1979 Legislative Session: ist Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, JUNE 14, 1979

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

121 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions.

Medical emergency service in Cassiar. Mr. Passarell –– 121

Free speech for human rights director. Ms. Sanford –– 121

Railwest car plant. Mr. Barrett –– 121

Purchase of lots in Hayesville subdivision. Mr. Lea –– 123

British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation Amendment Act, 1979 (Bill 12).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 123

Mr. Barber –– 127

Mr. Levi –– 131

Mr. King –– 134

Mr. Barrett –– 135

Mr. Howard –– 138

Mr. Ree –– 141

Mr. Lea –– 142

Mr. Hyndman –– 144

Mr. Leggatt –– 145

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 146

Mr. Stupich –– 147

Presenting reports.

Creston Valley Wildlife Management Area Act report. Hon. Mr. Mair –– 148

Appendix –– 149

THURSDAY, JUNE 14, 1979

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. BARRETT: I would ask the House

to welcome today a British Columbia pioneer, a resident of the Peace

River country for many years and an activist in the founding of the

CCF, latterly the NDP, Mr. Bill Close.

MR. KING: I

have a very important announcement to make. Miss Jackie Melville has

been appointed the CBC legislative reporter to this chamber. I would

suggest that under the sophisticated scrutiny of this young lady the

government benches improve their conduct and their attendance. We're

going to have very sophisticated reporting on the proceedings from this

chamber. Let's give her a warm welcome.

MR. SPEAKER: Of course, hon. members, Miss Melville knows that she's not here.

MR. DAVIDSON:

Visiting with us today from Burnsview Junior Secondary School are

approximately 60 students, 35 of whom are in the gallery with their

teacher, Alderman Karl Moser, from Delta. I would ask the House to make

them very welcome. I also see in the gallery Alderman Lois Jackson from

Delta, with her husband, and I would ask the House to make them welcome

as well.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to

welcome a very dear friend and her husband, Mr. and Mrs. Earl Jackson

of White Rock, formerly of Vernon, and Mr. Ray Foisy, our provincial

assessor from Vernon.

Oral Questions

MEDICAL EMERGENCY

SERVICE IN CASSIAR

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, I

would like to address my question to the Minister of Health. Is the

minister aware that on the night of June 4 Mr. Herbert Daum of Cassiar

was critically ill and that he waited 11½ hours to be flown down to

Vancouver to receive medical attention? Is he also aware that one plane

developed instrument problems on the way up to Cassiar, returned to

Vancouver, and another plane was not immediately dispatched? I would

also like to add that Mr. Perry and his staff have been most helpful in

this.

MR. SPEAKER:

Hon. members, I didn't detect a question. Questions may not be

constructed in lieu of an address or order, says Beauchesne,

section

171(s). Questions are also not to be framed in such a way as to suggest

their own answer, and perhaps we could keep this in consideration while

we are constructing our questions.

A further question? Please proceed.

MR. PASSARELL: Is the minister aware of what happened to Mr. Herbert Daum?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the particular case.

I am sure the member has not brought it to my attention, but if he will, and

if he is doing that now, I would certainly investigate it for him as quickly

as possible and get him all the information necessary.

MR. PASSARELL: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Why wasn't another medical evacuation plane

— that was just sitting on the runway in Vancouver — dispatched to help a man in critical condition in Cassiar?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: If you give me all the information, I'll get an answer for you.

FREE SPEECH FOR

HUMAN RIGHTS DIRECTOR

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that the Minister of Labour has arrived, because I have a question for him.

the Legislature yesterday the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom), in

referring to Dr. Ekstedt, who is a senior official within his ministry,

made the following statement: "He may well have expressed some personal

opinions and I can assure you, sir, that in a democratic society people

have the right to express their personal opinions." My question to the

Minister of Labour is this: does the Minister of Labour concur with

that statement made by the Attorney-General yesterday?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

I assume it's somehow or other related to my responsibilities as

Minister of Labour. If the member is asking me if I agree with freedom

of speech, my answer is yes.

MS. SANFORD: Does the minister now feel that the same right should be extended to the director of the human rights branch?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That right should, and has been, extended to the director.

MS. SANFORD:

It is my understanding that the minister has instructed the director of

the human rights branch not to make statements which are her personal

opinions on various issues.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The hon. member is completely wrong.

RAILWEST CAR PLANT

MR. BARRETT:

1'd like to direct my question to the Minister of Economic Development.

In his capacity as a director on the B.C. Rail, can the minister inform

this House as to whether or not the Railwest car plant has been

reopened to produce railcars?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The answer is no.

MR. BARRETT:

On a supplementary question, could the minister inform this House as to

whether or not the Railwest car plant has been reopened?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The answer is yes.

[ Page 122 ]

MR. BARRETT:

On a further supplementary question, could the minister inform this

House as to whether or not, in any capacity, B.C. Rail is building any

railcars?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: So far as I am aware, the answer is no.

MR. BARRETT: On a further supplementary question, I would like to ask the minister if B.C. Rail is purchasing cars.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'I take that question as notice and get the details for the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SPEAKER: May I just interject? This is the way question period should work.

MR. BARRETT:

I've been the victim of a praiseworthy editorial in a newspaper and now

you're telling me that I'm conducting myself in order. In all modesty,

this is a bit too much. Can the minister inform this House how many

railcars B.C. Rail is daily short of for carrying available goods?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

There are shortages of railcars faced by practically every railway in

North America due to the greatly increased demand for British Columbia

products and due to the weather conditions experienced in the eastern

United States last year. Had we continued to manufacture to total

available capacity in the Railwest plant, we would have had some 3,600

railcars on the track which would have been manufactured at a cost

which would not have allowed them to be competitive in the railway

market in North America.

MR. BARRETT: Is the minister

aware that the one way of alleviating a railcar shortage is by building

railcars? Assuming that the minister is indeed aware of that

possibility, even within his particular venue, would the minister

please answer the previous question? How many railcars, daily, is B.C.

Rail short of for carrying product?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

That part of the member's question I said I would take as notice, but I

want to inform the Leader of the Opposition that it was not the

intention of the British Columbia Railway to manufacture cars at

approximately 30 percent more in price than the rest of the

manufacturing facilities in Canada. It's not the responsibility of the

taxpayers of British Columbia to supply railway cars for the entire

railway system of North America.

MR. BARRETT: The

minister has stated that railways all over North America are short of

cars. Excepting the fact that building railcars is the method of

alleviating the shortage, has the minister investigated the possibility

of building railcars and selling them to other railroads as an

effective means of using those facilities?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

Maybe the Leader of the Opposition needs a little lesson in economics.

