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)

THURSDAY, MARCH 20, 1975

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

817 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Minnekhada purchase. Mr.

Bennett — 817

Compulsory arbitration in civic workers' dispute. Mr. Gardom — 817

Action on vigilante leader. Mr. Wallace — 817

Minnekhada purchase. Mr. Phillips — 818

Transferal of correctional centre inmates. Hon. Mr. Macdonald answers —

Purchase price of Surrey land. Mr. Curtis — 819

Future plans for land in City of North Vancouver. Mr. Gibson — 819

Housing dept. release on Vanderhoof landbank. Mr. Phillips — 819

Columbia River committee files. Mr. Gardom — 820

Sea Island evictions. Mr. Steves — 820

Insurance carrier for government aircraft. Mr. Morrison — 820

Committee of Supply: Premier's estimates

On vote 2.

Mr. Gibson — 820

Mr. Gardom — 823

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 825|

Mr. Phillips — 825

Mr. Gardom — 826

Division on Chairman's ruling — 826

Mr. Gardom — 826

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 827

Mrs. Webster — 828

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 828

Mr. Gardom — 829

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 829

Mr. Gardom — 829

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 829

Mr. Gardom — 830

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 830

Mr. Gardom — 831

Mr. Gibson — 831

Division on Chairman's ruling — 832

Point of order

Timing of debate. Mr. Gibson — 832

Mr. Speaker — 832

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 832

Mr. Speaker — 833

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Premier's estimates

On vote 2.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 833

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 833

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 834

Mr. Gibson — 840

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 840

Mr. Gibson — 841

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 843

Mr. Gibson — 844

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 844

Mr. Gibson — 845

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 845

Mr. L.A. Williams — 846

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 852

Mr. L.A. Williams — 854

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 856

Mr. Gibson — 857

Point of order

Speaker's knowledge of committee debate. Mr. Chabot —

Mr. Speaker — 859

Erratum — 860

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. W.S. King (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, in

the galleries today — I think both the Members' gallery and the

Speaker's gallery — we have a group of about a dozen young

people from south of the border. They are from the labour desk

of the U.S. Youth Council and are visiting Victoria to

familiarize themselves with labour matters in this province and

also to study the structure of the government in this province

and in this nation. I would ask the House to join with me in

extending a warm welcome to our friends from south of the

border.

Mrs. D. Webster (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, I

would like this assembly to welcome 30 ladies from the Women's

Canadian Club, Vancouver, who are visiting in the gallery

today.

Mrs. P.J. Jordan (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, you

will be pleased to know that in the Members' gallery we have a

distinguished citizen from Campbell River, Mr. Peter Turner. I

would ask the House to welcome him this afternoon while he

views democracy in action.

Mr. C. Liden (Delta): Mr. Speaker, we have in the

gallery today 60 students from the Earl Marriott School, South

Surrey–White Rock area, with their teachers, Jim Taylor and

Rick Harmon. I would ask the Members to make them welcome.

In addition we have three large busloads of senior citizens

from the White Rock area, many of whom were able to get seats

in the gallery today. I would ask the Members to make them

welcome.

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

from the Association of Concerned Handicapped of B.C. we have

Henry Apostoluk, John Holowanky and Ben Hogan. I want to make

them welcome to our gallery.

Oral questions.

MINNEKHADA PURCHASE

Mr. W.R. Bennett (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, to the Minister

of Housing with respect to the purchase of the Minnekhada Stock Farm by the

Dunhill Development Corp. from Daon Development Ltd.: could the Minister advise

the House whether Dunhill conducted discussions with Daon about the purchase

of Minnekhada prior to Daon's purchase of Minnekhada from Clarence Wallace?

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

Mr. Bennett: Could the Minister then advise the House

why Dunhill did not enter into direct purchase negotiations

with Mr. Wallace, and why they needed an intermediary?

Hon. Mr. Nicolson: Well, it's a very normal business

practice, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Bennett: Would the Minister further advise the

House, on a supplemental, whether you negotiated a normal

commission or fee in advance with Daon to handle the

transaction or whether they were paid in excess of the normal

real estate commission fee?

Hon. Mr. Nicolson: There was no commission fee to

Daon Development. There was a commission fee to another real

estate firm that was handling the property.

COMPULSORY ARBITRATION

IN CIVIC WORKERS' DISPUTE

Mr. G.B. Gardom (Vancouver–Point Grey): To the

Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that 100

maintenance employees and groundskeepers are keeping 30,000

pupils out of school in Vancouver and 278 custodians and trades

people are keeping 30,000 pupils out of school in Victoria, and

there's a daily pay rate for teachers of literally thousands

and thousands of dollars for which the public are not getting

proper value, is the Minister prepared to order compulsory

arbitration to end these two strikes?

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

meeting with the parties to this dispute — at least, the

management side — this afternoon at 2:30. The Minister of

Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) and I have a meeting arranged and

we will be discussing, hopefully, a formula for resolving the

dispute.

Mr. Gardom: A supplemental, Mr. Speaker. Is the Hon.

Minister taking the position that these strikes are contrary to

the public interest?

Hon. Mr. King: Mr. Speaker, I would question whether

or not a debate at this time would contribute anything to the

public interest. I've indicated that we are arranging a

meeting. The strike is one of long duration already. I think

it's encouraging that the parties are prepared to come and

discuss the matter and hopefully find a resolution, and I would

expect

[ Page 818 ]

that all Members of the House would give their best wishes

to this initiative by the Department of Labour.

ACTION ON VIGILANTE LEADER

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

to ask the Attorney-General a question with regard to the

concern we all have over the racial violence which erupted in

the lower mainland. In light of the revelation that the man

proposing a vigilante group and the use of violence as an

answer is a landed immigrant without Canadian citizenship, and

since he is dedicated to the overthrow of the legal government

in our country, has the Attorney-General been in touch with the

federal Minister of Immigration?

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: The answer is no, Mr.

Speaker.

Mr. Wallace: A supplementary. Has the Minister given

any consideration to suggesting to the federal Minister that

perhaps this kind of person should be deported?

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the immigration and

landed status and citizenship being a federal matter, I don't

feel that there is any call for me to intervene in that

respect.

Mr. Wallace: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. This is of

deep concern to all people in the province. The matter could

lead to enough violence and perhaps loss of life. Does not the

Minister feel that this is an area where federal jurisdiction

and provincial jurisdiction overlap enough that we should take

some initiative?

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I think our concern

provincially in the administration of justice is the even

enforcement of that justice in respect to violence or

intimidation wherever it occurs. The question of somebody's

citizenship, landed immigrant status and deportation, if any,

is a federal matter, and I'm sure that the federal government

are apprised of the situation. But I'd be very reluctant, as

the chief law officer, to begin to enforce our laws by asking

the federal government to intervene in an immigration way.

MINNEKHADA PURCHASE

Mr. D.M. Phillips (South Peace River): I'd like to

direct a question to the Minister of Housing. At the same time

I'd like to welcome the Minister back from his travels abroad.

Good to see you back in the House, Mr. Minister.

With regard to the purchase of the Minnekhada farm, could the Minister identify

the firm who received a commission on the purchase?

Hon. Mr. Nicolson: Would you repeat the question,

please?

Mr. Phillips: Would you identify the firm that

received the commission involved with the purchase with Daon in

the Minnekhada farm deal? Did another firm receive a

commission? Would you advise who that firm is?

Hon. Mr. Nicolson: Mr. Speaker, I don't have the name

of the firm readily at hand, but I'm informed that it was a

firm that was acting for Mr. Wallace.

Mr. Phillips: Supplementary question then, Mr.

Speaker. Would the Minister also advise the House if Daon made

a profit or a commission or any form of remuneration for their

involvement in the deal?

Hon. Mr. Nicolson: Mr. Speaker, I'd give a breakdown

of the commission and charges ancillary thereto. I think it

should be put on the order paper.

Mr. Phillips: You will? Will you table it in the

House?

TRANSFERAL OF

CORRECTIONAL CENTRE INMATES

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: The Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Bennett) asked me the other day whether or not inmates from the

community correctional centre would go off to organizations

such as X-Kalay. The answer is yes, whether or not the

community centre happens to be full. Sometimes that private

organization with which we contract — which might be X-Kalay, or

it might be the Salvation Army — has a special programme that

meets the needs of the person concerned. So we do contract out.

At the present time there are two at X-Kalay. I may say that an

officer of the corrections branch visits the X-Kalay two or

three times a day just as a regular routine checkup;

nevertheless, there is a checkup.

In respect to the Marpole community correctional

institution, yes, there is a female there at the present time

and there have been more. We'd like to have a separate

institution for females but at the moment they are segregated

one from the other. We do have at the present time one female

at the Marpole, on the first floor. The men inmates are

upstairs.

Mr. Bennett: A supplementary to the Attorney-General.

At Marpole, then, is there female staff to supervise the female

inmates?

[ Page 819 ]

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: No, I don't think there is. This

is a living-in and it's going out on an educational programme

or, as most of them do, out to work at a regular job. They come

back to the community centre at night and pay $4 towards the

upkeep at the community centre. It isn't jail, and I don't

think at the moment there's any female supervisor in the

Marpole community correctional centre.

Mr. J.R. Chabot (Columbia River): A supplementary

question on the Marpole correctional centre. Is there a serious

overcrowding problem with Marpole?

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: No, I don't think so. But we are

expanding our community correctional centres. I think we've got

four that are actually operative now. Another one at Kamloops

is coming on stream, and we need more throughout the

province.

Mr. Chabot: It's overcrowded.

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: I don't think so.

Mr. Chabot: Of course it is.

PURCHASE PRICE

OF SURREY LAND

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

Minister of Municipal Affairs, who has been passed by in

question period from time to time recently: with respect to

acquisition of land in the district municipality of Surrey in

what is known as the Newton Town Centre area, does the Minister

know, offhand, the purchase price of land which has been

recently acquired for a transit station or centre?

Hon. J.G. Lorimer (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I

don't have the price on hand, but I can find that out for

you.

FUTURE PLANS FOR LAND

IN CITY OF NORTH VANCOUVER

Mr. G.F. Gibson (North Vancouver-Capilano): To the

same Minister of Municipal Affairs: is the Minister now in

consultation with the City of North Vancouver with respect to

the 17 acres of expropriated land right in the heart of that

city? Is he soon going to be able to announce plans for the use

of that land?

Hon. Mr. Lorimer: The transit planning staff have been working with

the City of North Vancouver planning staff, and have been for some months. They

will arrive at a decision shortly, I would suspect.

HOUSING DEPARTMENT RELEASE

ON VANDERHOOF LANDBANK

Mr. Phillips: Another short, quick question to the

Minister of Housing with regard to a release on which was

issued from his department — release number 7521 entitled

"Landbank in Vanderhoof." Would the Minister advise me the

purpose of his department putting out this fallacious and

misleading press release where he states that the Department of

Housing had purchased 30 acres of land in Vanderhoof for future

housing development? Was the land actually purchased by the

Department of Housing or by Dunhill Development Ltd.?

Hon. Mr. Nicolson: I think the question is

argumentative, Mr. Speaker. (Laughter.)

Mr. Phillips: I think the Minister is argumentative

because the information I have is that the majority of this

land has been land banked for some time — about 90 per cent of

it. I think this press release is completely misleading — that

the Department of Housing didn't actually purchase the 30 acres

of land. I'd like the Minister to explain this.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson: Mr. Speaker, I don't know if the

Hon. Member is asking me to explain the press release put out

by the Department of Housing, or the press release put out by

Central Mortgage and Housing. But in keeping with the agreement

between the two governments, a joint press release was issued

on several communities in British Columbia where this province

and the federal government is cooperating in landbanking for

the housing needs of the people of British Columbia.

