comes out that way. Now that is funny logic. You are prepared

to say in this House that if you don't get your way in Ottawa,

you'll turn off the gas. You turn off the gas overnight and

they're going to freeze.

Mr. L.A. Williams: I didn't say that.

[ Page 903 ]

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Oh, when do you turn it off? At the

end of the contract? Oh, I heard them very clearly. Oh, you're

going to phase it out now — is that it?

An Hon. Member: Of course.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: How much you going to phase?

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Oh, what a fudgy Liberal position.

What a hollow threat. "I'm going to turn it off — but not

really. I'm just going to slow it down — but not really."

Mr. Gibson: Ask Ottawa for the exact details.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Member, if you're going to

carry a loaded gun, use it. But don't play games with this

House or anyone else. Your logic was shallow because you're not

prepared to say absolutely that if you don't get your way,

you'll turn the gas off. You sit here and you leave the

impression that that's what you'd do. When you're nailed with

it, you say: "Well, not right away. A little bit at a time."

Who are you trying to kid? Yes or no? Is that an absolute? Of

course it isn't; it's just a game. You would come back and turn

it down a little bit.

Now I'm telling you very clearly....

Mr. G.B. Gardom (Vancouver–Point Grey): Politics,

politics, politics, politics, politics.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Politics, politics. Oh, he's not

involved in politics. Oh, no.

Mr. Gardom: It's the same speech you gave an hour

ago.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Look, Mr. Member, he's been caught

on a statement he made yesterday. He's tried to skate off it,

and the more he tries to skate off it, the more he gets caught

in it. Well, don't try and defend him.

Mr. Gardom: It's the same speech you made an hour

ago.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Don't try and defend him.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: All the names and everything else. We're talking about

a position, and the position was that, when he finally came down to it, he'd

turn the gas off. To say when, he said gradually — not right away. Freeze to

death slowly.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Now what about the question of the

federal government) You have never said once why the federal

government would take this position against British Columbia.

Why? What is Ottawa's logic against Canadians getting the best

price for their natural gas? What is their reason?

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I don't know either, Mr. Member.

Can you explain to me why a Canadian federal government would

say that we are forced to sell our gas to the United States for

a lot less than what it's worth? Why?

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You're puzzled by that too? Okay.

All British Columbians, regardless of party, are puzzled by

that question. I have not heard a rational explanation for

anyone for Ottawa's position as to why they insist British

Columbia must sell its gas cheaper to the Americans that what

it's worth. Now what is the reason for that' Without getting- a

stated reason, we are left to speculate. When you're left to

speculate, you come up with all kinds of horrible ideas.

One of the horrible ideas touched upon briefly by the Member

for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) was — and stated

clearly by the Member last night — that they weren't really

after Lougheed. Those were your words. They weren't really

after Lougheed they were after the British Columbia Petroleum

Corp. And you agree with that.

Then you must come to the next step. Why are they after the

petroleum corporation? The next step is because it's publicly

owned.

So what you come to, Mr. Member, through a very simple

method of elimination, is the argument that if you deal with

the private companies, the federal government will favour you,

but if you go your own route — through the Crown corporations —

they will either scare you, as suggested by the Member for

North Vancouver–Capilano, or go after you, as suggested by you

last night. You said they weren't after Lougheed. He said they

were trying to scare us with the question of tax on the

corporation. You said they were after the petroleum

corporation. Is the petroleum corporation anti Canadian? Is the

petroleum corporation taking money out of this country? No, but

the multinational corporations are taking money out of this

country. The multinational corporations have tax benefits. But

that's not who the Liberal Member said that the Liberal

government

[ Page 904 ]

was after — he said the federal Liberals were after the

publicly owned Crown corporations.

Some Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Well, that's his conclusion; those

are his words. He is accusing them — the federal government —

of being more concerned about ensuring profit for private

companies than giving a fair return to the Canadian people.

I'll add the proof to that. What were the words of Mr. John

Turner after the budget came down? After the deal we had

arranged with Mr. Macdonald was already in effect, Mr. Turner

said to the press and to my Minister that there is a way to

solve this problem. What were his words? "Pay the companies

more money." That's what he said.