If you are going to sell something you must be able to be competitive.

MR. BARRETT:

Is the minister aware that BCR's own rail reports on car building

indicate that its prices are not out of line more than 8 to 10 percent

with any other manufacturer in North America'?

MR. SPEAKER: There is no question there.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, I just asked him if he was aware of that.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. minister wish to respond?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

That might have been prior to 1972, but during the NDP term — the

socialist term of office — inflation went from 7 percent to 10 percent

to 11 percent, greater than any province in Canada. This great

government has brought inflation under control; now we're below any

province in Canada.

MR. BARRETT: One last

supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the minister could inform the House

whether he is aware that there was no railcar manufacturing plant

before 1973.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: When I was speaking

of inflation I know that under the socialist government they started to

build a railway car plant which was to have cost them about $4.5

million. Due to the inability of that government and the Leader of the

Opposition as president of that railway to get proper estimates, when

the railway car plant was finished it was at $8.5 million, and unable

to produce cars at a competitive price to meet the North American

market.

MR. BARRETT: A last supplementary, Mr.

Speaker. After hearing the minister's answers that the Railwest car

plant has not been reopened to build cars and that the Railwest car

plant is not building cars, could the minister please explain to this

House why prior to voting day in the last election a statement was

issued by B.C. Rail that not only would Railwest be reopened but that

another car repair plant would be opened in north Prince George? If the

price is too high to repair, why was this announcement made during the

election campaign, only to have the minister contradict it now? Could

it have anything to do with electoral politics?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS:

I know that the Leader of the Opposition is envious of the great job

that independent board of directors who are running the British

Columbia Railway are doing. He's envious of the fact that we have

reduced the operating loss from $23.8 million, when he was president of

the railway, down to a profit last year. I realize he is envious.

The

decision to open the Railwest manufacturing plant for the repair of

railway cars was a decision made by that great independent board of

directors who brought the railway from an operating loss to an

operating profit. They had nothing to do with politics.

MR. BARRETT: I think you're playing politics.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND:

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I just wondered if you would like to

retract that statement you made about the way question period should

work. [Laughter.]

[ Page 123 ]

PURCHASE OF LOTS IN

HAYESVILLE SUBDIVISION

MR. LEA: I hope that time is taken off the question period. [Laughter.]

Mr.

Speaker, a question to the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. Is he

aware that Kaien Consumers Credit Union has been purchasing lots in

Prince Rupert from the lands branch in the subdivision called

Hayesville and that they have been paid 3.5 percent for doing so by the

lands branch and they have in turn passed that 3.5 percent on to their

customers who mortgage through Kaien Consumers Credit Union?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I took as notice that question to do with the Hayesville subdivision in Prince Rupert.

MR. LEA:

Mr. Speaker, he didn't take that question as notice. He took another

question as notice and he's trying to lump every question back into the

same bag because he's afraid to bring the evidence into this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have a question?

MR. LEA:

Yes, I'd like to ask a question: how long can the minister stall this

House by taking a question on notice and not bring the stuff back into

this house?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LEA:

I would like to ask the minister whether his department, the Ministry

of Lands, Parks and Housing, has accepted a down payment for any of

these lots from Hayesville — lot 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 55, 57, 61 or 73 —

and whether he has accepted down payments from Kaien Consumers Credit

Union for any of these lots?

MR. SPEAKER: Would the member like to put that question on the order paper? It is rather detailed.

MR. LEA:

Mr. Speaker, if you put it on the order paper, you never get an answer.

This way we may get one sometime. I want to know from that minister

when he's going to bring in his answers.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. This is clearly an abuse of question period.

MR. LEA: It sure is.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt filed an answer to question 16 on the order paper.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM:

Mr. Speaker, in order to illustrate to new members on both sides of the

House the procedure of moving from supply to public bills and orders,

my colleague, the hon. House Leader of the official opposition (Mr.

King), has agreed not to consent to the motion that I am going to make

— so everybody can be informed of what is going to happen. I would ask

leave for the House to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave not granted.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(continued)

On vote 100: minister's office, $109,825.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair,

The committee, having reported progress. was granted leave to sit again.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House proceed to public bills and orders.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 12, British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation Amendment Act, 1979.

BRITISH COLUMBIA

RESOURCES INVESTMENT CORPORATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

HON. MR. BENNETT: Before I mention the bill, I would

like to advise the House that I will be introducing one amendment,

which is a correction, during the committee stage. In

section 10(

l) on

the first line of the first page where it says "in the name of," that

should read "by." In the seventh line where it says "held by," that

should read "held in the name of." The two parts have just been

transposed.

I would also point out to the members that the

explanatory note on page 8 has a misprint and while it doesn't need an

amendment, it will be helpful to the members. That's the explanatory

note,

section (n). Where it says the word "owes" that should be "gives."

Mr.

Speaker. In preparing to move second reading of Bill 12, I'd like to

just quickly refresh the members' memories on the intent of the British

Columbia Resources Investment Corporation Act, the original act which

was passed and declared into law in September 1977. British Columbia

Resources Investment Corporation was to set up as a public company in

the private sector. It provides the people of British Columbia with a

large company in which they have an opportunity to own a share or

shares. It gives the people of British Columbia a chance to experience

individual ownership. It was brought in because of this government’s

commitment to individual ownership in the private sector versus what we

consider to be second-hand ownership through government. We believe

that some of the assets that are included in the B.C. Resources

Investment Corporation quite properly belong in the private sector and

in the hands of the people.

[ Page 124 ]

The

assets created problems for government because government had to

administer them, and some in the forest industry placed government in a

very sensitive area where government competed with the private sector

which provides a large part of the taxes and builds the economy of

British Columbia. This created uncertainty and confusion among those in

that primary industry. There were fears from the industry, small and

large, that government would favour its own. Here we had government

writing the rules, administering the rules and playing in the game.

That was an additional reason for including some of those assets in

this corporation. Major assets are the exploration rights of oil and

gas lands in northern British Columbia, together with the forest

companies. These assets provide a base for this corporation.

heard the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) the other day quite

incorrectly express the fear that somehow the company would fall into

someone's hands or someone from outside the country would control the

company. We prevented this from happening by limiting ownership only to

Canadians. There are opportunities for the company to retrieve shares

should they be purchased or owned illegally. We limited the maximum

personal ownership, or ownership of an association, to 1 percent. I

know the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) is very

interested in this because I heard him on a CBC radio program in which

the interviewer was able to correct his misapprehension at that time. I

know that he now understands it very well.

MR. MACDONALD: Will you give up the floor so I can correct you?

HON. MR. BENNETT:

No. We have a company that can only be owned by Canadians. We have a

company in which there is a 1 percent limitation on maximum ownership.