Mr. Phillips: I detect motherhood all over the

Legislature this afternoon but....

Mr. Speaker: I detect a speech, too.

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Speaker, I identified the news

release. I say to the Minister of Housing if he did purchase

this land, 30 acres, for $4,059,000, would he explain why land

would be purchased in Vanderhoof for the sum of $35,300 per

acre?

An Hon. Member: That's a good question. Answer

it.

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Minister, you've got to take the

question as notice or answer it.

Mr. Chabot: Don't sit there like a dumb-bell.

[ Page 820 ]

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. You can ask a question,

but you can't require an answer; otherwise we'd never have a

question period finish. There are always questions on notice,

as you know.

COLUMBIA RIVER COMMITTEE FILES

Mr. Gardom: To the Minister of Municipal Affairs: has

the Minister in his capacity as director of B.C. Hydro ever

received or perused the Columbia River cost allocation

committee files and reports?

Hon. Mr. Lorimer: No, I haven't perused the

files.

Mr. Gardom: Have you received a copy of that report,

Mr. Minister?

Hon. Mr. Lorimer: I have not received a copy of the

report.

SEA ISLAND EVICTIONS

Mr. H. Steves (Richmond): I have a question for the

Minister of Housing. Last weekend I was present at the signing

of a lease for a co-op made up of people from Sea Island who

were being evicted from Sea Island for the airport. The

government is providing about $600,000 towards this co-op.

I'm wondering, to start with, if the Minister is aware that

the federal government is still proceeding with the evictions

of these people; if he has been in contact with the MOT over

this; and, if not, if he would be prepared to take some action

to pressure the Ministry of Transport to postpone the evictions

until the new homes for these people are ready.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson: Mr. Speaker, to the Hon. Member:

we did get into this cooperative as a solution to the

eviction. I have read the recent press release and I'll follow

up on your suggestion. I will write to the Hon. Barnett Danson

and ask him to prevail upon the Ministry of Transport.

INSURANCE CARRIER

FOR GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT

Mr. N.R. Morrison (Victoria): My question is

addressed to the Minister of Transport and Communications.

Could he advise the House what insurance company carries the

insurance on B.C. government aircraft, please?

Hon. R.M. Strachan (Minister of Transport and Communications): I'll

have to take that as notice. I'm not sure.

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

Chairman, there's been a certain amount of miscellany as this

debate has gone by and I want to continue with that....

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): That's not my department.

Mr. Gibson: I think it is, Mr. Premier, covering

several areas here, I want to start out by continuing with the

remarks of the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr.

L.A. Williams) made yesterday — his first-rate point on the

subject of the sharing of natural gas revenues with

municipalities.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Yes.

Mr. Gibson: The Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe

Sound made the very proper point that natural gas revenues are

a finite asset and a wasting asset in our province and that the

needs of municipalities are continuing. He made the point that

what should be done is that municipal assistance from the

provincial government should be indexed to general revenue, not

to natural gas revenue. The Premier stood up and pretty well

agreed with that. He agreed with the logic, all along the line,

then he disagreed with the conclusions at the end.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Because the conclusion was

inconsistent with his logic.

Mr. Gibson: No, indeed. His conclusion was perfectly

consistent.

Interjection.

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

Premier to wait until it is his turn to speak.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I'm trying to avoid his making the

same mistake as his colleague.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Gibson: The Premier gets so excited during his

estimates, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Premier.

Mr. G.S. Wallace (Oak Bay): It keeps us all awake,

anyway.

[ Page 821 ]

Mr. Gibson: The Premier agreed with the thesis that

these kinds of funds, which are essentially capital funds, part

of the capital endowment of all British Columbians, should go

in the capital projects; and he talked about creating jobs

around British Columbia which would pay taxes to those

municipalities for all time. That's the proper thing to do with

that money; therefore he shouldn't be taking a third of it, as

he is, and putting it into current expenditures. He should be

keeping all of it in that very proper capital investment

framework that he spoke of.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You fellows don't listen.

Mr. Gibson: We listen very carefully, Mr. Premier. We

agreed with your logic, all the way down the line until the

point where you were going to use some of that capital revenue

off the natural gas for current operating expenditures. That

money should go to the municipalities from general revenues; it

should be guaranteed from general revenues. You shouldn't be

using them as a political pawn, as you are using them, in your

contest with Ottawa.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Are you accusing me of playing

politics?

Mr. Gibson: Yes, Mr. Premier. I'm accusing you of

playing politics.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: That's going too far.

(Laughter.)

Mr. Gibson: You're good at it, Mr. Premier, through

you, Mr. Chairman, But when it squeezes the municipalities,

it's not fair. It squeezes the municipalities.

Interjection.

Mr. Gibson: Giving them pie in the sky is squeezing

them. You know, Mr. Minister of Health, through you, Mr.

Chairman, that the municipalities aren't allowed to run a

deficit by law. How can they budget on pie in the sky? They

have to draw up their budgets now.

The Premier is a great friend of the municipalities. He's

starving them. We were told an Irish joke yesterday. I am going

to tell him an Irish joke about how he's treating the

municipalities. It's like the Irish woman who said: "Just as I

taught my pig to live without eating, he died."

That's what you're doing to the municipalities, Mr. Premier.

They're starving, so I would hope you understand it this time

around.

The Premier also said that these investments in

municipalities would help pay taxes to those

municipalities.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: The last time I heard that, I was

called a chauvinist.

Mr. Gibson: I want to move on to the Premier in his

capacity as president of British Columbia Railway. I know he

wants the BCR debate basically to be undertaken at the time the

loan legislation comes up, but this is just a simple little

item, Mr. Premier. It has to do with the payment of taxes to

municipalities by Crown corporations, particularly the British

Columbia Railway. We've been through this so many times, Mr.

Premier, and I had hoped that it was going to be in this

budget.

I had a meeting with the council of the District of North

Vancouver to discuss what messages they wanted brought to this

House. One of the things they were concerned about was the fact

that the British Columbia Railway does not pay something like

$125,000 worth of taxes a year to the District of North

Vancouver. I was naive, Mr. Chairman. I was naive enough to say

to the councilors of the District of North Vancouver that I had

real hopes that this time around it was going to be in the

budget, that this time around the Premier was going to make

provision by changing that Act of the Legislature to make it

possible for the British Columbia Railway to pay taxes.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You're a new boy; you don't know

the rules. You can't talk about legislation under my

estimates.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Premier, I just want to talk about it

briefly, just long enough to give you a chance to stand up and

say that this inequity is going to be remedied, that the

general policy of your government in every other area which has

been stated by the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Lorimer) is going to be remedied, and soon. Do you want to

answer that question now?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Do you have any more questions?

Mr. Gibson: I have a few more questions.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Any as embarrassing as that

one?

Mr. Gibson: Who's going to be embarrassed, Mr.

Premier?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You are.

Mr. Gibson: All right, good. Stand up and embarrass

me.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: No, I don't want to do

[ Page 822 ]

that in public.

Mr. Gibson: Now a couple of things the Premier said

were going to be created by this natural gas money involved the

question of a refinery and a steel mill. I point out to the

Premier that both of these projects depend on imported raw

materials to British Columbia: in the case of a steel mill,

import of iron ore — we have the coal fortunately; in the case

of a refinery, import of oil.

The Premier is very concerned — we know, because it was in

the budget — about tanker traffic. But he has not moved, as he

could have done, to guarantee this province an overland supply

of oil that would not require an increase in tanker traffic of

the order of magnitude that a new refinery will require. He

could have done that. He could have done that. He could have

assured that supply from the Province of Alberta by following

out his own dogma, by following out his own announcement that

he and some other western NDP premiers and Tommy Douglas, Grant

Nottley and some others made in Winnipeg. I am quoting now from

a clipping of The Vancouver Sun of February 14. Listen

to this, Mr. Chairman. This is about Syncrude.

"Two of the Premiers, Dave Barrett of British Columbia and

Alan Blakeney of Saskatchewan, told a press conference at the

Manitoba legislative building that their governments would

invest in the project providing it was publicly owned."

Hon. Mr. Barrett: That's right.

Mr. Gibson: That's what the Premier said.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You're quoting a beautiful

source.

Mr. Gibson: He agrees that's right. That's a good

quote.

Interjection.

Mr. Gibson: As the Hon. Member for West

Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) says: "How does it

become publicly owned if you won't buy it?"

There's already 30 per cent government ownership in there

now. You know, you could have led the way for this country. You

could have pushed it over the top. You could have encouraged

your colleague in Saskatchewan to go in for maybe 5 per cent.

We could have gone in, in British Columbia, for maybe 10 per

cent. We could afford that, Mr. Premier.

We could have convinced Ontario to go in for another 5 per

cent, and that would have made it a publicly controlled company

right there, Mr. Premier.

You could have done that job. You could have carried out

your own dogma just by that prudent investment, because that

would give us a claim on the oil output of that huge

project.

Hon. A.B. Macdonald (Attorney-General): That's just

the first installment you're talking about.

Mr. Gibson: Something in excess of 100,000 barrels a

day. It's just the first installment, Mr. Attorney-General,

that's correct. Are we going to get into another installment?

Are the other governments going to be in that other installment

or is this the chance to have a publicly owned installment,

which is also going to be, as you well know, the first one on

stream by far?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Why don't you quit while you're

ahead? You're making a big mistake.

Mr. Gibson: Because these things are moving

slowly.

Interjection.

Mr. Gibson: You're making a big mistake, Mr. Premier.

You're making a big mistake in not guaranteeing British

Columbia that supply of oil by investing in Syncrude.

An Hon. Member: You're ruining your leadership

chances. He's destroying a whole career with his silly

statement.

Mr. Gibson: A big mistake.

The next comment I would like to make to the Premier is to

advise him — and I was surprised, astonished to see this — that

the Social Credit Party now supports what has been Liberal

policy for many, many years. They didn't support it when they

were in government.

They didn't support it while they were in government, but

now the leader of the Social Credit Party (Mr. Bennett) has

agreed with us that there should be an auditor-general in this

province. They didn't do it while they were in for 20 years.

But now you've got a chance to do it, Mr. Premier; and on the

estimates of the Minister of Finance I can think of nothing

more appropriate than to suggest it's time to improve

parliamentary control over the general estimates of this

province by having an auditor-general who will let the light

shine on the expenditures of government in a contemporary way,

months in advance of the book of public accounts, which I see

the Premier has just taken out.

He could report to this House things like the little $100

million misunderstanding. He could let us know the true facts

on these cases in time to debate them

[ Page 823 ]

before they become ancient history. That's what we need, Mr.

Premier — an auditor-general. I hope you'll answer that,

especially now that the entire opposition seems to be behind

that idea now. So it's just a matter of time until that system

is put in in this province. You can make a good mark in your

copy book by installing that yourself.

Again, briefly on the B.C. Railway, and not a major policy

item which the Premier wants discussed on the legislation,

could I ask him his plans for the new head office of the B.C.

Railway? My understanding is that this head office would house

several hundred people and would bring together elements now

scattered in several buildings around the North Shore and

Vancouver. What I am interested in knowing is whether the B.C.

Railway has plans for putting that office in North Vancouver

and, if so, whether they have entered into any discussions with

the city and/or the district, depending on the location of the

office?

I next ask the Premier when he is going to come through with

his long-time stand on removing sales taxes from building

materials. The Premier is on record that if the federal

government did it, he'd do it. The federal government has done

half of it. They took off, I think, six points out of the

eleven. I would ask the Premier if he will now do as much in

British Columbia to help his Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr.

Nicolson), who, Lord knows, needs help.