Mr. Chairman, it all falls into place. "Pay the companies

more money for their gas" that's what he said, Mr. Member —

"and the problem will disappear." Here we have the incredible

sequence of events being confirmed now by the words of the

members of the Liberal Party, not us NDPers. You're the ones

who tell us, through your own words, that they tried to scare

us. You're the ones who told us through your own words last

night that they weren't after Lougheed, they were after our

petroleum corporation, which leads one to believe that the

multinationals are okay — it 's the publicly owned corporation

they're against. Then tie that in with John Turner's own

statement: "Pay the companies more money." Isn't that an

incredible story? The federal government tells a provincial

government that the fight will be over between Ottawa and

British Columbia on this issue not if you give money to the

municipalities, not if you lower taxes for British Columbia,

not if we take more money into general revenue, but — pay the

oil companies more money and the fight will be over.

An Hon. Member: A complete distortion.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: A distortion, Mr. Member? Did he

not say that? I know what he said — I talked with him. My own

Minister heard it from his own mouth. What has happened is that

we've had a clear-cut example of where the federal government

priorities are in terms of their economic policy, You've divorced yourself from this. I welcome that today —

I'm glad to hear it.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I understand clearly your words of

last night, and you don't like having them tied together. You

said last night that the federal government was not after

Lougheed, they were after British Columbia — that's what you

said.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: All right. You said that you'd cut

off the tap. When I tried to nail that down, you said

"gradually." Then I asked you if you say that the federal

government is against the petroleum corporation, and you come

to the question: why? Why would the federal government be

against the petroleum corporation but not against the oil

companies in Alberta? The argument they came up with, after Mr.

Turner was confronted with "pay them more money," was

"because we want more revenue," the federal government

said.

Okay. So we said: "All right, you want more money — we're

not going to give it to the oil companies. You tax and we'll

rebate the tax." Now you say that's where we made the mistake.

You are wrong.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: We took the Alberta position one

better.

An Hon. Member: No.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Oh, yes it is. What do you think

the oil companies in Alberta are faced with?

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Member, you appear to think

that....

Mr. McGeer: That's where you sold out.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Oh, don't be stupid! Absolutely

stupid! If we had given the oil companies more money, we would

have sold out. If that's your position, you live with it. But I

will not ever force money down the throats of oil companies to

make them richer — that was a federal government policy.

Federal policy was to give the oil companies more money, and

they only pay tax on about 6 per cent in any event.

Mr. McGeer: You sold out our rights.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Sold out your rights. Oh! You are

so aggressive when you interrupt. You are so aggressive, but

you still haven't said that you'd turn off the tap. You get

close to it but then you back off and say "gradually."

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Oh, Oh! You are all a little jumpy

there — all a little jumpy.

[ Page 905 ]

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: The next thing, Mr. Member: if your

argument is so correct about British Columbia, and the rights

to controlling our own resources, why do we have to go to the

National Energy Board to get our price approved in the first

place?

Mr. L.A. Williams: Export.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Oh, did you hear that? Export. Who

controls that?

An Hon. Member: The national government.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: "The national government" — he said

that very softly, didn't he?

An Hon. Member: Part of the terms of

Confederation.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Oh, part of the terms of

Confederation. Oh, oh, oh, it hurts! They were leaving the

impression that somehow we had the absolute authority to handle

these resources any way we wanted, that we had no restrictions

on us, or anything else. Then I said that if that's the case,

why do we have to go to the NEB? And we hear a quiet voice

saying: "That's national."

Oh, we really don't have the authority which for two days

they've been claiming we've had, To confirm it they go even

further by saying quietly: "Oh, that's the terms of

Confederation. That's an international deal." Oh, you know

what? — that slipped their minds.

Mr. L.A. Williams: No, it didn't.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: It really wasn't the matter they

were considering when they said we had all the authority we

needed, and within the terms of Confederation I sold out. But

when I said: "Why do I have to go to the NEB?" they said:

"That's export."

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Oh, don't try and avoid the fact,

Mr. Member, that for two days you've based your whole argument

on a fallacy that we have absolute control of our resources, as

you read the BNA Act. Then you break it down with two whispers

right here in from of all of us: (1) the NEB controls exports;

(2) that is within Confederation.

Now you'd think that two high-class lawyers, a university professor and a MBA

from Harvard would have got to that question sooner. But I had to, as a little

social worker, ask them a question: how come the NEB has to approve our price?

Because it's export. Why? Because that's under federal jurisdiction under the

terms of Confederation. Oh, oh, they've been caught!

They were doing okay up to that point — running right down

the middle, passing the ball beautifully, getting right in for

a lay-up. Then they forgot there was a lid on the hoop.