We have the provision in the Act and in the amendments which provide

that there can be action taken to retrieve shares should someone own

them illegally. I have been asked the question: "What's to stop someone

from buying and owning the shares illegally?" Well, every time we pass

laws in this Legislature, what guarantee can I give that someone won't

drive over 100 miles an hour, or someone won't go through a stop sign

wilfully, or someone won't break into your home and steal your

possessions, although it's against the law? We do as much as we can in

this unique bill.

We can provide those safeguards, make it

law, and provide opportunities for retrieving of the shares and also

remain in law the opportunity for the executive council to reduce that

percentage from I should someone be able to try to circumvent the law.

We have built in safeguards to meet the purpose and intent of the bill.

I think all members of this Legislature on both sides of the House can

agree that it would be worthwhile to have a broadly based company, a

large public company in the private sector, in which British Columbians

have ownership. That ownership may in the future include other

Canadians, because we're proud of being Canadians as well. In making

that ownership available we have put in safeguards so that no group or

groups can dominate. The 1 percent for individuals and groups and

businesses and associations is there. We allow those other areas of

pension plans and trusts pension plans for the people who purchase

common shares and make investments to purchase up to 3 percent. That

too reflects an opportunity for a broad extension of ownership by those

companies: those pensions and those trusts on behalf of large groups of

people. There again the intent of this Act is to provide the

opportunity for as broad a base of ownership as there can be.

Bill

12 supplements the original bill because it allows the government —

which in transferring these assets to this corporation that was set up

by legislation had the assets appraised at that time by independent

appraisal and a value placed on them on notes taken by the government —

to take common shares for those notes. It allows the government to

embark on what is a revolutionary, unique plan. But I think something

is needed to give all our people who qualify the opportunity to

experience share ownership, and that is to give to British Columbians,

who are Canadian citizens, free shares in this corporation. That is

what this Bill 12 allows. The government has taken 15 million shares in

payment for the notes and is offering to give what could reach 12

million of those shares to the citizens of British Columbia.

has been said we're giving them what they own, and that is true. But

we're giving into their own hands, ownership that they can voluntarily

make a decision on, and ownership which they may wish to extend. It is

said that they had no decision in being given these assets and were not

consulted. I'm hopeful that after the application date, and the

delivery date, we'll see that by far the largest number of British

Columbians would prefer to have individual ownership rather than the

second-hand ownership of government. I think we're looking here at a

principle that is this: Do we want to allow and encourage the people of

British Columbia to invest their money in the business and industry of

this province? Do we want not only to encourage them but to show them

how? Because I believe that many of our people....

MR. LEA: Big brother.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

Little sister. I believe that we have reached an alarming trend not

only in British Columbia but in this country. When we were doing

research in preparation of this Act, we found out that more and more

Canadians were putting money into savings accounts. In fact, there were

record amounts of savings in bank accounts, credit unions and the trust

companies of this country. At the same time it appeared we were

experiencing a shrinking of the ownership of the large public companies

in the private sector of this country. It meant that what we feared,

when seeing the mergers and takeovers that were taking place, was

correct: fewer and fewer of our citizens were participating in

ownership of these companies on their own volition, in wanting to own a

piece of the action.

Those people don't want the government

to own it; they want to own a piece themselves. But they haven't been

encouraged, and the one thing that hasn't encouraged them has been

government itself. Government has not had programs and encouragement to

encourage people to invest their savings in equity; just the reverse.

High interest rates have encouraged us to be a nation of moneylenders,

while the equity ownership has been consolidated in fewer and fewer

hands. Now if we're to have ownership by the people of this province

for the large number of the people — not only of B.C. and Canada — for

many of them the only way

[ Page 125 ]

they can achieve individual ownership is through the purchase of common shares.

Small

business, something which we all speak in favour of, something which we

believe is the backbone of our economy, is fine, but not everybody can

be a single proprietor or small business person. In fact, that

opportunity is there for a large number of our people; but most of the

citizens of British Columbia, because of the nature of our economy and

the North American economy, work for someone else. Economics of scale

means that even small business in the forest industry is large by

normal standards. It means there are employees. For them the only

opportunity they will ever have to have ownership in their own name

then is through the purchase of common stock. That is the only

opportunity those who work for someone have — whether you work in the

forest industry, in the mining industry, whether you work in retailing

— for most people where by choice they work as part of the production

of this province. They can't have their own small business, but they're

content as long as they have an opportunity to own a piece of the

business and industry of this province. They don't want it through

government. They want it by choice.

What we've got to do

through this then is extend that ownership and by experiencing

ownership, for those who don't own now, extend that ownership in the

future. I feel, as many do, that if you don't want someone else to own

the business and industry of British Columbia, then the only

alternative is to own it yourself. But one of the distressing things we

found when we saw this build-up of savings and bank accounts — we saw a

decline in ownership — was that in British Columbia, the investment

community advised me on request that to their knowledge only 60,000

people had any experience in share ownership in this province — 60,000

out of a province of 2.5 million people. That means the large bulk of

the people of this province weren't participating in ownership. This is

something that our government has concerned itself with, not only in

this Legislature and our province, but we have made this representation

to First Ministers' conferences as well, that we've got to encourage

those people who aren't investing now to invest; and we've got to teach

them how.

I've said to the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr.

McGeer): "There's got to be something wrong with an educational system

that hasn't prepared our people — my age, older, younger — to

participate in the economy of the country in which they are born and

raised, doesn't equip them to take advantage of the system to

understand how they can own a piece of the action, how they can

invest." I think it's tragic. Obviously it has failed, because we see

that decline in ownership — only 60,000 owners of equity ownership —

when you know and I know, Mr, Speaker, that of 2.5 million British

Columbians, not everyone can own a small business, not everyone can be

a single proprietor. Many of them, as I say, work for someone else. We

want to encourage them to own their piece of the action voluntarily,

not by something that's purchased for them by government, by whim, but

something by which they wish to purchase and participate in the growth

of the province, something they can buy when they want and sell....

MR. KING: Not everyone is smart enough to inherit a business.

HON. MR. BENNETT: And I haven't either.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: You were born with a silver spoon in your mouth.

HON. MR. BENNETT: And you were born with a lead foot in yours. [Laughter.]

Mr.

Speaker, if we can return, for those who are serious about this — and

those others may leave the room. For those who are serious about how we

want to see opportunity extended for the people of the province — for

that's why we're here — we say that the B.C. Resources Investment

Corporation is not the only answer, but it's part of the answer,

because it will provide that experience. So this Bill 12 allows the

free distribution of the shares to the people; it supplements the

original bill in allowing not only for the free distribution but some

additional safeguard.