The next question I have for the Premier is in his capacity

of the general assigner of work to cabinet Ministers. I want to

ask him about one of British Columbia's very fundamental

problems, the problem of growth, which is how quickly people

are coming to British Columbia and where they are living once

they get here. Related to that, of course, there is the problem

of immigration which, as the Premier knows, under the British

North America Act is a shared federal/provincial jurisdiction

and is one on which the federal government has asked for

representations, which should certainly come from the province

as well as from individuals. I would ask the Premier when he

replies if he could say whether he has as yet assigned this

responsibility of studying the impact of growth on British

Columbia and its management and the making of representations

to Ottawa with respect to immigration to any Minister or

committee of Ministers. Could he tell us which Minister has the

lead responsibility in that direction? I would hope that this

House over this session will be debating growth to a

considerable extent, and it will be helpful to know under which

estimates and which salary vote to do that.

My next question for the Premier relates to something he mentioned

in debate a couple of days ago. It is his attitude on foreign

investment. We hear different things from that side of the House, Mr.

Premier, through you, Mr. Chairman. We hear from some backbenchers that

foreign money in an equity sense is not welcome in British Columbia. We

hear from others — and, I think, the Premier himself — that foreign

money is welcome in British Columbia on an equity basis for certain

kinds of investments.

Because this is a question of great importance to the growth

of British Columbia, and because this is something that the

federal government is working on right now and receiving

representations of provinces on it, I would be glad if the

Premier would share with this House his general reaction to

foreign equity investments in British Columbia and in what

sectors of the economy. I will terminate my remarks at this

point, but I may be back later.

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

Yesterday I questioned the Premier on the operation of ICBC

and I didn't receive any answers from him. I asked him how much

ICBC was in the red, and he did not reply. I asked him how much

money was being pumped into ICBC from the gas tax, and he

didn't reply to that. I asked him how much money was being

transfused into ICBC from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, and he

didn't answer that question. I asked him to give this House his

undertaking and his solemn assurance that the financial statements of the

Insurance Corp. of British Columbia would be filed in this

House prior to the estimates of the Minister of Transport and

Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan), and he did not reply to

that.

The Hon. Premier knows full well that at the end of the

longest session in the history of this province there were

about 17 unanswered questions by the Minister of Transport and

Communications about the economics of the Insurance Corp. of

British Columbia left on the order paper. The Hon. Premier

knows full well that today there are some six, I believe it is,

unanswered questions to the Minister of Transport and

Communications on the Insurance Corp, of British Columbia.

The only response that I got yesterday to these questions

was one of silence. I would very strongly say, Mr. Chairman, in

the circumstances of the office and the circumstances of the

right of the public to full, free and frank disclosure and

accountability, the silence of the Hon. Premier amounted to

nothing less than consummate arrogance. He has the

responsibility, as the chief fiscal officer of this province,

to level with the people, and he's not doing that, Now I informed the Hon. Premier yesterday that on the basis

of....

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

Member to choose his words more wisely. Would the Hon. Member

continue, please?

Mr. Gardom: I informed the Hon. Premier

[ Page 824 ]

yesterday, Mr. Chairman, that by utilizing the very little

information that was made available to us — "us" being the

general public — it was possible to estimate a loss of about

$35 million of ICBC.

You're pointing at the empty chair. There's been an

empty chair insofar as answers for this insurance corporation

are concerned, Mr. Premier, since the day he took over. It's an

administrative boondoggle at ICBC....

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

Member to confine his remarks to the administrative

responsibilities of the Premier.

Mr. Gardom: I'm delighted to do that, and that's

exactly what I am doing, Mr. Chairman. It is the administrative

responsibility of the Premier as the chief fiscal agent of this

province to inform the public of the fact. I'm asking him in

that capacity to tell the general public of the financial

situation of the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia. He has

the responsibility and the duty laid upon him by this

Legislature in the session of last year to transfuse the

insurance corporation with funds from the consolidated revenue

fund, which he has in his budget address and which he didn't

say to the House when he gave his address in this House.

Something is being concealed, Mr. Chairman. I want to know

what is being concealed and why it is being concealed.

On the basis of the information — that shallow, little, tiny

bit of information that we got last year — it was possible to

come up with an estimate of $233 million of revenue for that

corporation. I'm not suggesting that those figures are correct,

but on the basis of the tiny bit of information that you gave

us, that is the closest we could come to the revenue. Its own

estimation of revenue was $179 million; add the drivers'

certificates of $28 million to that and we get to $207 million.

Interest income of $20 million, bringing it up to $227 million.

General insurance premiums of about $6 million brings the total

estimated income up to $233 million.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I believe what the Hon.

Member is discussing is under the administrative responsibility

of the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr.

Strachan). I don't believe that it is permissible to question

the Premier on what is under the jurisdictional responsibility

of other Ministers. Therefore I would ask him to confine his

remarks to the Premier's estimates.

Mr. Gardom: Mr. Chairman, that is absolutely incorrect. The Premier

has the responsibility as the fiscal agent to put money out of the consolidated

revenue fund into the insurance corporation, and I intend to find out how much

he is going to be putting into it. It is not in the estimates of the Minister

of Transport and Communications, and you know that fact very well.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I would again point out

to the Hon. Member that the whole matter of ICBC is under the

administrative responsibility of the Minister of Transport and

Communications. I would ask him to put the questions at that

time, rather than to the Premier.

Mr. Gardom: Is the Hon. Chairman suggesting that the

Minister of Transport and Communications has the right to take

money out of the consolidated revenue fund?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I know my lawyer friend would like

to stay in the confines....

Mr. Gardom: Well, at the present time I think I have

the floor, but if you want to answer....

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I'm on a point of order. My point

is that the Member is a good lawyer, but he's out of order.

An Hon. Member: He's not.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Well, naturally you have to agree

with him. You're sitting next to him, but that's not reason

enough. You've got to have logic. I'm the fiscal agent for the

whole works. Are you going to do every cabinet Minister under

me because I'm the fiscal agent for all of them? That's not

right. You know that I can't possibly do that. That would be

against the constitution. Now you don't want me to do that.

Mr. Gardom: Oh!

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The point of order is

well taken. I would point out to the Hon. Member that the fact

that revenue may go to ICBC doesn't preclude the fact that this

is still under the jurisdictional responsibility of the

Minister of Transport and Communications.

I would ask the Hon. Member to proceed, but....

Mr. Gibson: May I speak to the same point of order,

please?

Mr. Chairman, on that point of order, it is clearly the

responsibility of the Minister of Finance to prepare the

estimates and to present them to this House. I submit that

nowhere in this estimates book is there provision for the

deficit of the ICBC. The Minister of Finance has to respond to

that question.

[ Page 825 ]

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Chairman, on the same point of

order, of course I'm responsible for preparing the estimates.

That's why we have an estimates debate. That's why each

Minister gets up and defends his estimates, or sells his

estimates. But to ask me, by device, through your seatmate's

opinion, to start debating every single Minister is okay with

me, but then let's make an agreement that you don't call any

other Minister, that we do the whole estimates in my

department.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please!

Mr. Gardom: There's absolutely no estimate dealing

with this money, and you know it.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please!

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Well, then, what are you

debating?

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please!

Hon. Mr. Barrett: What are you debating?

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

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You've got me all mixed up.

Mr. Chairman: On the point of order, the point of

order is well taken. You must discuss those matters which

relate to the direct administrative responsibility of the

Premier. If they're under another Minister, then they must be

brought up at that time.

Mr. Gardom: Mr. Chairman, it's the responsibility of

the Premier, surely to goodness, to furnish this House with an

estimate of the amount of money that's going to go out of the

consolidated revenue fund, or out of the gas tax, into ICBC. I

intend to talk about that unless you're going to order me to

sit down. Make no mistake of it.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I don't think you should threaten

the Chair.

Mr. Gardom: I'm not threatening the Chair; I'm just

stating facts.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: No, you're threatening.

Mr. Gardom: I'm stating facts, and I intend to do it. The Chairman has

his remedy if he thinks he's correct. I think he's wrong.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You're bigger than he is.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please!

Mr. Gardom: Totally wrong! Completely wrong!

Mr. Chairman: I'd like to draw to the attention of

the Hon. Member again that if this would be true, your logic

could be applied to every department. I would say, drawn to its

logical conclusion, that we would consider all of the estimates

under the Premier's vote. I would just ask him to wait until

the matter comes up under Transport and Communications.

Mr. Gardom: No, no, no, no. It's not the

responsibility of the Minister of Transport (Hon. Mr. Strachan)

to inform the House of the amount of money the Premier's going

to pay out of the consolidated revenue fund. He knows that

figure today, Mr. Chairman. Instead of standing up and

flannelling around, he should give us that figure. He's got it

at his fingertips. He can ask Mr. Bryson, who's sitting beside

him, if he doesn't know himself.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please! The Chair has made....

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

to know how it would be possible to discuss under the Minister

of Transport and Communications' estimates a figure that is

non-existent in these estimates, a figure which is the

responsibility to be prepared by the Premier and Minister of

Finance. You answer that, and ask the Premier that.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to answer

the questions asked by the Members. The year isn't over yet for

ICBC. The Minister hasn't reported to me yet. He's got to

report to this House. Are you asking me to violate the

constitution by having me report instead of him? You know what

lawyers say about that, Mr. Gardom: Come on, that has absolutely nothing to

do with it.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I still have the floor.

[ Page 826 ]

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I'm going to answer the other

questions in order.

Mr. Gardom: There were five of them.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Yes. No. No. No. Yes. Yes. No.

(Laughter.)

Mr. Gardom: The answer to the first question, he

said, was "Yes." I asked him how much money ICBC was in the

red, and he simply answers: "Yes." He knows he is in red ink up

to his armpits. I'm glad that the people in this province are

finally going to be aware of the fact that they've got a

boondoggle on their hands.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please!

Mr. Gardom: You assured the people in B.C. that that

organization could pay its way out of premiums. That was a

false promise.

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

Member out of order on that.

Mr. Gardom: Absolutely!

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I beg your pardon?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Inasmuch as the matter

he is now discussing I have already ruled out of order, I would

ask him to return to vote 2.

Mr. Gardom: I challenge your ruling. This is another

example of closure of this government. No opportunity to get to

the facts!

Some Hon. Members: Order!

Mr. Gardom: No opportunity to find out the fiscal

boondoggles that you're being involved with — intimidated by the

Premier, intimidated by the Chair....

Some Hon. Members: Order!

Mr. Gardom: The poor little Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey is trying to do his best for the

people.

An Hon. Member: Shame!

Mr. Gardom: He's being shafted left, right and centre

by that great socialistic government over there.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Is this my friendly group that you're attacking?

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, while in consideration of

vote 2, the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom)

began to discuss matters which, in my judgment, fell under the

jurisdiction of the Minister of Transport and Communications

(Hon. Mr. Strachan). I therefore ruled any further remarks out

of order. He challenged my ruling.

Mr. Chairman's ruling sustained on the following

division:

YEAS — 30

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Stupich

Hartley

Calder

Brown

Cummings

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

King

Radford

Lauk

Nicolson

Nunweiler

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Webster

Lewis

Liden

NAYS — 16

Jordan

Smith

Bennett

Phillips

Chabot

Fraser

Richter

McClelland

Curtis

Morrison

Schroeder

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Gardom

Gibson

Wallace

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the

House.

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

Mr. Gardom: I was just drawing to the attention of

the House when I ran into the ruling — the buzz saw, as my

friend referred to it, which prevented me from interrogating

the Premier upon the dollars and cents of this province — that

no longer can this be a matter of public account in B.C. I

think it's a tragic situation. I'm not reflecting upon the vote

because I gather I'm not permitted to do that, but it's

certainly a vote that one should not have to spend too much

time or ethical or moral consideration in reflecting upon.