(Laughter.) The NEB and Confederation. Great stuff until they

really saw that they were hoisted on their own argument.

Now there are a number of options, Mr. Member. There are a

number of options — the 5 per cent law and a number of other

things. But I want to tell you this: I have taken the position

all along...I haven't had to go back and change because, as

the Member says, well, maybe circumstances change — we changed

our argument in 18 months. I'll grant you that.

Mr. L.A. Williams: Well, Ottawa changed the

rules.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Yes, Ottawa changed, They certainly

did. Between September of 1974 and December of 1974 they

changed the rules. We have it in writing — Mr. Macdonald's

(Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources) own words: "In the

case of the increase in price, all of the increase will wholly

accrue to the Province of British Columbia." That's what Mr.

Macdonald said. Now, either he doesn't talk to Mr. Turner

(Minister of Finance), or they were making policies separate

from each other. We went on what Mr. Macdonald told us in

September, only to find that Mr. Turner changed the rules in

December. If that's what you are describing as a change in

rules, I agree with you. But that doesn't affect your

seatmate's statement of October, 1973, saying that we were

being greedy. Now he comes in here demanding more than even

that amount of "greed."

Now, I don't mind if you want to dissociate from the federal

Liberals. On this issue it is the wisest thing to do

politically, and you need some wise political decisions,

considering your situation in this province. I commend you for

making a wise political decision, but don't mask it in some new

wisdom. It is purely a reflection of the awareness about this

issue out there in the public of British Columbia.

The basic issue that the people of this province understand,

without all this argument, is: why does the federal government

make the Province of British Columbia sell its gas for a lot

less than it is worth in the United States? Now the man on the

street understands that, An Hon. Member: They don't make us.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: They don't make us? Okay. Then what

am I going back for? I'll just put the price up to $2

tomorrow. Will they let me? They

[ Page 906 ]

don't make me, eh? (Laughter.) Well, you see, if they don't

make me, why am I going back to Ottawa? Alex, phone them up,

tell them the price is two bucks tomorrow, and save all the

money on the trip to Ottawa, and hire him as a lawyer to

justify it. Let's see how far we get. Put it down there, Alex...

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: Okay.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: ...phone up that it's two bucks

tomorrow, and if there's a court case tell them to sue

the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A.

Williams).

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Go right up to two bucks. Thank

you, Alex.

Oh, and if you lose the case, will you make up the

difference? (Laughter.) You've had a bad day. Yes. You had a

bad night; you made a mistake, and you tried to come back in

on the mistake and you got hoisted on an immediate quiz-kid

answer in the back row by saying: "Why does the NEB control the

price?" He said: "Export." And the quiz-kid shot you down. The

federal government controls export.

The next one, the university professor, went one step

further. After two days of arguing on Confederation, I said:

"What about the NEB?" He said: "Well, that's in Confederation."

Oh, that one hurt! He should have taken the plane an hour

ago.

So there you are. There you are, in rough shape. Now the

people of British Columbia understand that we are forced by the

federal government to sell our gas for less than what it's

worth. They understand that now — there's no question of it.

That's why I am convinced that when I go to Ottawa there will

be an increase in the price of natural gas. When you can fog an

argument all up and confuse people, you can get away with it.

But when it's simply understood, as it is now after the Idaho

court case, that the federal government is requiring us to sell

out our gas at lower than what it's worth, people are going to

ask Prime Minister Trudeau and the cabinet: "Why are you doing

that to British Columbia to the detriment of all of

Canada?"

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Time is right, partner. It's been

rough on your little group. These follows flopped three days in

a row. You tried to recover and it's a big crash on Friday

morning.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Fifteen times? Well, it doesn't

seem to sink in.

Now the contract that exists is to supply up to 809 million

cubic feet a day. There was a dispute over the wording of that

contract, and our lawyers with the petroleum corporation have

taken the position that it is a supply up to figure, not a

mandatory figure. We're sticking by that decision.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: That's right; that's the position

we're taking. At the present time there are shortfalls on a per

diem basis of 100-150 million cubic feet. We are told by the

private industry producers that these are technical problems.

We have told the private industrial producers to do their very

best to overcome those problems. As a gesture to the United

States, we have ordered B.C. Hydro not to burn natural gas in

the Burrard thermal plant.