MR. LEA: That's not free.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The distribution is being paid for by the government of British Columbia, which is the people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, it's the very people....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The Premier has the floor.

HON. MR. BENNETT: It might take longer if he keeps heckling.

The

member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) says: "That's not free." I'm glad he

finally agrees with his party. Yes, nothing is free. When you give

health services, the people are paying for it through taxation. When

you give any benefit from government, the people are paying for it

through their taxation. The people don't mind paying for a benefit

that's real. What really used to bother the people was paying for your

sloppy mistakes when you were government, Mr. Member. That's what used

to bother them.

The Leader of the Opposition, during

question period, admitted today that when he was president of the

railway, it lost $23 million, and now it makes $3 million a year. They

didn't like that kind of government.

Now I quite agree that

there are things people receive from government that we take for

granted — a measure of protection in health, and education — government

provides that. But I have said that the one thing that built this

country is individual opportunity and ownership, and government should

be prepared, where it isn't now, to extend that to the people. I'm

proud to spend the money to distribute ownership to the people.

Do you want to put a value on ownership, Mr. Speaker? Well, I'll tell you what ownership is worth.

MR. LEA: I hope so.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

That member for Prince Rupert says it isn't worth the $15 million or

$16 million that was estimated in the budget to distribute the shares.

Well, I say that ownership is priceless. If you want to know what

[ Page 126 ]

ownership

is worth, I'I tell you what it's worth. Just go to some communist

country where ownership isn't allowed by the people, and ask them what

it's worth. They'll tell you it's priceless. It is not something that

should be taken for granted in this country. It is not something to be

easily eroded away by misguided governments and misguided politicians.

It is something to be encouraged. Once lost, it is never regained, as

is shown by the history of the world. It is never regained in any

country that has taken away that ownership by the people.

What

is the people's best protection against government, government that

should serve them? It is to maintain the ownership not only of the

business and industry, but of their homes and their lands in their own

names. The day you become a tenant, or the day that everybody becomes

an employee of the state, is the day that you have lost not only a

large measure, but your ultimate freedom — and that is the right of

dissent. You will have become the captive of government. Let me say

that we want to reverse the trend of ownership towards consolidation.

And that ownership isn't just by big companies; a large part of that

ownership, as I say, is by governments. The only way governments got

the money to buy business out from under your nose — business that you

might have wanted to buy — was overtax you, to use your money to buy

businesses that you might like to own. It is self-defeating. As they

take more and more of your money away, to buy what you should have,

there is less and less opportunity for you not only to have the cash to

buy it, but also less and less of the business in which you wish to

make an investment.

We say we are trying to reverse that

trend. This is one of the ways, and there are a number of other

measures that this government has introduced in the budget to encourage

investment by individuals in this province. There are politicians who

pretend to speak for the working people of this province, and yet they

don't think they're smart enough to be able to make investments in

their own names. They say that only they, as government, can make those

investments. Well, I say I want to give the people the opportunity,

encourage them, give them the experience. And, yes, other programs and

other initiatives and more leadership will be needed to extend this

opportunity. But this distribution is the start of the reversal of a

trend, and it is going to start in British Columbia, and I hope it will

extend across this country. If there is a gradual erosion of individual

ownership anywhere in the world, let us say that here, in British

Columbia, in Canada, we have reversed the trend, that we have a

government committed to the individual and the people. We don't just

talk about individual ownership; we do something about it.

want the people to own their share. Yes, we're giving them what they

own, by letting them have a say in how they want to own it or when they

want to sell it, and that is what this distribution and Bill 12 is all

about. We are not selling them what they own; we're giving it to them.

At the same time this bill provides that they have an additional

opportunity to purchase other shares in the company they are getting in

their own names with the free shares. The money doesn't come to the

government; it goes into their company to carry out further economic

activity in British Columbia and in Canada. It goes to carry on other

economic activity. It's not sending the money somewhere else. That

money that they put in become part of their assets.

distresses me that there are those who would have confused the people,

who would fight this principle, when the best guarantee of freedom in

the future is to have that right of individual ownership.

is good to have a vehicle, a large public company in the private sector

that can carry on and extend the business and development of this

province; something that can work for the people. I've heard the

bleating politicians say over and over again they don't want someone

else to own the business and industry of this country. They've never

had any other answer but confiscation and big government. I say our

system was built by people. They have forgotten that the principle of

this country was built on people, and that people will always be a

better answer than confiscation, expropriation and big government. They

have forgotten that, and that is the principle behind this bill:

allowing the people an opportunity to own, and giving them a chance to

purchase.

Anyone who opposes this bill is against the

average guy owning a piece of the action. It means you want only a few

owners in this province. It means that the fellow who works in the

sawmill or in the mines, who chooses to work at his skill, is not

clever enough to own. If you vote against that, that's what you are

saying. You're saying also that, for the first time, the little guy in

this province is getting a chance in the purchase of additional stock.

You'd be against that.

Mr. Speaker, I'm telling that member

over there, and I'm telling the new member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr.

Leggatt), who was wrong the other day, who didn't even know about the

safeguards in the bill that was passed in 1977. He came here with great

promise, and people expected much of him. He saddened us the day he was

wrong in his first speech. They said he was going to bring a measure of

confidence to the research of that party. I understand it was only part

of a plot to encourage the government to give them more research help

for the opposition.

Now he says that's true. He says that's why he was wrong. He stepped on a safety-pin in his stall. [Laughter.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, may we return to the bill?

HON. MR. BENNETT:

The additional purchase offer does mean that eligible British

Columbians, Canadian citizens, will get an opportunity, for the first

time, to purchase, at a preferred price, additional stock in their

company.

For many years public issues have allowed a few to

have that privilege. Here it is extended to all: a right to get a share

in the business and industry; a way to go for the future. The B.C.

Resources Investment Corporation, I hope, will not be the only

investment source available to these people. I further hope that,

encouraged from this experience, they will invest in other enterprises,

show some of the initiative, show some of the guts their forebears had

in investing and owning a piece of the action, and not sit back and

whine about it.

Those who don't invest, who don't take up

the free share offer, may not be sincere when they say they don't want

someone else owning the business and industry of the province. They may

not be sincere, because here is their opportunity to set up a vehicle

to provide them with that very opportunity to show them the way.

[ Page 127 ]

hope the Minister of Education, Science and Technology (Hon. Mr.

McGeer) will encourage the ministry, schools and the community to tell

our young people what ownership is, also explain the opportunities and

the responsibilities that go along with it, because they are all there.