I'd like to ask the Hon. Premier whether he's prepared to

give the House his undertaking that the financial statement —

the annual report of ICBC — is

[ Page 827 ]

going to be filed in this House prior to the estimates of

the Minister of Transport and Communications coming on to

hearing.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please! This is a matter not for

the Hon. Premier but rather for the Minister of Transport and

Communications.

Mr. Gardom: Well, I gather that the Premier is the

Premier of the province and this Minister is just one of his

Ministers. Surely to goodness it's not beyond the competence of

the Premier to give that assurance. Can the Premier give us

that assurance, yes or no? You're not prepared to answer that

question, not prepared to tell the people that they will have

the full facts of ICBC before the estimates of this Minister.

And little wonder.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: One person on the floor at a time,

please.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Member, the Minister informs

me, through you, Mr. Chairman, to the Member and back through

me to the Minister....

Mr. Gardom: I'm getting dizzy.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I know you're dizzy because you're

getting the constitution all mixed up. The Minister informs me,

through you, Mr. Chairman, to the Member, that the annual

report will be ready within a matter of weeks. As soon as he

can get it.

Mr. Gardom: That's not a commitment. We want to have

a firm commitment that this Minister's estimates will not come

up on the floor of the House until such time as that report is

filed.

Mr. Chairman: Order! One person at a time,

please.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You have a firm commitment that it

will be delivered as soon as it's ready.

Mr. Gardom: That's not enough.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: That's not enough? Then I will try

to have it delivered before it's ready. (Laughter.) If we're

not able to do that, we'll wait until it's completed.

Mr. Gardom: That's bad humour.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: No. Let's examine your logic. You want me to guarantee

that it's delivered immediately.

Mr. Gardom: Before his estimates. That's all I've

said and you know it. It's nine months late now. Will he or

won't he deliver it before his estimates?

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Oh. The statute says it must be

delivered before April 29. The way you're going, you're not

going to get to his estimates until October.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Well, no matter what I answer,

you're not satisfied.

Mr. Gardom: I'm asking you for an undertaking

....

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I'm not in that business; I'm a

social worker.

Mr. Gardom: You've refused to give an

undertaking.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: There you go. How can I give you an

undertaking on something I can't give you an undertaking

on?

Mr. Gardom: You certainly can give an

undertaking.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please! The Hon. Second Member

for Vancouver–Point Grey is out of order, Will he be

seated?

Mr. Gardom: How can we deal with his estimates

without an annual report?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Will you give an undertaking to the

Whips that that can be worked out?

Mr. Gardom: I don't, unfortunately, have the capacity

to produce the annual report of ICBC. If I did have that

capacity, I would give that undertaking.

[Mr. Chairman rises]

Mr. Chairman: Will the Hon. Members be seated? The Hon. Second Member

for Vancouver South, has the floor. Would the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey be seated?

Interjection.

[ Page 828 ]

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

Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey to respect the Chair.

Would the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver Point...?

Interjection.

Mr. Chairman: Would the Hon. Member be seated?

Interjection.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member be

seated?

I think we will just take a moment to cool off.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

Mr. Gardom: A point of order. Mr. Chairman, I would

like the courtesy of an explanation from the Chair as to why I

was denied the floor.

Mr. Chairman: I respond to the point of order by

this: the Hon. Premier had the floor; the Hon. Second Member

for Vancouver–Point Grey rose to his feet and refused to sit

down when the Chair requested him to. I have not recognized the

Hon. Member since.

Mr. Gardom: Oh boy!

Mr. Gibson: Just straight discrimination. Bring on

one of your backbenchers now.

Mrs. D. Webster (Vancouver South): Mr. Chairman, I

would like to get down to something a little bit simpler and

more basic, something that involves every one of us regardless

of age, regardless of race, regardless of sex, and that is in

relation to....

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

MRS. WEBSTER: It is in relation to the 5 per cent sales tax.

I would like to say thank you to the Minister of Finance for

last year having removed the sales tax from books, and enabling

students who buy supplies for home economics and industrial

arts to get their supplies tax free if they go through the

process of filling out a form which they hand to the

retailers.

But there are one or two things that still don't satisfy me.

One that is the most basic of all is in relation to toilet

tissue.

Mr. Chairman, paper products are going up in price and every time paper products

go up in price, the tax for toilet tissue goes up. I know it is still possible

to recycle the telephone book or the Eaton's catalogue, as we used to do in

the past, but I don't think that should be something forced upon us. I think

it is about time that we had the sales tax taken away from some of these very

basic necessities. That is one of the things I would like to see sales tax removed

from.

The other point is in relation to toothpaste and

toothbrushes. We have our health Minister (Hon. Mr. Cocke)

saying that one of the great problems is in getting enough

dentists in this province, getting them to go into the outlying

places, or even having dental assistants looking after people's

teeth, but we still have to pay a sales tax for toothpaste, we

still have to pay a sales tax on toothbrushes. I would like to

see taxes removed from these basic commodities.

I wonder if the Minister of Finance would make a comment

on it. Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Chairman, we have had a number

of requests for removal of the 5 per cent sales tax in various

areas and some of the items you mentioned are under

consideration. But, of course, I can't give you a policy

commitment at this point.

Mr. D.A. Anderson (Victoria): Under standing order 37

I'd like to move that the Hon. Second Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) be now heard.

An Hon. Member: Hear, hear!

Mr. Chairman: The Hon. Second Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey merely has to stand on his feet to be

heard.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Not with you in the chair. Not

with you trying to break in.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The Chair is making a

ruling that the motion is unnecessary. The Hon. Second Member

merely has to stand on his feet to be heard.

I recognize the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey.

Mr. Gardom: All in favour?

Some Hon. Members: Aye!

Mr. Gardom: Carried. (Laughter.)

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

I recognized the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point

Grey.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: I already made the motion.

[ Page 829 ]

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The motion is

unnecessary. I recognized the....

Mr. Gardom: It was carried. You are reflecting on a

vote, Mr. Chairman.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You really are a city-slicker

lawyer.

Mr. Gardom: Mr. Chairman, yesterday the Hon. Premier

was canvassed by me through questions concerning two very

seriously injured people, and they have not received their

compensation from the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia. The

Hon. Premier yesterday said that it was the first time it was

brought to his attention. He's a compassionate man...

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Right!

Mr. Gardom: ...he appeared to be sympathetic. Today

there are still no funds in ICBC to pay these sick and injured

people, and why not? Why not?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You want an answer?

Mr. Gardom: Yes, go ahead.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Well, don't make accusations if you

want an answer.

Mr. Gardom: It's true.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: It's not true!

Mr. Gardom: It is true!

Hon. Mr. Barrett: It's not true!

Mr. Gardom: Phone ICBC this afternoon and find

out.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Chairman, I have asked the

Minister to give me a report. Prior to that I asked him

clearly: "Is it a question of money?" He said: "That's not it

at all." As soon as I get the report I'll give you the answer.

But I don't know.

Mr. Gardom: Yes, but....

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I still have the floor, and I know

what a stickler you are for rules and recognition. You wouldn't

try to barge in on me while I've got the floor. That's why you

sat down.

Now look, I don't know everything. I know it is difficult for some people to

recognize that, being the genius that I am, but it's true. There are a few things

I don't know. That's one of them and I'm trying to find out.

Mr. Wallace: What's the other one? (Laughter.)

Mr. Gardom: Since the Hon. Premier is not prepared...

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I'm going to get the answer.

Mr. Gardom: ...to give this House his undertaking

that we're going to have the financial statement of the

Insurance Corp. of B.C. filed before the Minister of Transport

and Communications' (Hon. Mr. Strachan'

s) estimates come up, I

consider this to be a very serious situation. I think it's very

serious that these people have not received their funds. It

only takes a telephone call. I'll give you the dime if you'd

mind going out of the room and doing it.

I remember you talking all through the night — good

stuff.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Give me the dime.

Mr. Gardom: Here. Okay, the dime Is coming. Where's

the page?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Pass my estimates so I can get on

with the work.

Mr. Gardom: I'll even give you 15 cents if you

like.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: No tips.

Mr. Gardom: Since the Premier's not prepared to give

an undertaking that his Ministers will file reports before

estimates come up, is he prepared to give an undertaking that

these claims will be paid forthwith?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Chairman, there's no way I can

give such an undertaking. I don't even know the validity of the

claims. I don't know. You've given me cases yesterday and you

want me to say, "Yes, you're right." I don't know if you've got

the correct information, incorrect information or anything. You

can make mistakes too. If I can, you can too. Now I've asked

the Minister to give me a report, and as soon as I get the

report I'll give you the information. I haven't got the report

yet. I would have got it last night but I had an important

event to attend to. (Laughter.)

Mr. Gardom: Now about that event....

[ Page 830 ]

Interjections.

Mr. Gardom: Would everyone please be quiet? There are

a lot of very shaky people around here today.

I'm glad to hear the remarks of the Premier. It has been a

tragic situation; it has not been properly attended to. It has

been bungled, purely and simply. The legislation came in in the

fall session. It enabled ICBC to do it, and they take the

position that they haven't got the money. It's that simple.

Interjection.

Mr. Gardom: I'm happy to hear that you've managed to

crank up your Minister. I have the floor, you suggested a few

minutes ago.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: But you're making an incorrect

statement. It has nothing to do with money.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Gardom: Oh, yes, it does. If you would phone to

ICBC this afternoon, you would find that out, that's why I'm

suggesting you do that. It has a lot to do with money, and

that's why I'm talking about it. These are your estimates and

you're the money man in the province, make no mistake about

that.

While we're talking about money, I'd like to talk about a

group of people who received, I think, very discriminatory

treatment at the hands of this administration. Unfortunately,

they received similar discriminatory treatment at the hands of

the former administration. I'm talking about the 23,000-odd

pupils who attend independent schools in the Province of B.C. I

think it's about time, Mr. Premier, that you adopted it as the

policy of your government that these people be given a fair

break.

I always try to make the analogy between that situation and

a hospital. One really doesn't care too much who runs the

hospital as long as it's being effectively run in accordance

with the law of the land and that they're doing a proper

job and fulfilling a function. Such tests should be put to the

independent schools. The independent schools should be entitled

to teachers' aides; they should be entitled to financial

assistance for their operation and even some share of their

capital costs.

True, it's a form of selective education; it's a form, in the view of the people

who subscribe to it, of enriched education. I suppose it's not unreasonable

to suggest that they should be prepared to pay a portion of that cost. But these

people are all taxpayers. They're all forced, by law, to pay school taxes, so

it's a double impost upon them. Why, in the sense of all decency, should they

not be entitled to assistance with their programmes, which this government is

denying them? It's wrong. If you took those 23,000 pupils out of the private

system and put them into the public system, they would be a terrific burden

upon it, Mr. Wallace: On the buses.

Mr. Gardom: I'm not talking about buses.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: No, no, no, Mr. Member. I'm

embarrassed for you because you're getting a bad habit from the

official opposition: you're not doing research.

Now, I refer you to page 13 of my excellent budget speech. A

complimentary copy, with my autograph, is on its way to your

office right now. On page 13, under "Education," with a

beautiful picture of these premises, it says:

"It is our belief that it is the government's responsibility

to provide basic services to all children regardless of where

these children are being educated."

Now you were here that day. You missed the words. I don't

want to say you were asleep, but you weren't paying attention.

Now can I read as follows?

"Therefore, I have asked the Ministers of Education, Human

Resources, Health, Recreation and Conservation, Municipal

Affairs, the Attorney-General and the Provincial Secretary to

establish a committee to decide what these basic services

should be and how they could be provided."

Exactly what you're asking for.

"This committee will include representatives from those

groups which are directly affected by or involved in the

provision of such services. The committee will be instructed to

report to the government by August 1, 1975."