Mr. Gibson: We shouldn't be anyway.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Well, it shouldn't be. But we

didn't make that decision; those guys did. Okay, it's better

to burn oil. If costs more to burn oil but it's better to burn

oil. Sure it is, and it helps the Americans a bit. But, look, I

know you want to be fair. Don't blame us for the Burrard

thermal plant. We have to run it; we have to run it. Okay.

Now, I will not buy the position of hollow threats. If I say

something as a way of a threat or as a consequence if certain

action isn't taken, I don't say it idly.

Mr. Gibson: The egg board knows that.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I want to tell you this: our

position is not to turn the gas off to the United States. Our

position is to meet up to that 809 million figure with the best

effort, as we have said to Mr. MacMillian.

But if the producers can't get more money, as claimed by

Social Credit, and they discover that they are having more

technical problems and can't produce the gas, then the policy

that we've already delineated will continue. British Columbia

will not suffer any shortfall. That position has been constant

and clear. No one, to my attention yet, has brought proof that

the technical problems claimed by the oil companies don't

exist. I am not cynical and will not fall to the belief, up to

this point, that the oil companies are deliberately not

producing.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: No. Mobil had a difficulty that

they were able to clear up by wireless. That was an interesting

scientific experience.

[ Page 907 ]

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Well, they weren't able to produce

one week, Mr. Member, so we sent them a telegram and said: "If

you are not able to produce, we're going to have to take some

other action." The Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) had

something in mind — I don't know what. Yes, he did.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Oh, no, he's been thinking about it

a long time. And lo and behold, Mobil sent a wire back saying

that the problem was solved. A technical problem solved by

wireless. Now we weren't threatening. That is still our

position. I do not believe at this stage that Ottawa will force

us to continue giving away our gas at a lower rate.

I will say this, Mr. Chairman: all the its remain. What if

we don't get a price increase? What if we don't get the terms

we want? I don't want to ponder those things. But if we don't

get a price increase then we will have to take some other

action, Mr. Member, and that's all I'm going to say right

now.

An Hon. Member: That sounds like an empty threat.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: No, it's not an empty threat. I

hope it doesn't come to that.

Mr. Gardom: I think we've had more gas per cubic inch

in the chamber today than you can put together in the whole of

the province.

I'm going to change the topic slightly here, The Premier's

posture in his estimates ever since they began is one of not

answering questions but of just a whole bunch of political

vitriol. I've asked him three questions over the past few days

and he has not seen fit to answer any of them.

He's now disappeared from the room. I asked him, Mr.

Chairman, how much money he was planning to transfuse from the

consolidated revenue fund into the Insurance Corp. of British

Columbia. That, of course, is his responsibility under the

statutes, and that is a matter that he covered during his

budget address. He very clearly indicated to the people of B.C.

that the insurance corporation was in financial difficulty and

was requiring a transfusion of money from the consolidated

revenue fund. He has completely refused to answer that question

to this point, and one must really and truly ask why.

Secondly, I've asked the Hon. Minister of Finance what his genuine reasons

are as to why we do not have an auditor-general in the province, someone who

could freely and independently watchdog the expenditures of governmental departments

and of cabinet Ministers and attempt to give to the public true and proper accountability

as to whether they are receiving value for their dollars. The existing mechanisms

do not furnish that to the general public.

It is true that we end LIP with balanced accounts in one

form or another, but the public do not receive from the

governmental mechanisms that are existent in the statutes today

free and unfettered advice as to whether or not there has been

value. The Premier always tries to do the best he can to fob

that into the existing Department of Finance and say that the

comptroller-general of the province has that duty and that

responsibility; and that's an absolutely incorrect, false and

fallacious argument.

An auditor-general should have complete, free access at all

times to all files and documents and records relating to the

accounts of every provincial department and Crown agency and

Crown corporation, or any other instrumentality of the

province, and he would have a firm and binding commitment to

report annually to the Legislative Assembly the results of his

examinations.

That public watchdog would be able to inform the public and

be able to make an inquiry on his own initiative as to whether

or not, say in the case of Mr. Bremer's payoff, the public

received value. Was it a valid payoff? The same thing with the

payoff of Mr. Adams. Was the reason of Mr. Bortnick that he

had a philosophical difference with Mr. Adams a sufficient and

valid reason to pay a man some $50,000 for not turning a

finger? I gather that he is being paid until the end of March

or April of this year, from the time he left ICBC without

doing anything. That's the type of thing we need in the

province.