When they learn from the schools I hope the kids will teach the parents

who aren't investing now, and whom we are trying to encourage into the

investment market and into ownership, to reverse the trend and make

British Columbians, as individuals, more prosperous, but at least

owners, at their own choice, in their own province of business and

industry,

That is what Bill 12, the amendment bill,

supplementing the original bill, the B.C. Resources Investment

Corporation Act, is all about.

I now move that the bill be read a second time.

MR. BARBER:

It is my first opportunity to do so, Mr. Speaker, and I would like, if

I may, to congratulate you on having been chosen as Speaker, and to

congratulate the Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rogers) as well on the election he

achieved to his own office. I think you both do a good job. I also

think you both belong in the cabinet, but I can't help that. Meanwhile,

you are with us as Speaker and Deputy, and we're glad for that all the

same.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

After this

debate — such as it was — by the Premier, it is no wonder to any one of

us on this side of the House why he chose not to debate with the Leader

of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) during the recent election. I could

hardly think of any more banal, any more ordinary or any more

nonsensical right-wing ideology than this stuff the Premier has just

thrown across the floor in the Legislature. No wonder he doesn't want

to debate the Leader of the Opposition.

I wasn't aware that

he was even debating Bill 12 at all. It sounded to me as if he were

back in 1977. It sounded to me as well that he was trying to make up

for the failure his party suffered pursuing these arguments during the

recent campaign. The Premier should know this: neither now nor during

the campaign did the arguments he just made succeed. They didn't go. No

one bought them.

The basic propositions that this government

has taken, extreme and right-wing as they are, did not succeed as an

election issue for that government. I don't think there is a member in

this House who could claim with a straight face to have been elected on

the basis of this five free shares scheme or on the basis of the B.C.

Resources Corporation either. For how many of you did it even come up

at an all-candidates meeting? It was a very rare event.

MR. KEMPF: I used the Waffle Manifesto myself.

[Laughter.]

MR. BARBER: And who read it to you? [Laughter.]

The

political fact is that from the beginning, the B.C. Resources

Investment Corporation has been a political arm of Social Credit,

nothing more and unfortunately much less. It has been a political arm

of Social Credit whose board of directors has yet to make a single

independent decision, whose board of directors has yet even to announce

a single decision. All major policy announcements about the B.C.

Resources Investment Corporation have come from the Premier; not one

decision or announcement has come from this puppet board. From the

beginning the resources corporation has been a political instrument of

Social Credit. It has no independent life of its own whatsoever.

The

five free shares scheme itself did not originate with Mr. Helliwell or

with any member of the board, but rather last fall we were treated to

the spectacle of Mr. Helliwell admitting on the radio that the Premier

phoned him up and told him that this is what he wanted to do.

HON. MR. BENNETT: It's the government that is giving away the shares, not them.

MR. BARBER: Here we go! Thank you, there's more to that yet.

The

point is that this board, from the beginning, has served only the

partisan interests of that party. It has never had independent or

animate life of its own — not once, not ever. And if this group has its

way, it never will either. The only good thing about the B.C. Resources

Investment Corporation is the fact that when it was announced, the

Premier finally told the truth about the assets obtained by the New

Democratic Party.

I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, that for

three and a half years in desperate opposition, that group attacked and

mocked and ridiculed every investment made by the New Democratic

government. They said they were all worthless; they were all dumb; they

were all foolish; they were all misapplied; they were all wrong. The

only good thing is that at last they are telling the truth because

today they're boasting about those investments.

At last the

Premier and his coalition are telling the truth about the wisdom and

the appropriateness of the moves made by the NDP government. At last

they're telling the truth about how wise it was that Can-Cel, Plateau

Mills, Kootenay Forest Products and the rest of them were obtained for

the public benefit in the name of all the people. At last they agree

that it was worth something. We knew that all along and so did the

people. The Premier only recently seems to have learned it.

But

there are a number of problems associated with this bill and with that

corporation that have to be addressed, and which the Premier for

obvious reasons chose not to address in his last remarks at all. Even

though these assets were grossly undervalued by the government, even at

that lower rate, they still demonstrate how wisely and appropriately

the NDP made investments during its term in office.

But the

tragedy of the Resources Corporation is that public control of B.C.

Cellulose was undervalued at $64.3 million; public control of the

investment made in Westcoast Transmission was undervalued a $37.4

million; public control of the investment made in Plateau Mills was

undervalued at $9 million; public control of the investment made in

Kootenay Forest Products was amazingly valued at $1 by that group over

there; and the public interest and various licences for petroleum

purposes were undervalued at $40.9 million. So a total of $151.3

million is going to be lost. The whole sense of public control over

public assets has been betrayed by this group opposite, betrayed from

beginning to end.

Now later on in my remarks I will be

tabling a document that the Premier might not be familiar with that

indicates how in fact corporations will move to secure corporate

[ Page 128 ]

control

of the assets of BCRIC. There are a number of problems created by the

original bill and created by these amendments. The first problem is

that we have abandoned any means in this Legislature of asking

questions about how the resources corporation operates. I would refer

members to Hansard of April

26, 1978, in which the Premier makes it very clear — he did it again

today, but let me remind him of his original words — that this company

is not a Crown corporation. He went on to make it clear that he would

not be held accountable in this Legislature for its operations, even

though he was the man who introduced the bill and to this day boasts

about it. He said on that date, Mr. Speaker, that because the B.C.

Resources Investment Corporation is a public company operating in the

private sector and not a Crown corporation for which that type of

accountability would be made to the Legislature, he was unwilling to

answer a question I had raised about the salary — of all innocent

questions — of Mr. Helliwell.

To this date, the Premier

refuses to tell us how much Mr. Helliwell is paid. To this date, the

Premier refuses to tell us how much the directors of that company are

paid. To this date, the Premier has been utterly irresponsible in

handling questions raised by this opposition about the actual

operations of the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation.

The

first problem is that this is a private corporation and the Premier

will not be held accountable for what he did in setting it up. The

second problem is that there is a level — if you will, a breach — of

standards in terms of the political debate that surrounded this

corporation. To the best of my memory, on no occasion has the Premier

been willing to engage, as he should as a responsible author of this

legislation, in any competent defence of its actual operations. He just

won't do it; he refuses in question period.

There have been

a number of internal delays in the operation of the corporation. The

Speaker will remember that the corporation was supposed to have been

well in business in 1978, well underway more than a year and a half

ago. The corporation has yet to issue a single share. One of the

reasons, we are informed by more than one reliable source in the

investment community, is simple internal mismanagement in the

corporation.

Another problem is that the assets of the

corporation were artificially and deliberately lowered in their value.

They were given that particularly low valuation for political purposes.