Mr. Gardom: Not enough.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: It continues:

"One of the committee's responsibilities will be to consider

the expansion, where possible, of bus service to all school

children...

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Hon. Mr. Barrett: ...which is beyond the other

special, basic services. Now, Mr. Member, there is a frank

statement of policy and you refuse to refer to what is already

a matter of record, and you launch an appeal on a victory won.

Now I think that either you've run out of things to say, or you

haven't been doing your homework.

I'm going to put on here, with my best wishes: "To the

Member (and I mean that sincerely — my

[ Page 831 ]

best wishes. I hope you make it as a judge) for

Vancouver–Point Grey. Read page 13, as marked." (Laughter.)

Would you take that over to the Member, please? Thank you

very much.

Mr. Gardom: A very interesting dialogue, but we want

more than that. We want an absolute, firm commitment for these

people.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Oh! August 1.

Mr. Gardom: A firm commitment! Establishing a

committee is one thing. You have been in government, Mr.

Premier, since 1972, and the only thing you've done to advance

anything along this line.... I don't think I should censor any

of this, should I? No. The only thing you've really done is to

form a committee. We need more than a committee formed. We need

firm assurances that they are going to receive comparable

assistance to what is received in the public school sector.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Chairman, that committee is to

report to government on August 1. It has been a matter of great

concern to me about having equal services, basic services to

children throughout this province. That's why the committee is

set up. When the committee reports on August 1, then we will

know just exactly what direction we should go in. But you

should not second-guess the committee. You should be the first

to applaud the government moving in this direction after all

these years.

Mr. Gardom: Well, as I say, I'm very glad to see that

some direction is being taken. But it's still not an assurance

to the people, as you wouldn't give us assurance this afternoon....

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You want perfection overnight.

Mr. Gardom: That would be impossible to come from

you. Impossible!

I'd like to ask the Premier an additional question as to

whether or not — since we've been unable to find out this

information from the Minister of Transport (Hon. Mr. Strachan)

- he's aware of the differences in management philosophy

between Mr. Bortnick and Mr. Adams which resulted in Mr. Adams

receiving about $50,000 of the public money without having to

turn a finger for it.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I believe this is

directly under the responsibility of the Minister of Transport

and Communications.

Mr. Gardom: He never answers the question, so I was....

Mr. Chairman: Order, please! That doesn't make it

right. Would the Hon. Member confine his remarks to vote 2 and

try to ask a relevant question?

Mr. Gardom: I don't think it's an irrelevant question

when it deals with money which is under the control of the

Minister of Finance, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I will point out to the

Hon. Member that we're in Committee of Supply.

Mr. Gardom: It's the most expensive welfare in the

province.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. We're in Committee of

Supply. All departments are under, and supplied with funds

from, the Minister of Finance. I would ask the Hon. Member to

confine his remarks to vote 2.

Mr. Gardom: Well, the whole point of the earlier

discussion today, Mr. Chairman, is that by virtue of his having

that responsibility, he also has the responsibility to answer

questions about the finances.

Mr. Chairman: Well, taken to its logical conclusion,

he would have to answer questions about every department.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to know a

simple answer from the Premier on something that was brought up

a moment ago. Do basic services include classroom instruction —

yes or no? Is the government now firmly committed to pay for

classroom instruction...?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I rule that question

entirely out of order. It's under the jurisdiction of the

Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly). I would ask the Hon.

Member....

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, that's a lot of horse

feathers, and you know it! The Premier put it in his budget and

he just sent it over here and marked that passage. What do you

mean, it's not under his jurisdiction?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please! The Hon. Member is

asking a question under the jurisdiction of the Minister of

Education. Would you confine your questioning to the Premier's

estimates?

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, surely the Premier's

estimates cover...

[ Page 832 ]

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I'd like to answer that

question.

Mr. Gibson: ...his words in the budget address.

Surely you can get that through your head.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please!

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I'd like to answer that

question.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please! I would rule the

question and the answer out of order.

Interjection.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: Mr. Speaker, while in the Committee of

Supply, under consideration of vote 2, the Hon. Member for

North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) began to discuss a matter

which, in my judgment, fell under the jurisdiction of the

Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly). I ruled it out of

order. He challenged my ruling.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Shall the

ruling of the Chair be sustained?

Mr. Chairman's ruling sustained on the following

division:

YEAS — 29

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Nimsick

Stupich

Hartley

Calder

Brown

D'Arcy

Cummings

Levi

Lorimer

Williams, R.A.

Cocke

Radford

Nicolson

Nunweiler

Skelly

Gabelmann

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Kelly

Lewis

Liden

NAYS — 16

Jordan

Smith

Bennett

Phillips

Chabot

Fraser

Richter

McClelland

Curtis

Morrison

Schroeder

Anderson, D.A.

Williams, L.A.

Gardom

Gibson

Wallace

Mr. Gibson: On a point of order, I wonder if Your

Honour could confirm to the House that the time taken for this

proceeding is not deducted from the time allotted to the

Committee of Supply.

Mr. Speaker: There is no provision to deduct it, as I

understand.

May I also point out to the Hon. Members, so that there

won't be these lengthy proceedings if possible, that this is

not a debate on the budget speech which does range by all

Members over all the ranges of expenditures and revenues

proposed. It is confined strictly to Committee of Supply, not

Committee of Ways and Means. Other proposals for other

departments would not be properly within the range of

debate.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Does anyone suppose that the Speaker is

not present and can hear what is said in Committee of Supply?

(Laughter.)

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Speaker: Does someone suppose that that is

incorrect? Would you kindly give me the authorities, because I

have ears. Does someone suppose that it is not correct?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I've been listening.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Speaker, if I could continue on the

point of order....

Mr. Speaker: Well, you asked a point of order and I'm

trying to help you.

Mr. Gibson: Well, I am trying to understand, Mr.

Speaker, how we can be in committee, and the time marching in

committee, when the Speaker is in he chair and the mace is on

the table.

An Hon. Member: That's a good question.

Mr. Speaker: The question is answered by this, as I

understand it: a report is made without the committee rising.

It's not as if the committee rose and reported progress to the

Speaker and asked leave to sit again. We are still here, as it

were, and simply export in committee to the Speaker.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: As we have now established a new

ruling that the Speaker of the House is aware of what goes on

in committee, can we ask you, Sir, whether you intend to

partake in debates of committee, because that would be a

[ Page 833 ]

logical....

Mr. Speaker: Quit tempting me. No, I'm not. I am not

tempted at the moment to take part, but I am....

Mr. D.A. Anderson: You're reserving your right to

take part at some future date.

Mr. Speaker: Well, according to May, the Speaker

could take part. But I have always considered that as a

self-denying ordinance as far as Speakers are concerned.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: The reference is to just about a

century ago.

Mr. Speaker: The last time, I think, was 1878. But

you are getting close to a century. (Laughter.)

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

Mr. D.A. Anderson: A few days ago I asked a question

of the Premier, which was not answered, concerning the

borrowings that are taking place and the general and increasing

disquiet about the use of petrodollars as a political weapon

for the purposes of harming the friends of Israel and, indeed,

banking houses which have Jewish principals.

The prospectus for the B.C. Hydro and Power Authority $100

million bond issue — 10.25 per cent bonds, series DN, due 1999,

prospectus dated September 26, 1974 — gives a good number of

details about that particular issue in borrowing.

Unfortunately, we have had no information whatsoever. This

prospectus runs to many, many pages — 61 pages — and gives a

fair amount of information. However, the subsequent two loans

of $100 million each have not been followed by any prospectus;

they have not been anticipated by any prospectus. We understand

that, because they are private placements, no prospectus will

be forthcoming.

I am curious about this and I am worried about this. I

repeat what I said earlier that the government has a perfect

right to borrow money wherever it can at the best rate

possible, and it should do so in the interests of British

Columbia. I believe that the government should not concern

itself with the nationality of money unless you get into the

areas of public policy such as tainted money, Mafia money — things of that nature — or money which is being used as part

of an economic blockade to affect banking houses and industrial

firms in the western world.

The prospectus in question has listed as underwriters The First Boston Corp.;

Salomon Bros.; Kuhn, Loeb; and A.E. Ames and Co. All that we've learned of the

second and third borrowings, or I should say the Arab borrowings, are that The

First Boston Corp. arranged them.

Now I am concerned about this and I would like the Premier

to seriously consider providing this House with some

information.

We know full well there is a campaign against certain

banking houses which underwrite major loans. We know for a fact

that these houses are being discriminated against on the

international market, in the United States market and in

European markets. We know for a fact that this is deliberate

policy. I am concerned that the enormous borrowings required by

B.C. Hydro and the possible source of Arab funds has led us

into a situation where we might, indeed, be aiding the

blacklist and aiding the boycott.

I checked out A.E. Ames and Co., a Canadian outfit which I

can check out. I understand they are not the company referred

to on the blacklist under the heading "Ames International." I

also understand they were not the Ames Co. referred to in

Elkhart, Indiana. But I cannot check out the others.

Obviously The First Boston Corp., as it arranged the loan,

must be off the blacklist, or not on it, but the other two I

cannot check out at the present time with any certainty.

Obviously I don't have a copy.

I would hope that the Premier and Minister of Finance, in

recognition of the seriousness of this problem — in recognition

of the fact that we are now, apparently, dealing with only one

as opposed to the four underwriters that we dealt with the time

before — would assure us that, indeed, there are no subsidiary

agreements, and that we are at perfect liberty, as previously,

to choose what underwriters we wish regardless of whether they

be on anyone's blacklist or otherwise.

Mr. Chairman, I again repeat that normal financial practice

is to put forward a prospectus. And there should be some public

control over and public information on the hundreds of millions

of dollars that the public of British Columbia is getting into

debt for through the B.C. Hydro borrowings. I again repeat that

there is an organized, discriminatory campaign in the

international banking and underwriting market to discriminate

against certain banking houses and certain underwriting

houses.

I would like to know whether we, indeed, have the same

liberty that we've always had, or whether or not there are any

subsidiary agreements. We understand that three of the four

underwriters — three of the four that were on the prospectus

dated September 26, 1974 — had nothing to do with the Arab

borrowings. The wonder is why: why are we now just dealing with

The First Boston?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: There are no subsidiary agreements.

All details of the loan are public information. There was an

excellent write-up in one

[ Page 834 ]

of the leading newspapers in Vancouver with all the details,

if you care to have that or any other.... The details are

already public. There are no subsidiary agreements; it's all

public information.

The only thing that isn't public information is the country

that loaned us the money. They made that request in a private

borrowing and I respect that request. Everything else is

public: no subsidiary agreements, no sinister aspects or

anything in the areas you're concerned about. Although we do

have one advantage — we're allowed to call them anytime. They

can't do that on us. We wrote that in the agreement.

Everything you asked is public knowledge. Now the rest....

I don't know if you're being mischievous or what, but certainly

you should know. Have you done any research? Have you gone and

found out all the information that's been published everywhere

and is available? If you want further copies of what's already

available, I'll get them for you, too.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: We're now getting some answer to

the earlier question, because this is the first time we've had

any information about a blacklist or the....

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Oh! It's public. It's been in the

newspapers — everything.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: You've had information on the

blacklist made public, before. Is that a commitment of yours,

or just a...?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: It has nothing to do with that and

you know it.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Well, it certainly is....

Hon. Mr. Barrett: There are no subsidiary

agreements.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Thank you for assuring us. It's

taken days to get that assurance from you. You sit there

refusing to answer.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: So arrogant — how do you work

it?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You really work at that, don't

you?

Mr. D.A. Anderson: If we're going to get on to the

subject of arrogance, I wonder whether...

Mr. Chairman: Order!

Mr. D.A. Anderson: ...the Premier, under the

circumstances, might consider an apology. It's not an apology

to me, it's not an apology to any Member of this House. But in

our proceedings last year, two gentlemen — Mr. Brunsdon and Mr.