Also it could well be the function of an auditor-general to

determine whether or not the government is collecting school

taxes under false pretences. I'd like to have the Premier's

comments on that point because, as I've said before, children

by law have to go to school; school taxes by law have to be

paid. And by law, Mr. Chairman, schools are supposed to be

open. That is a concept that has been accepted by the general

public. By law, teachers do not have the privilege to strike.

There is binding arbitration, and that is a condition of

service insofar as they are concerned. That is the very concept

on which the general public are paying school taxes: on the

distinct and unequivocal understanding that schools are going

to be open and operating. But they're not open and they're not

operating.

The children of this province in many areas are not

receiving the education their parents are paying for by law,

and are supposed to receive by law, yet people are being led to

believe that, paying taxes on that basis, they are supposed to

receive the value. They are not receiving that value, and I

would suggest that that is indeed paying taxes under false

pretences.

Those are three questions the Premier has not dealt with in

his estimates. He's also not dealt with

[ Page 908 ]

the question as to whether he'd be prepared to give a

commitment to this House that none of the estimates of his

cabinet Ministers would come on for hearing prior to their

delivering and filing in the House the annual reports and

statements under the portfolios which they represent. It's

impossible to thoroughly or in any manner examine the conduct

and the performance of the Ministers and examine the conduct

and the performance of the expenditure of public funds without

those figures and without that information being truly

available.

I unfortunately have to conclude that we're continuing to

follow the same discriminatory practice that has been followed

in this province since it came into Confederation with our

Indian people on Indian reserves. They're continuing to be

discriminated against insofar as services they receive. About

the only thing the government has done in the field of housing

since it came into power was to extend the home acquisition

grant, which is a good thing and which we proposed over here

long before the government ever came into power. I congratulate

them for that. I think it was a good step. But I cannot think

of one single, solitary reason, Mr. Chairman, why Indian people

living on Indian reserves should not be entitled to every one

of the housing programmes that are available to all British

Columbians and that are not available to them today. That is

tantamount to nothing more than an absolute disgrace.

An item on which I have received some correspondence from

some concerned individuals deals with the 5 per cent tax,

specifically with the fact that it continues apparently to be

on non-prescriptive drugs. People, I think, have raised the

very valid point that, surely to goodness, if candy bars and

chewing gum can be exempted, why cannot non-prescriptive drugs?

It is not a big point. It doesn't involve too many dollars. It

just involves a little bit of common sense and logic. I would

like to have the remarks of the Hon. Premier on that point

too.

So here are another five questions: three of them

unfortunately have had to be repeated because we've not

received responses from the Premier before. We are now into his

third or fourth day of estimates. I think it is high time he

gave us some answers.

An Hon. Member: Fifth day.

Mr. Gardom: Fifth day, yes.

Mr. R.H. McClelland (Langley): I want to talk about the aid to municipalities

again for a moment. I had a thought about how the Premier could save the province

some money, however. It came up when he was talking about the B.C. Government

News so glowingly last night. I thought that instead of hiring all those propagandists

from the major newspapers around, you could just Xerox copies of The Democrat

and send them out every month. You could save us a lot of money and get the

same propaganda job done.

The Premier offered the municipalities $60 million when he

first went down to Ottawa: and got on that radio hotline — $60

million.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You don't need Davey Brown.

Mr. McClelland: Today he is talking about $20

million. Where was the difference? Why first $60 million, then

$40 million, then $30 million, and now we are talking about $20

million?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Can I correct you now?

Mr. McClelland: Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, we are talking

about nothing. Maybe it is nothing. The municipalities have

been given no aid in this budget this year, no aid

whatsoever.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Oh, oh!

Mr. McClelland: Mr. Chairman, taxes in municipalities

and cities and villages around the province this year could be

up on an average of 10 or 20 per cent. In some areas they are

faced, in their provisional budgets at least, with increases of

35 per cent on the local tax bill. That is more than the local

taxpayers can handle, and they are getting no help. Either they

are going to have to increase those taxes, which will be

reflected in the individual homeowner bills, or programmes are

going to have to be drastically cut back, or, more likely, both

of those things will happen.

I can see that many essential services in the municipalities

and cities and towns around British Columbia are going to

suffer pretty badly because of the treatment at the hands of

this government, and no additional help. Compounding the fact

that there wasn't any additional help for the municipalities,

1975 assessments have been frozen at 1974 levels. We must

remember, too, that the 1974 assessment roll is based on 1972

values.