The government chose to make the previous administration look as bad as

possible by underestimating as much as possible the worth of those

assets.

We're also informed by members of the investment

community that in the first year of operation of this corporation they

were unable to get an underwriting. No competent investment house would

author an underwriting. One of the reasons for a longer than two-year

delay in the public offering of this corporation was because of lack of

confidence, the problems of valuation and the problems of internal

management, about which the Premier has yet to answer a single question.

There

is another problem. This corporation may, if it wishes, dispose of the

assets that have been given to it. It is a highly dangerous thing that

the corporation could sell on the open market the assets it has in B.C.

Cellulose, Westcoast Transmission, Plateau Mills, Kootenay Forest

Products Ltd. and in the various petroleum and natural gas licences.

However, you needn't take my word for it; take the word of the Premier,

at least on this occasion.

I refer you to Hansard ,

September 1, 1977. My colleague from Vancouver East asked the Premier

whether or not it was possible for the B.C. Resources Investment

Corporation to dispose of all the assets that it has been given. Yes,

sure enough, it's possible. Specifically, Mr. Macdonald asks: "I ask

the Premier if this company will have the power to sell these assets

which it acquires from the government, such as B.C. Cellulose? Can they

sell them off if they see a good chance to sell the company to somebody

else?" The Premier replied in 1977: "Mr. Chairman, I doubt that they

would do that. But yes, they would have the power to acquire assets or

dispose of assets in the best interests of the company." Well, it may

be in the narrow best interests of the company, but it is not in the

broader best interests of the people to dispose of those assets.

The

problem with this amendment and with your whole bizarre right-wing

conception of what good ownership stands for is that in fact you have

created a company that can dispose to anyone the assets that were

acquired in the name of all the people. That's foolish; that's

dangerous.

MR. STRACHAN: That's free enterprise.

MR. BARBER: Well, I suppose it is. You should hang your heads in shame, because in this instance it certainly will be.

It is a tragic offence that these significant public assets can be sold to anyone.

know the history of this coalition. They sold a public asset called the

Gray Line franchise. They didn't sell it to British Columbians who

wanted to operate it; they didn't even sell it to Canadians who wanted

to operate it. In order to undermine poor old Sam Bawlf altogether,

they sold it to Americans. Such are the standards of this group that

when they have a direct choice in the matter they won't sell it to

British Columbians or Canadians at all. It goes south of the border. If

that's going to happen with Gray Line, when they are directly in

charge, what's going to happen to all the other assets when the

corporation, its puppet, is acting for them?

We know, of

course, that they sold the Panco processing operation to Cargill

International, a notorious company, the victim of endless lawsuits, the

victim of endless prosecutions, the victim of endless charges laid

against it. That's what they were happy to do then. Think what's going

to happen to this.

There's another problem with this

corporation. It is that the profits can be milked and the dividends

reaped in the names of a very small number of people. There is no

reason whatsoever — nothing forbids it in this amendment or in the

original Act — why those dividends simply cannot be spent on behalf of

a very few shareholders. They can create any number of classes of stock

they wish. Indeed, later on as we talk about it and I table a document

referring to the way in which corporations can seize control of BCRIC,

you'll discover quite easily how, as notoriously as B.C. Tel has always

been drained by its parent company, so this corporation can be drained

by those who will in fact control it.

The Premier had a lot

of problems when he tried to sell the resources corporation. He had

problems in the last election, and it didn't go. He had problems in

this House. Today he admits for the first time that he is in fact

trying to

[ Page 129 ]

give

the people something they already own. Well, for the same reason that

he would admit to that, surely he will admit that he's trying to sell

them something they already own.

The corporation has been a

political failure in the tender arms of their embrace. It was a failure

as a campaign issue. Recognizing all these things, the Premier decided

at long last that he would try and retrieve that failure by giving away

five free shares. The Premier even seems unwilling to give credit to

the author of that scheme. May I remind the House that more than a year

and a half ago, good old Uncle Ben Ginter thought of it first. I was

happy to release a little while ago a letter that dear old Uncle Ben

wrote to his shareholders.

"Dear Shareholder in Uncle Ben's Malt Liquor:

"You may have read that I have been successful in buying

back my own brewery in Red Deer. Therefore I am now free to proceed with the

necessary legalities and the printing of the shares which you should receive

by July, but no later than September. I am pleased that so many thousands have

applied for the free shares, but only Alberta residents are entitled to the

five free shares per family."

Uncle

Ben goes on at some length about this remarkable scheme of his. The

Premier doesn't even have the common courtesy to give Uncle Ben Ginter

the credit for having dreamed up this five free share scheme.

So on behalf of the Premier today in Hansard

- I'll send him a copy — I acknowledge, together with all my colleagues

in the official opposition now greatly enlarged, that Uncle Ben

deserves the credit for this weirdo idea. The Premier thought that this

scheme would help get him re-elected overwhelmingly. He certainly did

think that, and it certainly didn't. It had no such impact at all.

Now

there are problems as well with the five free shares scheme. The first

is that it cost the taxpayer $20 million-plus to give them away. That

$20 million that could have been spent on hospitals, most certainly

here in Victoria — it could have been spent on hospitals anywhere — is

being spent instead to promote the Premier. You will recall that at one

point of the draft of it, his picture actually appeared on the

prospectus, on the invitation to apply for the stock itself. It has

always been a political creature of Social Credit, but we found out

about that so the picture was taken off and all that remained was this

peculiar address by Bill Bennett, written large in italics, inviting

people to take advantage of the generous nature of Bill Bennett and the

shares that he proposed to give them.

Now if this wasn't

political from beginning to end, you might ask thereby whether or not

it was appropriate for the Premier's name and picture to appear on the

shares application. Apparently under Social Credit this is appropriate;

it's still there. So the first problem with the five free hares

giveaway is that it cost the taxpayers $20 million to give away the

free shares.

The second problem is that massive profits,

quite unearned, have been made by banks and finance companies in

British Columbia. No wonder they support it so enthusiastically; no

wonder they took out ads in favour of it; no wonder they supported

Social Credit in the last campaign. They've made a bundle off you.

They've made a bundle because you've overpaid them.

I quote

a letter dated March 21, 1979, signed by a Mr. Draper, the manager of

the Royal Bank of Canada, 540 East Hastings Street. In the letter he

admits the profits, the vast and unearned profits, given his bank by

Social Credit. He says in the letter:

"We

found that 10 applications an hour can be completed, and the bank has

determined that branches can pay $5.75 per hour — 60 cents per

application — to application-takers and make a fair profit for itself.

The question we need to resolve is how much of the banks' fair profit

can be spent on doing what the government should be doing?"