Unger — swore affidavits which were denied by the Premier.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, no!

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Since then there's been a lawsuit;

since then the judge has accepted testimony of defendants which

substantiate the two affidavits in question. An apology is due

these two men, Mr. Chairman, because, in all honesty, they

swore affidavits as to what took place. This was denied, and

the assumption was that they had sworn false affidavits. We

called for an inquiry. No inquiry was forthcoming. No inquiry

at all was forthcoming to clear the names of these two men.

We feel that the judicial decision, which supported the

defendants on the issue in question, namely the discussions

that took place within the Premier's office, indicates now that

an apology is due to Messrs. Unger and Brunsdon.

They are ordinary citizens; they acted in good faith. They

gave the facts as they knew them. The facts corresponded

exactly with what the judge found to be his assessment of the

evidence of Savo Kovachich and a number of other people.

Now I feel that if it's a question of arrogance the Premier

wishes to raise, an apology should be due from an arrogant

Premier to the two men in question. They're not the most

important men in our community; they don't hold public office;

they're not major financial figures. They're ordinary citizens

and they deserve protection in this House, and they deserve

protection from every Member, in particular from the Premier,

who accused them of perjury when he stated that their

affidavits were false. Now what I feel we should have is an

apology to these two men.

The lawsuit to which I referred, the Egg Marketing Board

versus Kovachich et al, or versus Veekens et al, made it

perfectly clear that the testimony of the defendants which was

accepted by this judge fully corroborated the affidavits of

Brunsdon and Unger. I would ask the Premier at this time, in

the light of that testimony, in the light of that judgment, if

he would apologize to the men concerned.

An apology would be sufficient. If I have to spend some time

going after this, I will. I fully intend to.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Take all the time you want. I'm

going to have a cup of coffee.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Right, the man who is concerned

about arrogance, of course, leaves at this time for coffee.

[ Page 835 ]

Mr. Chairman, the NDP which stands up, or pretends to stand

up, for little people has got to realize that these two egg

producers are not individuals that they can ignore. It may be

that the Premier feels that he is too high and mighty to try

and protect the good reputation of these men, but the time has

come for an apology, because last year we got no judicial

inquiry.

Interjections.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: I'm on this because it's an

important issue of principle. We got no inquiry, but we did get

later in the year and early this year a court case on the facts

essentially as brought forward in the House in February and

March.

The court case, Mr. Chairman, was heard and witnesses were

called. Kovachich was called, others were called, and they gave

information as to what took place in the Premier's office. The

information they gave coincided with the affidavits that had

been sworn earlier. The information they gave was accepted by

the judge in question.

The judge said on page 6: "At the trial Mr. Stupich did not

recall the direction of Mr. Barrett in the terms in which it

was stated by the defendants."

The judge said: "I accept the testimony of the defendants

that it occurred as described by them." Later on he said: "It

was as the result of the intervention of the Premier that the

board entered into an agreement on November 1, 1972, with

Kovachich."

It's very clear that the Brunsdon and Unger affidavits were

factually accurate. It is very clear that these men are owed an

apology. It's very clear that even the highest elected public

officials in British Columbia cannot or should not continue to

assert that Unger and Brunsdon swore false testimony, committed

perjury in their affidavits, when indeed they did not.

It's a simple thing. Mr. Chairman, I believe you were

present at the meeting. I believe you were present, Mr.

Chairman, at the time that Kovachich met with the Premier. I

believe that you too could then, and indeed could now,

substantiate that Unger and Brunsdon were falsely accused of

perjury. The witness Kovachich described at the trial what

happened in the Premier's office. He was there, Mr. Barrett was

there, Mr. McLatchie was there, Mr. Arnold Link, Nick Samson,

Mr. Alf Nunweiler, Mr. Dent, Mr. Stupich, and I'm not sure

about Doug Kelly from Omineca at that meeting. The information

that came out of the testimony in the trial, which the judge

accepted as factual, clears the names of Unger and Brunsdon,

and they deserve an apology.

If indeed the Premier still believes that he was right and all the evidence

of that court case was wrong, that the affidavits of Brunsdon and Unger were

wrong and false, then clearly there's a travesty of justice here, because the

judge accepted that testimony as to what happened in that court case.

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: The affidavits were not before

the courts at all.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Does the Attorney-General have

something to say?

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: The affidavits were not before

the courts.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: The Attorney-General says that the

affidavits were not before the court. Of course they were not.

What was before the court were witnesses who were also present

at that meeting, the meeting on October 26, and who talked

about what happened at the meeting the day before. That is the

factual information that came out of that lawsuit, and the

Attorney-General knows it, because quite clearly he's had a few

weeks to prepare his defence, which he will have to provide in

this House despite his obligation as chief law officer of the

Crown to make sure that justice is done. He has prepared his

defence of the Premier and Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr.

Stupich), you can be sure of that.

But justice has not been done in this case. An injustice,

Mr. Attorney-General, has been done to Messrs. Unger and

Brunsdon. They have been accused of swearing to false

affidavits, and they are entitled to an apology. You, as chief

law officer of the Crown, Mr. Attorney-General, should feel

some shame that you have done absolutely nothing to get justice

in this matter. Nothing. Indeed, you have done the reverse.

You assisted all last year in making sure that justice was

not done. The court report — and I think, as the Premier has

left us, perhaps a few words about it are in order — is

interesting. He talks of going to Victoria. He talks of meeting

with Mr. Barrett. The questioner was Mr. Jenkins, and it was in

the Supreme Court of British Columbia. I'll quote from page 2

of the notes that I have here. These are verbatim transcripts

of what took place:

"I think so. I was in Victoria before that with my lawyer."

- this is Mr. Kovachich speaking — "before meeting Mr. Barrett,

but I am not sure. But anyway, my lawyer called me, if I recall

right, October 26, 1972."

Q. "Who was your lawyer?"

A. "Ted McLatchie. He asked me — he told me — he got phone call

from Premier and Premier wanted me and him and other people to be in Victoria

on the day, 7 o'clock in the morning, at his office."

Q. "What time?"

[ Page 836 ]

A. "Seven o'clock on the 27th. We were right at 7 o'clock in

his office waiting there. There is no Premier. There was a guard, of course,

there and we ask what time Premier is coming to his office, and he said 9 o'clock.

"I said: 'How come the appointment was

7 o'clock when he never come before 9? Anyway, he showed up at 9 o'clock. The

secretary opened the door. Of course he was in hallway. Quite a few MLAs noticed

myself, Nick Samson, Arnold Link, and many other MLAs. The secretary opened

the door and we went into the room of the secretary. If I am not guessing, there

are three rooms there. We went in and within a few minutes Mr. Barrett showed

up and said: 'I want you and Mr. McLatchie to be in my office.' We went in."

Q. "How many went into his office?"

A. "Myself, Mr. McLatchie, and Mr. Barrett. He said to me: 'Yesterday

the board was in my office. I chew their ass off. I told them they had to give

increased quota to the north.' "

This is Mr. Kovachich's recollection of the meeting in the

Premier's office and what the Premier said. I ask the

Attorney-General whether this contradicts the previously-sworn

statements of Unger and Brunsdon.

"But he said to me: 'The board told

me yesterday that Nick Samson settled his case for $25,000.' Nick Samson wasn't

sued that year, but I guess he was presented the bill for the $64,000 at that

time and he said to me: 'They want $15,000 from you.' And he said" — this is

the Premier again talking in these quotes — "'What is it worth to you to save

the face of the board?' I said: 'Not one penny.' Then he gave me a piece of paper

which he called at that time 'guidelines.' "

Q. "What kind of guidelines?"

A. "He called it 'guidelines.' I guess it was recommendations."

Mr. Jenkins: "Just a second. Page 52, there is a document called

'Representation."'

A. "That is the document."

Q. "That's the document?"

A. "That's the document."

Mr. Jenkins: "Exhibit No. V"

We will just get into this area, Mr. Chairman, because you

were present at that meeting, according to Mr. Kovachich, and

you would recollect this. You would know that a severe

injustice has been done to two ordinary citizens of British

Columbia who have no rights in the courts to have their names

cleared — who have rights, however, in this House to have their

case heard.

Mr. Kovachich: "He said to me: 'What is this worth to you? I

was fed up with the fights and everything else and I was very glad to accept.

I said: 'Dave, it is worth to me $5,000.'

"He said: 'You know, the board made

agreement with Nick Samson for $25,000.'

"'I think though,' he said, 'It will

be pretty fair if you offer the $7,500.'

"I was thinking for awhile. I said:

'Okay, I'll pay them $7,500, but I haven't got $7,000 cash to pay.'

"He said to me at that time: 'I don't

care how long it is going to take you to pay, as long as you agree to pay that

kind of money.'

"I told him: 'I could manage pretty

easy $125 a month, but no interest.'

"He said: 'Okay.'

"And, of course, we chat there a little

bit and it was all over and he was in a rush. He opened the door and called

other people in. I hope I am recalling exactly who was there. Maybe I miss somebody.

There was myself, Mr. Barrett, Mr. McLatchie, Mr. Arnold Link, Mr. Nick Samson,

Mr. Alf Nunweiler, Mr. Omineca — not Omineca — Skeena Tiding, Dent, Mr. Stupich,

and I am not sure about Doug Kelly from Omineca at that meeting, you know."

Now why I quoted that

section was we have heard, Mr.

Chairman, in this House, that the Premier did not discuss

figures in that way. On March 8, he told us something

differently.

The Premier told us on March 8:

I wanted them to effect a solution. I did not order a solution.

I did not give figures or suggest figures. I suggested that they work out the

negotiations between their lawyers.

Now here we have a statement in the House from the Premier

stating that he did not discuss figures, he did not say these

things. Here we have the testimony of a witness, accepted by

the judge, on which a judicial decision is based, where he says

that he accepts the testimony of the defendants — and the

testimony talks about that $7,500 figure.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I have allowed the Hon.

Member enough latitude to determine the direction in which his

remarks were going, but I would ask him at this point whether

he is alleging an impropriety or a misconduct on the part of

another Hon. Member.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: No, Mr. Chairman. I made it

perfectly clear. I believe there is no question any more about

the impropriety of the Member. I simply have nothing more to

say on that aspect at all.

What I am saying is that an apology is due to ordinary

citizens of British Columbia, who have no rights in the courts,

who have no rights except in this House when we in the

opposition get up and speak for them. That's the only right

they have, and that's the right that we are exercising under

the Premier's estimates.

[ Page 837 ]

We feel, Mr. Chairman — and I am sure you agree because you

were present and you know what took place at that meeting, and

you were also present in this House when much of the denials of

what went on in that meeting — that you cannot leave members of

the public under the cloud of having committed perjury, sworn

false testimony, the way Mr. Unger and Mr. Brunsdon have been

left for this past year. We feel it's only fair and just that

an apology is due to them and an apology comes. It is clear

that the inquiry that we wanted last year did not take place,

an inquiry which might have cleared the names of these two men.

It is clear that the lawsuit that took place was exactly on the

question of accuracy of the affidavit....

An Hon. Member: Oh, oh!

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Attorney-General (Hon. Mr.

Macdonald), the evidence presented in that court case, the

evidence that I've read out here, supports the affidavits. If

it is of any interest to you, I will again read something which

you apparently have forgotten — namely, the decision of the

judge: "It was the result of the intervention of the Premier

that the board entered into the agreement of November 1, 1972,

with Kovachich." And he also said: "I accept the testimony of

the defendants that it (the direction of Mr. Barrett) occurred

as described by them."