The municipal assessment roll is staying static at a time of

rapidly rising expenditures. The municipalities are going to be

faced this year with probably the biggest wage bill increase

they have had in many, many years. That alone makes it shameful

that the government has decided not to give them any help. Even

if the government had allowed for a cost-of-inflation allowance

in the per capita grants, it would have helped. But instead of

that there is not one dollar's increase in the per capita

grants this year.

Interjection.

[ Page 909 ]

Mr. McClelland: Well, the government is against the

municipalities, that is for sure.

The only municipalities which maybe will be out of the glue

this year are those which have a lengthy civic employees'

strike, because they will be saving money. They may be able to

go ahead with their provisional budget. Those areas which don't

have a long strike and have to pay the extra wages and the

extra bills all during the summer are going to be in tough

shape. We are basing municipal revenues on strikes. If you have

a good strike, you are going to be in good shape. If you don't

have a strike, you are going to be in trouble. What kind of

logic is that?

Interjection.

Mr. McClelland: Socialist logic is what it is.

Hon. Mr. Hartley: Social Credit.

Mr. McClelland: You've forgotten who the government

is, my friend.

I would like to give you a brief example of what is going to

happen in just one municipality because of this government's

treatment and because of the freezing of the assessment roll:

the Municipality of Surrey.

An Hon. Member: That's the one with the government

Member, isn't it?

Mr. McClelland: Yes, it has a government Member at

the moment representing it.

If the assessment legislation in effect for 1974 would have

been applicable for 1975, a mill in Surrey would have raised

$336,000. The value of the mill in 1974 is only $287,000, which

is a 17 per cent shortfall there. The actual estimated value of

a mill for 1975, this year, is $305,000. That is still a 10

per cent shortfall from what it should have been. The $336,000

figure reflects a rapid escalation in industrial, commercial

and vacant land values between 1972 and 1973, and a 5 per cent

overall increase to residential and farm properties as provided

for under the Assessment Equalization Act.

Even if the same basis used in 1974 was not applied to the

1975 roll, an arbitrary percentage could have been chosen to

keep the assessment in line with inflation. You could have

picked 10 per cent and said: "Okay, we'll give you a 10 per

cent increase in the assessment roll," so that we could

at least keep up and not fall further behind. If you had chosen

that 10 per cent, coincidentally, the mill in Surrey in 1975

would have been worth $336,000.

Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, it shouldn't be necessary to use the mill rate

to compensate for the lack of value increases in the assessment roll, which

in Surrey's case is 4.2 mills this year. The mill rate should be used only to

cope with the provision of added services and not to compensate for price inflation.

There has been an argument, Mr. Chairman, for a

substantially increased per capita grant in 1975 for

municipalities. Yet we got not one dollar. In Surrey, with a

population base of 98,601 for the purposes of calculating the

grant, here's what would have been needed in the form of

increases just to make good the deficits in municipal revenues – not to get ahead and not to provide increased municipal

services but just to make up the deficits.

We take the value of the mill in 1975 estimated at $305,000.

The value of the mill, if it was based on 10 per cent growth —

pretty modest growth — is $336,000. So the lower value of one

mill, because you've frozen the assessments, is $31,000 lower

than it should have been. At the 1974 mill rate level of 41.5,

the deficit amounts to $1,286,500. In terms of a per capita

grant, if you divide that $1,286,500 by the 98,601 population

figure, you get a $13 per capita grant deficit in this year's

budget for Surrey municipality.

Then if you add for inflation of 1-2 per cent as well,

taking 12 per cent of the 1974 level, you get another $4 per

capita deficit. So the total increased grant required by a

municipality like Surrey just to keep up and not to pay for the

increased wages that are going to come about, not to pay for

the additional costs of services which are necessary, not to

pay for the costs of services of housing that are being imposed

by the provincial government, not to do any of that — just to

make up the deficit — was an extra $17 per capita. What did

they get? Zilch! Not one extra dollar for Surrey.

Mr. Chairman, if the Premier had really meant what he said

about sharing revenues with the municipalities — $20 million

today, $60 million a few weeks ago, nothing tomorrow, whatever

it might happen to be — if the Premier had been serious about

making up these kinds of deficits which are applicable all over

the province, not just in Surrey.... Surrey is a typical

municipality and it's in the typical kind of jam that every

municipality and city and town and village in the province is.