What

an admission this is: it costs them 60 cents to process the

application. Here's the letter; I'll table it. The Royal Bank of Canada

says so. It costs them 60 cents and you pay them $5. You're wasting our

money. Do you want the letter? It's costing us $20 million for this

scheme. The Royal Bank tells us it only costs them 60 cents, and you

pay them $4.40 too much, and that's another of the problems with this

scheme. It's going to cost $10 million alone to process two million

applications. According to the Royal Bank it could cost 60 cents each

only.

Another of the problems with this giveaway is the way

in which you have mismanaged it. Every one of us has received letters

and complaints from citizens who've received five application forms in

the mail, or none. We've all received complaints, like the election and

the amazing way in which that was mishandled, about people who are dead

having received these application forms, having been mailed at great

expense by an administration so incompetent that you can't even do that

right. I've got two letters; I'd like to read them into the record.

There are only two; there's lots more.

The first is from a constituent of mine, Hazel Gard, 2747 Prior Street, Victoria.

"Dear Mr. Barber:

"Both

my husband and I are very curious to know how the Premier's office

obtained our daughter's name, which is Marion Ruth Gard, to send her a

notice that she is eligible to apply for the B.C. Resources Investment

Corporation five free shares. Our daughter is married and has been

living in Australia for the past seven years. She used to work in the

buildings before she was married. There must be a great number of

people who received the letter and are not eligible now. This is a big

waste of money involved for the postage."

She's

been in Australia for seven years. Do you have to live there for 10

years before you're off the list? Where do you draw the line?

I've got another letter. Here you are, writing to dead people two years after they died.

"Dear Sir:

Once again I take the liberty of writing to you. The enclosed envelope

is addressed to my friend who has been dead for over two years. I heard

on the radio today that notices were being mailed to drivers of cars

obtained from the licence bureau regarding them being given five shares

of stock in the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation. I just wondered

how efficiently run is that licence department when my friend, by name

of Nelson Maxwell, is apparently still with them. I thought you might

be interested."

[ Page 130 ]

The

letter is attached to one Nelson, Maxwell W. — I presume Maxwell Nelson

was his whole name — 103-790 Francis Road, Richmond. How long do you

have to be dead before you're cut off the list?

One of the

major problems with this whole scheme is the way in which it's cost too

much to give away too little. You've been mailing it to people who've

been in Australia for seven years. You're mailing it to people who've

been dead for two. How many thousands of others have received this from

the Premier's office — a letter consoling them, inviting them,

imploring them to apply for this gimmick?

The final problem

with the five free shares scheme is that it's been viewed by the

electorate with really a very great deal of cynicism. May I say it

again? It didn't work for you as a campaign. It didn't work for you as

an issue. It didn't help you get overwhelmingly re-elected. In fact, it

may well have undermined your popular support. No longer are people so

dumb or naive or easily bought that they will allow their vote to be

bought by anyone, least of all you.

The problem we have is

that unfortunately it's been done. Tomorrow the applications close.

It's been done. The problem is that they've already wasted the money.

It's been spent. The problem is further that so much water has gone

under the bridge, long gone down the road, that there's no way unless

the Premier changes his mind that it's going to be turned back. I see

the Premier smiling.

We have a number of amendments to

propose. We have a number of changes we should like entertained. We

recognize as well that may be too late also.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Is this called climbing onto the fence?

MR. BARBER:

Hardly. It should be noted that this legislation is retroactive to

March 1,

Section 10 provides that. The reporter this morning who

thought somehow delay here would compromise tomorrow's deadline is not

correct. It is retroactive. There is no problem with delay. There is no

problem as well with accepting amendments. We'll get to those shortly.

second reading, with the greatest reluctance, we're going to support

the five free shares giveaway. Let me tell you why. The reason is that

you have already taxed the people too much, and this at least gives

them a little bit back, thanks to the NDP. The reason is that you've

overcharged the people for almost four years and now you're giving them

$30 back, and that's better than nothing. The reason is that so much

has been spent, so much has been wasted, so many decisions taken that

the clock cannot be turned back, and we regret that. So on second

reading, with a lot of reluctance and many amendments, we're going to

support it in the narrowest principle: that you want to give back to

the people something that you already took. But we've got a lot of

amendments, and you have a big problem and it's the document I'm about

to release.

The five free shares gimmick, in fact, is

peripheral to the real problem imposed by this bill. The problem is who

shall control public assets. The problem is who will end up in control

of the resources corporation. The problem is that your 1percent

guarantee is meaningless. It is an empty, hollow gesture. It prevents

nothing. It forbids no corporation from seizing control of BCRIC. We've

already demonstrated and you've already agreed that the resources

corporation can sell all of its assets to whomever it wishes. It could,

I suppose, sell them all to your great friends the Gray Line in

Seattle. It could sell them to Cargill International or any other of

your pals to whom you've already sold public assets. The problem is,

and you've already admitted it, and Hansard

demonstrates that you did, that this corporation can sell those

enormously valuable public assets to any old group it wants to, and

there's nothing in law to forbid it.

The problem further

exists that the resources corporation could, if it wished, dispose of

its dividends in a way highly profitable to a very few people.

How

do a few corporations manage to seize control of the assets of the

resources corporation itself? Let's look for a moment, if we may, at

the corporate structure of BCRIC. It is, by virtue of this share

offering — the five free shares and the 5,000 on top of them — going to

be in the initial stage a very widely held company. There will be a lot

of people. There may well be 1.6 million or 1.7 million British

Columbians who will own a very small piece of that action. In a widely

held company it is therefore enormously possible for decisions to be

made by a relatively small number of shareholders who've gone to the 1

per cent limit. Indeed, it's well estimated by the people who advise us

that 10 or 15, perhaps 16, percent of the shares is all that you will

require in order to effectively control the B.C. Resources Investment

Corporation. When 1.5 million people who can't vote own five shares....

You don't give them a vote, do you? Your five shares have no voting

value, and a couple of hundred people own 10 or 15 percent of the

shares among themselves. Then what you have is a situation where public

control of public assets has been betrayed by Social Credit. You have

betrayed it. Your so-called safeguards are simply worthless.

However,

politics being what it is, I don't expect the Premier to take our word

for it. I refer instead to a letter signed on March 5 of this year by

Mr. H.G. Osterbauer, the securities adviser to Pemberton Securities

Ltd. The letter was written from their office in the Bentall Centre in

Vancouver. In this letter, Pemberton Securities advises how

corporations may through subterfuge come to obtain significant holdings

in the resources corporation.