The Attorney-General can make these fine legal distinctions

if he likes. But if he wishes to do that, perhaps he should

retire to the practice of law and give up the job of chief law

officer of the Crown where he is responsible for justice.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I would draw to the

attention of the Hon. Member a decision quoted in the

Journals of the House, or at least in Votes and

Proceedings , March 17. I quote from a decision made by Mr.

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

He is referring to a case brought up by the Hon. Member for

Peel:

"Did the learned judge, in commenting on the evidence, say

or imply that the Member for Peel had been guilty of a criminal

offence — perjury, for example? Certainly not. And if he had, it

would have been his responsibility to bring the matter to the

attention of the Crown for prosecution.

"Did he intend to imply that the Hon. Member's conduct was

an offence against the independence or dignity of the House of

Commons, about which, as a former Member of the House, he would

be cognizant and alert? He does not say so. There is no direct

charge of this kind in the judge's observations about the Hon.

Member for Peel."

It would appear that we have a similar situation, and I

would offer these remarks from this decision for his.... The

Hon. Member may certainly state his opinion, but I would just

draw to his attention this matter.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Well, Mr. Chairman, I would be

happy if you would read further in that judgment because I

think there are other aspects of it which are also of bearing.

But the aspects you raised puzzle me somewhat. We are asking

here for an apology — a straight apology to two members of the

public who were wronged. We fail to see that it deals with some

of the aspects you mentioned in your recent quotation. It is

not a question to these people of rehashing the lawsuit. The

supreme court judge has come to his decision that events

occurred as described by the defendants. The events that

occurred, according to the defendants, were the same as the

events that occurred according to the two affidavits. The

question is whether or not under the circumstances.... You

remember because you were there, and you also heard later, Mr.

Chairman, what took place in this House. We know it must have

caused you a great deal of grief, you perhaps more than the

rest of us, as a former member of the cloth. It must have

caused you a great deal of grief.

The question right now is a question of an apology, We want

the Premier to apologize to ordinary citizens. He talked

earlier about arrogance. It's the arrogance of office that he

can do what he pleases, regardless of the rights, regardless of

the reputations of other citizens, not here in this House but

outside. You have no right of recourse. They've got no right of

recourse; they've got no opportunity of the law; they've got

nothing except the opposition's limited....

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I would mention again to

the Hon. Member that it would appear, from the direction of his

remarks in requesting or insisting upon an apology from an Hon.

Member, that he is implying that in some way the Hon. Member

has been guilty of misconduct or of impropriety. I would again

remind the Hon. Member that the proper method for dealing with

a matter of this nature is by substantive motion.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Chairman, you have heard time

after time the fact that substantive motions are no longer an

avenue open to us to have such a matter discussed. When there

is no redress by way of substantive motions...you know and we

all know that the rules of this House are simply flouted and

there is no opportunity for a substantive motion to be heard.

Now under those circumstances there is no way that I can follow

the course of action you suggest because it is clearly a blind

alley.

[ Page 838 ]

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. It still doesn't alter

the case that if the Hon. Member in any way, either directly or

indirectly, is imputing to another Hon. Member an impropriety

or misconduct, the proper method to do this — the only method —

is by a substantive motion. I ask the Hon. Member to follow

that course.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Chairman, we have had

discussion in this House about money received by members of

cabinet, We've had the discussion of a number of things without

a substantive motion. A substantive motion is the most

convenient way the government knows of making sure that

something never comes up for discussion again.

There's an opportunity here for redress. This is, after all,

in this respect, the highest court in the land and the two

members of the public are entitled to an apology because their

word has been doubted to the point where they've been

essentially accused of perjury. They swore affidavits. They

swore that what they knew was true, and it's been doubted.

Now we have subsidiary evidence from this lawsuit and a

judgment of a supreme court judge to the effect that, indeed,

their affidavits were accurate. Therefore it appears to me

perfectly clear that an apology is due these two members of the

public. I'm sure, Mr. Chairman, that you would agree. I am sure

you would not want to be party by suggesting that I follow up

what you know to be a course of action which cannot bring them

redress. I'm sure you would like to see them apologized to and

this wrong righted because I'm sure you're an honest man at

heart, and fair.

The fact is that if we had followed the course of action you

are proposing to me, injustice continues. If we continue to

discuss this in the House at this time we hope that the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) will advise the Premier —

as he's doing now, whispering to him — that there are times

when justice should prevail, and that the Attorney-General

should cease being simply a legal gunslinger for the government

Ministers.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Again I would point out

that any indirect or direct imputation of misconduct or

impropriety of another Hon. Member should be done by

substantive motion. I'm not making this ruling because of any

prejudice of any kind; it's simply that these are the rules of

the House. I would draw them to the attention of the Hon.

Member.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Certainly, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your drawing

them to my attention. I have no wish to repeat what I said before, but surely

in a case where new evidence comes to light, where it's perfectly clear that

the affidavits in question were accurate, where it's perfectly clear that if

this judgment is allowed to stand, we have very serious doubts about what was

said in this House. Surely this is the type of occasion where, without the substantive

motion, an apology is due, which might end the whole case.

Mr. Gibson: It is injustice.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: As my Member for North

Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) points out, it's injustice, not

impropriety, and the injustice is to two individuals, Unger and

Brunsdon.

I'm quoting from March 4, page 757 of Hansard , and

I'm quoting the Premier:

...I told them they were acting like children.

Apparently they heard other things or seemed to have heard other

things in their affidavits.

A suggestion that some of this material that wound up in

their affidavits did not, indeed, take place — now we have

subsidiary evidence that it did take place. It's good evidence — a judicial decision by the British Columbia Supreme Court

being enforced. If all these people — Unger, Brunsdon,

Kovachich, Sutherland, Veekens — and indeed if you yourself

remember differently.... You, after all, were there, according

to the testimony of the witness. If you recall differently, you

have a responsibility as an ordinary, decent human being to

make sure that the injustice done to these people is corrected.

You have that responsibility; we all have it. If anybody was

present at that meeting and heard what went on and realized

that a different story was being given, surely they have that

duty. When they took their oath of office to uphold the laws of

British Columbia and work for the good of the people of British

Columbia, they have a duty.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Again I would point out

it would appear to me that the direction the Hon. Member is

taking leaves me with no other conclusion than that he is

making some form of charge against the Hon. Member for

misconduct. I would draw to his attention May , 18th

edition,

chapter 18, page 400,

part 1: "...for the same

reason no charge of a personal character can be raised, save

upon a direct and substantive motion to that effect."

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Chairman, I think perhaps

instead of quoting May you are simply recalling yourself what

took place at the hearing of the meeting and your realization

that perhaps there was impropriety. You may realize that now,

but I'm not saying that; I'm simply saying that on the face of

it an apology is due. Statements were made. They were denied.

We asked for an inquiry. Finally we got one — not exactly the

type of inquiry we would have liked, but an inquiry which we

mentioned last spring

[ Page 839 ]

might well take place if there was a lawsuit.

This lawsuit corroborates the affidavit. The acceptance of

this testimony, the cross-examination — which I read out to you

to make sure you realized that there was not just simply

something taken without examination, or something taken without

question — all this indicates that the judge had good reason,

excellent reason, to accept the testimony of the defendants on

this aspect of the case.

He refers to the amnesia — not in those terms — of the

Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich). He refers to the

Minister of Agriculture's inability to recall. At this trial

Mr. Stupich could not recall the direction of Mr. Barrett — the

direction of Mr. Barrett — in the terms in which it was stated

by the defendants. I accept the testimony of the defendants

that it occurred as described by them.

Now the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Amnesia,

was obviously unable to assist the judge. But the defendants'

testimony, Mr. Chairman, was accepted. They talked about the

direction given. It was the result of the intervention of the

Premier. Yet we had case after case last year — March 4, 1974,

page 757: "Hon. Mr. Barrett: 'They were not ordered to solve...with my orders or anything else."'

Hon. Mr. Barrett: What did the judge say? Was there

an order in my office?

Mr. D.A. Anderson: The judge stated it was a....

Hon. D. Barrett: There was no order given, and the

judge said so. You conveniently avoid that, don't you?

Mr. D.A. Anderson: The Premier was out of the room.

He was not here to listen when I went through the aspect....

So he comes in here and plays these semantic games.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Gutter politics!

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: I'm interested in justice for two

members of the public who are accused of perjury by you, Mr.

Premier, and it's time you got off your high horse and

apologized to them for falsely accusing them.

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

Member to no longer insist upon an apology unless he's prepared

to make a substantive motion of misconduct.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: We know what happens to

substantive motions.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please!

Mr. D.A. Anderson: You know that he's said, time

after time that they won't come forward.

Mr. Chairman: Is the Hon. Member questioning the

rules of the House?

Mr. D.A. Anderson: You said it, on cases of this

nature. He furthermore....

Mr. Chairman: Order, please!

Mr. D.A. Anderson: When we ask for an apology for

people who have been wronged, he calls it gutter politics.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: It is gutter politics.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: To ask for an apology?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Yes.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Yes!

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Sure, gutter politics! That's all

you want out of this thing; and you haven't shown a single bit

of responsibility.

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

Mr. Chairman: Would the Hon. Member be seated until I

complete my comments, please? I just want to make further

comments. I would ask the Hon. Member, as I have allowed him

considerable latitude and I've drawn it to his attention a

number of times.... The Chair is assuming that an insistence

upon a request for an apology suggests some form of misconduct.

Therefore I am making the ruling that any further request of

this nature would be out of order and should be done by a

substantive motion.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Chairman, may I ask, in view

of your close involvement in this matter, and the fact that you

were present at one of the meetings involved...

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: ...a fact which did not come to

light until later, that you surrender the chair to someone else? You're clearly partisan and prejudiced in

this case.

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

Member to withdraw any imputation that the

[ Page

840 ]

Chair is being partial.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: I would ask the Hon. Member if he

wishes to challenge the Chair or if he wishes to question a

ruling of the Chair, that he do it by referring to

authorities.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Chairman, I will withdraw the

statement that you are prejudiced, but I will say that you have

every reason to leave the chair because of your involvement at

one of these meetings, involvement which did not come to light

until much later, involvement which did not come to light until

the testimony which was received in court. And I feel, under

the circumstances, that it would be wrong for you to continue

to insist upon my following an impossible course of action....

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. There is no reason for

the Chairman to leave the chair as long as the rules of the

House are being followed. If the Hon. Member wishes to question

the ruling of the Chair, he may do so.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Chairman, I only ask you as an

individual who was involved in this matter: do you really think

you can be the impartial Chairman under those

circumstances?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I think that this is out

of order, and I would ask the Hon. Member to direct his remarks

to vote 2, the Premier's estimates.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Well, Mr. Chairman, in vote 2 the

estimates take in the whole question of truth and veracity and

integrity of the government. This is why I raise it at this

time. An apology is due.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member

discontinue his speech, please. Would the Hon. Member be seated

until such time as I recognize him again?

Would the Hon. Member be seated?

Would the Hon. Member remain seated?

I will recognize the Hon. Member again, providing he does

not pursue the particular point that I ruled out of order.

Would the Hon. Member...?

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Chairman, under these

circumstances can we get justice for two people accused of

perjury? It's easy for him to keep on yelling insults, as he's

done on a number of occasions for two days.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please! Would the Hon. Member be seated? I would

invite the Hon. Member to challenge the ruling of the Chair if he doesn't agree

with it. Otherwise, I would expect, and must demand, that he obey the Chair.

If the Hon. Member wishes to continue in another vein, he may do so.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: I have a number of problems: I am

not sure whether you wish me to appeal the ruling that I must

now sit down or whether you wish me to appeal the ruling that I

should now cease questioning on the question of the apology.

Which of the two would you like me to appeal?