If the Premier had been serious, he would have said to the

municipalities: "Okay. I think Ottawa is going to give us so

much for the natural gas, and it might amount to $20 million."

He could be even more generous and say $30 million. "What we're

going to do for you now, fellows, is develop a formula which

you can apply to this year's budget and say: 'Here's the

increase in per capita grant based on the extra $30 million

that we're going to get from Ottawa.'

The municipalities could budget for that this year. They

would have their money, whether it was $16 or $20 per capita or

what. They'd be able to pay for their increased services,

they'd be able to keep up

[ Page 910 ]

with their increased wage costs, and they'd be able to keep

up with inflation for this year. Instead of that, the Premier

has said: "Fellows, we're going to promise you some kind of a

pie-in-the-sky amount of money — $20 million, $30 million,

nothing, one-third of a lottery ticket."

The municipalities cannot budget for it this year, and this

year is when they need it. Even if the Premier gets his

increase and follows through on his pledge to share with the

municipalities, they won't get a nickel this year. They're

going to fall so far behind that they'll never catch up.

Why doesn't the Premier stand up right now and say: "I've

had a change of heart. I'm going to develop a formula right not

where we can give these municipalities a per capita grant based

on the $30 million I'm going to get from Ottawa "? That's real

money to the municipalities. Then, when the $30 million gets

into his hot little pocket, he can take the money he has

already given them out of that S30 million and share what's

left. If it's $60 million, all the better; he can share what's

left of that as well. But why don't you stand up and give a

commitment today that the municipalities are going to get some

extra revenue? That's what they need and that's what they

deserve.

Hon. Mr. Lea: Mr. Chairman, I don't think it would be

fair to leave the impression in this House that the official

opposition has left in regard to municipal financing. So I'm

going to share with the House and with the press and with the

people of British Columbia what is really happening out

there.

I'm questioning the Minister of Finance as to why he was so

generous with the communities in my constituency. Take the

average village, like one in my riding called Masset. If they

had received the $2 increase in the per capita grant, which was

the usual kind of increase that came from the Social Credit

Party when they were in power — and sometimes they didn't give

that, sometimes there was no increase — if we look at that,

we'd say, $36 per capita for Masset. They would have received

from that $36,000 because the population is 1,000. But because

this government was fair and the Minister of Finance was fair

and said that they were going to make up for some of the

inequities of the past and take into consideration that the

consensus hadn't really been accurate, we are going to have

some catch-up money.

If we take a look at Masset, we see that they are going to get, because of

this forward approach of this government, $12 per capita above the per capita

grant, bringing the income from the provincial government, under the per capita

grant, to $46,000 for this year. If we had raised the per capita $2, they would

have received $36,000. Because we are taking the forward approach, that community

is going to receive $10,000 more this year then they would have received if

we had raised it $2.

Mr. McGeer: Do you know that?

Hon. Mr. Lea: Yes! Why not? It is a cold, hard fact:

that is what they are going to receive — $10,000 more by using

this formula in Masset, $12 per capita above the now-existent

per capita grant. I don't think it is fair to leave the

impression in this House that municipalities throughout this

province are going to receive less.

If you want to go to the largest community in my riding,

Prince Rupert, you will find that with their catch-up they are

going to receive approximately $2 more per capita grant under

that formula — $29,000.

Mr. McClelland: When?

Hon. Mr. Lea: They are going to receive it this year.

Now. So what are you talking about over there? Do some

research. Look at your own com in unities. Find out the

benefits, because they are getting them in mine.

Mr. McGeer: I am going to come back once more,

hopefully for the last time, to the one single, fundamental

point which the Premier has been evading all week while he

filibusters his estimates — that is with regard to British

Columbia's jurisdiction over its natural resources, all of

them.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Do we set the price across the

border?

Mr. McGeer: The Premier of British Columbia, when he

went down to Ottawa on that last trip, took off his coat,

folded his arms and said: "Let's make a deal." He yielded to

the federal government the keys to our safety deposit box in

which the future treasure of British Columbia is locked, namely

our natural resources. The Premier can stand up and talk as

many times as he likes about his desire to push up the price of

natural gas and increase or decrease the number of cubic feet

he sends across the border. Those are details. They are

footnotes to the fundamental principle as to whether or not we

own our natural resources and are entitled, as

section 109

says, to the income from them.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

May I recommend to the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea)

and to the Premier of British Columbia that they read the

British North America Act and understand what the

constitutional rights of British Columbia are. When we have

people going down negotiating on our behalf who do not

understand these things, they make mistakes for

[ Page 911 ]

which future generations have to pay. That is what the

Premier of British Columbia has done, but he will be defended

in doing that by the man from Prince Rupert.