Mr. Chairman: The Chair has ruled that insistence

upon an apology implies or suggests wrongdoing on the part of

an Hon. Member. Therefore I've ruled that this should not be

pursued in this manner but rather should be done on a

substantive motion. As long as the Hon. Member does not do

that, he may continue with his remarks.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Chairman, I find it curious

that you should insist that there has to have been wrongdoing.

There is perhaps the most remote chance, slight though it is,

that there was some honest mistake on the Premier's part. Now

you insist that there is no possibility of an honest mistake

which would lead him now to apologize. I say there is still

that slim, slim possibility — very, very slim, but still it

exists. Therefore the idea that I would have to lay a charge

when there is still that slight possibility does not attract me

at all.

Mr. Chairman: The Chair's ruling is that the remarks

of the Hon. Member do imply a charge, and you cannot do

indirectly that which is out of order directly. Therefore the

proper method, if in any way you are implying or imputing any

kind of charge against another Hon. Member, is by substantive

motion.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: The charge that you keep talking

about is something that I am not bringing up. You are. You were

present at those meetings. You know, perhaps, that there needs

to be a charge. I don't; I was not present. I am simply saying,

on the strength of the judicial decision and on the strength of

the affidavits, that there is no question here but there needs

to be an apology. Apology, perhaps, for an honest mistake but

an apology nevertheless....

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

Member to be seated. Now, again, I would give the Hon. Member a

chance, if he wishes to speak again. But he must not go

contrary to the ruling which I have made.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Chairman, I accept the ruling.

I will resume my seat and take

part in this

[ Page

841 ]

debate at a later time. But please search your own heart and

soul for a method whereby I can get redress for citizens if I

cannot use the chamber of the Legislature of British

Columbia.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I would request that the

Hon. Member not lecture the Chair.

Mr. Gibson: I might say that the Chair is pretty good

at lecturing Hon. Members and shouldn't object quite so much if

he gets a little bit back.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The Chair will give

advice where it is required. Would the Hon. Member

continue?

Mr. Gibson: And sometimes when it's not, too.

Mr. Chairman, I asked the Premier a number of questions

earlier on today, and he stood up and answered: yes, no, yes,

yes, no, or something like that, without identifying to which

questions he was directing his replies. I wonder if he would be

kind enough, for greater certainty, to stand up and indicate

which areas he was discussing.

To refresh his memory, I'll just recap quickly and say that

I suggested that he should have put money into Syncrude, a

couple of hundred million dollars, and encouraged other

provinces to provide for public ownership of that company.

I suggested that, really, under his responsibility, he had

to have an auditor-general.

I asked for his views on foreign investment in this

province.

I asked for an undertaking of the British Columbia Railway

to start to pay taxes to municipalities along its route and, in

particular, the district and city of North Vancouver. I asked

him about plans for the BCR headquarters on the North

Shore.

I asked him if he would now fulfill his commitment on

removing a portion of the sales tax from building materials in

the wake of the federal government's removal of a portion of

those building materials taxes which was to trigger the

Premier's action, according to the things he has said in this

House and elsewhere.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: The taxation of the railway goes

back to legislation in the early 1920s passed by a Liberal

administration. We are reviewing all legislation, even Liberal

legislation.

The headquarters decision has not yet been made.

The removal of all federal taxation on building materials

will bring the removal of the 5 per cent sales tax on building

materials privately bought for homes.

Mr. Gibson: But you won't go half way?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Look, I made my position clear. My

position still stands.

In terms of Syncrude, Mr. Member, the "Syncrude deal,

" as we commonly refer to it, is one particular project

of approximately 10 that have to be launched. I will repeat

what I said again because you don't seem to be able either

philosophically or for other reasons to grasp the position

outlined by me in a speech in Montreal approximately 18 months

ago. I said then that the question of public ownership and

control of all non-renewable energy resources was no longer

able to be considered in the luxury category of a philosophical

debate between free enterprisers and socialists. I said then,

and I repeat now, that it is my firm belief that public

ownership should take place and public control should take

place over all oil and gas reserves, producing wells and all

oil machinery in this country. I do not believe that any

country in the same situation as Canada is in the western world

has allowed itself to have control of 90 per cent of all its

oil and gas fall under the hands of foreign governments.

There has been some concern expressed about Arab loans.

Those are loans, not equity. In the case of gas and oil, it is

90 per cent equity by foreign owners.

Mr. Member, my position is, was then and is now, that if a

federal government would take the position that for Canada's

economic security — and planning that continuing security,

growth and development — we must have control over natural gas

and oil in this country through public ownership, then we in

British Columbia would go along with that policy and share in

an equitable basis for the development of those resources. It

is ironic that the research material being used by the private

corporation developing the first Syncrude project was financed

by the Canadian taxpayers.

It is not a question of research — it is not a question of

technology. It is a question of very bad policy by the federal

government to be financing multinational corporations through

subsidies to allow them into the oil sands.

I repeat again, Mr. Member: it is no longer a luxurious

argument between socialists and free enterprisers. It's simply

a matter of survival of this nation through control of its own

non-renewable energy sources.

My error was made 18 months ago. I said on television, on

returning to British Columbia, that if such a decision were

made by the federal government, we in British Columbia would

accept and then I would go to the British Columbia people and

ask them to endorse the position. I would ask the British

Columbia people to vote on the issue: are you willing to share

with all Canadians our gas and our oil in this province if its

under public control? We would certainly let the people of

British Columbia decide.

I, for one, am on the record. I believe in Canada. I think

we have an obligation in every way possible to keep this

country together. One way of keeping this

[ Page 842 ]

country together is to ensure rational, planned economic

growth from coast to coast based on our non-renewable energy

sources. We cannot have that unless we have public ownership

and control of those non-renewable resources. When the federal

government is prepared to move in that direction, I say we will

go, too.

You say you take 5 per cent of Syncrude with the

multinationals in. No, Mr. Member, the tax concessions....

Mr. Gibson: Fifty per cent public.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Not 50 per cent public. The tax

concessions to Syncrude are greater gifts and concessions to

foreign oil companies than what the Crown corporation in the

Province of British Columbia, publicly owned by the taxpayers

of this province, could get. It is the deliberate policy of the

federal government to ensure and guarantee better tax

concessions to multinational corporations than it is to be a

publicly owned corporation such as the B.C. Petroleum Corp.

You yourself said in this House that statements by the

federal government about our corporation were made, if I may

quote your words, "to scare us."

Mr. Gibson: And you got scared.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Well, Mr. Member, when I see

private multinational corporations being favoured by the

Liberal government when a publicly-owned corporation can't get

the same concession, then I know whose side the federal

Liberals are on. Certainly they are not on the side of the

taxpayers or the ordinary people of this country.

I say again: public ownership and we'll share; giveaway we

want no part of.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Just before the Hon.

Member proceeds, I want to make one point by way of guidance.

This is May , page 739 — the middle of the page:

"The administrative action of the department is open to

debate in Committee of Supply, but the necessity for legislation

and matters involving legislation cannot be discussed in

Committee of Supply."

I offer this for the guidance of the Hon.

Members.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, I'm a little bit puzzled by

the position the Premier has just taken. He hasn't really been

consistent.

He said that he wants public ownership in the oil and gas

industry.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Right.

Mr. Gibson: But here's exactly a chance to get it,

Mr. Premier. Here's the one deal in this country where

governments are taking a substantial share of it. Here is the

deal where we see down the road both Alberta and Ontario and

the federal governments speculating on continued involvement in

more and more tar sands plants. This is the deal that the

Premier can have. If he can't get all of his cake right now, he

can get at least a substantial part of it.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: That deal gives major concessions

to the oil companies.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, there's the other thing.

The Premier says that deal gives major concessions to the oil

companies. If it's that good why aren't we in for 100 per cent

of it — if it's that good a deal?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Give us the concessions and we'll

go in.

Mr. Gibson: Go in and you'd have the concessions.

Sure. It's right there in black and white. It's been offered to

whoever's in that deal.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I'll be no part of forcing money

down the throats of oil companies.

Mr. Gibson: Oh, boy! Mr. Premier, what you are a part

of is not giving the people of British Columbia a chance to

invest in that project to assure ourselves of a supply of

overland oil.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Oh, oh!

Mr. Gibson: What you're not doing is letting the

people of British Columbia get in on the beginning of the

action of 300 billion barrels of recoverable oil that's worth

at least $3 trillion. I think that's shocking.

Now switching to other subjects, Mr. Chairman, the revenue

and expenditure estimates tabled by the Minister of Finance are

about $600,000 or so apart. And he called it a surplus budget.

I just have a simple question here. Since, as he tells us, the

revenues and expenditures are accurately assessed in this

budget, just $600,000 error one way or another would throw this

from a surplus budget into a deficit budget. So it seems to me

that a little thing like.... Just suppose there could be an

important deficit in the ICBC. Just suppose that for a minute

without debating the ICBC estimates at all. Then the budget

wouldn't be in surplus any more. That was a very important part

of the presentation of the Minister of Finance to this

House.

Now, the Premier told us today that he can't guarantee the

provision of that report on ICBC before

[ Page 843 ]

the Minister's estimates. He said that by statute it has to

be in sometime before the end of April, but the guillotine may

have fallen on all the estimates by then, Mr. Chairman. You

know, there's only about 121 hours left and the clock is

ticking.

Mrs. Webster: That's right.

Mr. Gibson: "That's right." says the Hon. Second

Member for Vancouver South who stood up earlier on in this

debate. That's right; the clock is ticking. You don't want to

be squeezed out of a chance to make good comments do you, Madam

Member? I wouldn't think so. I don't think any Member of this

House does, and the clock is ticking.

But the point is there; we couldn't get that guarantee, and

it could very easily change that budget from a surplus to a

deficit.

The Premier was able in his presentation to table nine-month

figures for a number of things: for all the departments of

government and for B.C. Hydro. B.C. Hydro is a Crown

corporation that is at least as elaborate in scope as the

Insurance Corp. of British Columbia. So I want to ask the

Premier this simple question: if he could table nine-month

figures for B.C. Hydro, why could he not table nine-month

figures for ICBC?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Member, there are 300 billion

barrels, it is estimated, in the tar sands. Why do we need the

private oil companies there at all?

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Well, Mr. Member, if you will only

recall that I made that proposition not only public but at

federal-provincial conference meetings.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Member, there was never anybody

saying: "Yes, we'll go along with the deal." What do you think

I do: take the cheques down in my pocket?

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Well, certainly, the position of

the government has been clear for 18 months. There is no way,

Mr. Member — and I don't know how many times I have to say

this. The people out there understand me, but you don't. There

is no way that we will go into that development with

multinational oil companies. That oil belongs to the Canadian

people and there is no need for multinational corporations

coming in.

Now if there is the argument, the argument that comes back is that we need

outside capital. Let me use the figures you've given to destroy that very argument.

That oil in the ground is money in the bank, and we don't need any oil company

to come in here and help us to take our money out of the bank. I don't know

what kind of economic school you went to, but obviously it's a little bit different

to the one I went to. If I've got a bank account and it's mine and it belongs

to the Canadian people, I don't invite in American oil companies, British oil

companies, Dutch oil companies to make a withdrawal from our bank account. But

Liberals have done things like that all along. Why I don't know. They hire high-class

economists from eastern boarding schools to give them those crazy ideas. But

in the Midwest, they are far more conservative and practical. In the Midwest

they say what you've got in the bank you hang onto.

That's our money. It's our oil. It belongs to the Canadian

people. We should be developing it. As soon as the federal

government takes up their request, a humble request, a simple

request, that we Canadians have enough courage, enough

foresight, enough determination to be masters in our own house

and withdraw some of our own money from our own bank, which you

estimated to be $3 trillion worth.... Now that's money in the

bank, and we don't need any international oil company to come

along and help us withdraw it.

You have such a dependency orientati