Interjection.

Mr. McGeer: Does that Minister know a BNA Act

exists?

Mr. Gibson: He thinks it's funny.

Mr. McGeer: The last time he was on his feet, the

Premier made all this comment about the nasty old National

Energy Board. They may be nasty, Mr. Chairman, but they are

constitutional. If the Premier understood the BNA Act, he would

know that under

section 91 that the federal government does

have the power to regulate trade and commerce. This is under

section 91(2) of the BNA Act: powers of the parliament,

regulation of trade and commerce. That says what we may

export.

We in the Liberal benches haven't quarreled with the

appropriateness of the federal government saying what resources

should be exported and what should stay at home. That is their

right. But, Mr. Chairman, our right, according to

section 109,

is with respect to: "All sums due or payable for such lands,

mines, minerals, or royalties shall belong to the several

provinces." In other words, the royalties from these natural

resources are exclusively British Columbia's.

If we make a deal to permit Ottawa income from those mineral

resources, in this case natural gas, it's 30 per cent on the

profits we make exporting today. But it might be 60 or 70 per

cent on whatever we keep at home tomorrow. We have given them,

without a fight, the right to derive income from those natural

resources and the right to tax the royalties.

We should never have entered into a B.C. Petroleum Corp. We

should have charged the royalties which we were entitled to

charge. We should have said under

section 109 that they are

ours. If there was an argument about it, we should have gone to

court.

Mr. Chairman, we don't want the Premier going to Ottawa,

having given away the keys to our future, the rights to the

income from our resources, coming back to British Columbia,

going to the electorate perhaps, saying, "I must have a mandate

to get a higher price." He would be going to the public asking

for a mandate to set out the future of British Columbia.

Hon. G.V. Lauk (Minister of Economic Development):

All you got from Ottawa was David Anderson.

Mr. McGeer: I'll tell you this: if that kind of an

argument is tried on the people of this province, the Premier

will lose, as he should.

Hon. King: You've got a reject leader from

Ottawa.

Mr. McGeer: That Premier has sold out British

Columbia. For a full week here, while he dances around in

rhetoric, he has evaded facing that single fundamental

constitutional issue, which is that the income from those

royalties belongs to the people of British Columbia — all of

the income.

Hon. Mr. King: You voted against it.

Mr. McGeer: What the price of the natural gas is,

what the number of cubic feet exported per day is, is picayune

by comparison with the principle of what is British Columbia's.

If the Premier doesn't have time to read the BNA Act, perhaps

some of his high-priced financial assistants have time to read

the BNA Act and advise him on the plane as he goes down to

Ottawa. We have a constitutional case, Mr. Chairman, and we are

avoiding it.

Give it away. What do our resources in the future mean?

Nothing. All that matters is whether there is public ownership.

Give it all away to Ottawa; it doesn't matter. Sacrificing the

future of British Columbia on the altar of socialist dogma —

that's what he's prepared to do.

Mr. G.S. Wallace (Oak Bay): Author! Author!

Mr. McGeer: What? Did somebody say that before?

(Laughter.) It's a good phrase.

Mr. Wallace: Yes, it rolls off the tongue very

well.

Mr. McGeer: Mr. Chairman, the Member for West

Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) put the logical

position very well. We're not obliged to export our natural

gas. We are obliged to live up to our contracts, and, of

course, we must do that. We must make every effort to

renegotiate whatever contracts we have that yield to us an

unfair value for the resources we sell. I said that about the

Columbia and I'll certainly say it about our natural gas

contracts. I don't think there is any quarrel about that. In

the long run we would be losers if we repudiated contracts

outright.

That would be foolish. I would say so; the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound would say so; the Premier would probably

say so. I think the only man who has publicly said no to that

has been the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources

(Hon. R.A. Williams) when he said, I think it was with respect

to the PNE, that contracts meant nothing. I think they mean a

lot. I think we've got to observe them.

But we are not obliged to do more than live up to the letter

of the contracts. We are not obliged to

[ Page 912 ]

export our natural gas beyond the contracts that we are

firmly committed to at