This is what is going to

happen, thanks to your legislation. The amendments before us today do

nothing whatever to prevent it. May I say it again? It's not our

letter. Our famous research office obtained it instead. Mr. Osterbauer

advises those who might be interested, and I quote from the letter

which I will table:

"When applying for your

five free shares, I suggest you consider adding some additional for

yourself and members of your family. While these cannot be purchased by

a corporation, the corporation may lend funds to the individual to make

the purchase, and the shares may be transferred or sold to the

corporation at a later date to retire the debt.

Thus advises Pemberton Securities.

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: Shall I read it

again? No, he doesn't seem to want to hear it. But perhaps for the

benefit of the galleries, if the sound system wasn't carrying, accept

this advice from Pemberton Securities as to how corporations may,

through subterfuge, obtain effective control of these formerly public

assets — formerly controlled, in the public

[ Page 131 ]

interest, by this trustee, the Legislature of British Columbia. Mr. Osterbauer advises:

"When

applying for your five free shares, I suggest you consider adding some

additional for yourself and members of your family. While these cannot

be purchased by a corporation, the corporation may lend funds to the

individual to make the purchase, and the shares may be transferred or

sold to the corporation at a later date to retire the debt. "

Now

why would they want to do that? Why do you think it would interest a

corporation to take such an approach? Why would this securities adviser

go to the trouble of writing a letter that might fall into our hands,

telling how what you've said is a guarantee against corporate control

is, in fact, no guarantee at all? Well, maybe he did it because there's

money in it. I mean, that's always possible.

I am informed

that the firm of Midland Doherty is currently offering to its own

employees the sum of $6 for these shares. I am informed that Midland

Doherty knows an angle when they see it, and they are trying to get

their own employees now to buy the shares and sell them back to Midland

Doherty for $6. This, by the way, ups the ante. The original

information was that it was $5.75. However, they have decided they can

make a bit more money. We'll talk later about Midland Doherty.

Now

section 11(2)(

e) of the original Act has been amended by Bill 12, I

would like to see it. Because it is not. There is in fact, according to

our research, information that

section 11(2)(

e) of the original bill is

the one that allows Pemberton Securities to provide the advice they

have. How will a few corporations obtain control of these vast public

assets? They'll do it the way Pemberton Securities has described. They

won't listen to your speeches. They won't read Hansard

and have it told that they can't do it. They'll do it this way, the

way, one presumes, it was always intended they do it. What's wrong with

your whole approach? What's wrong with this amendment? It's not just

this laughable five free shares gimmick. It's a patently silly thing

that you are wasting money on. You're going to do it; you've already

done it. Okay, so be done with it. The real problem is who will control

this corporation.

The real problem is who will guarantee

that these assets remain valuable for all of the people and not just

some. The real problem is that you have sold out and betrayed the

fundamental commitment to public control of public assets. The

corporation itself is thereby fundamentally flawed. It is fundamentally

unable to defend and guarantee and protect public assets. It is

fundamentally unable to do that, because that seems not to be your

intent. It is, after all, your legislation that allows the contrary to

occur. We predicted in 1977 that inevitably public control of these

assets would revert to a very few and a very small number of people.

Thanks to Pemberton Securities, we now see how corporations can

manoeuvre to obtain shares through subterfuge. We see that in a company

with many small holdings, a few corporate owners can exercise effective

control. Thanks to Social Credit, they are going to get away with it.

MR. LEVI:

Mr. Speaker, during the remarks by the Premier, when he introduced the

amendments, he characterized the reason for the bill as being to

eliminate what he talked about as secondhand ownership. He kept

referring to secondhand ownership. What he means by that is that all of

the assets that are owned by the people of British Columbia at present,

which are administered by the government, are, in fact, secondhand

assets. And he wants to make them firsthand assets.

When he

came into this House two years ago, he talked about having a

corporation that people could invest in. He said it was important that

people in this province got an experience in equity ownership. And he

talked about how important it was. He used the figure of 60,000 people

who were participating in the stock market and doing that kind of

investment. And then, from September to November last year, we had in

this province a great deal of talk about the possibility of an

election. Then right out of the blue — very much out of the blue from

the point of view of the board of directors of BCRIC, and also for some

of the other people in the investment community whom I was in touch

with — we got an announcement that, instead of people having to buy

shares, they're going to get them free. The question that I asked the

people in the investment community was: how is it possible for somebody

to set out to set up an investment corporation, to allow people to

participate in a corporation like BCRIC, and then suddenly change his

mind — the idea was not changed by the people on the board; it was

changed by the Premier — to decide that we're going to give it away?

colleague from Victoria has talked about the kind of problem that the

government had with underwriting. There wasn't that kind of confidence

in what was going on in terms of the development of BCRIC, because by

November that corporation was almost a year overdue in producing a

prospectus. There were a great number of questions being asked as to

where the prospectus was, and when people were going to have a look at

what kind of offers were going to be made.

The remarkable

thing is that when the Premier argues about investment, somehow he

seems to indicate that prior to the implementation of BCRIC it was not

possible for anybody in this province to go out and invest in anything.

After all, what do you need a BCRIC for if you want to buy or invest in

Can-Cel? You simply go down to the stock market and get hold of a

broker and buy some shares. They're on the market, they're being

publicly traded. Anybody could do that: even the Minister of Municipal

Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) can do it. It's simple. You just go

down, if you want to do it, and you can do it. Every night in the

newspaper there are reports on the operations of all sorts of stock

markets, including the Vancouver Stock Exchange, which has in excess of

400 companies listed, some good, some not so good. But they're all

available for investment. And I don't want to upset the Speaker by

going into the merits of some of those stocks down on the Vancouver

Stock Exchange. But for the Premier to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that

somehow what he was creating was a brand new opportunity for people to

go out and invest in equities is a real, patent lot of nonsense.

Anybody could do that now, could have done it before BCRIC came in, and

there is no indication whatsoever that as a result of the creation of

BCRIC there's been a heightened understanding by the average person in

British Columbia about the desirability of investing in equities.

One

of the reasons for that is that most people who are not in the same

income class as the Premier have no money to invest in equities. Most

of the money that they did have over the past three years was sitting

in some government bank account. For him to say, as he said on the news

last

[ Page 132 ]

night,

to give up part of your holidays, go out and buy some BCRIC shares —

give up anything, but buy them.... You know, he sounded like one of

those Howe Street raiders touting some kind of a stock.

the statement that he issued when he announced the distribution of the

BCRIC shares to the residents of British Columbia there's a

section

which says that this provides for an opportunity for British Columbians

to get in on the ground floor in purchasing shares. Who hasn't seen

that before? In all sorts of brochures that go around there's something

about a good deal if you want to get in on the ground floor. And he

says: "Too often we hear that only the wealthy and the privileged have

a chance to enjoy such an opportunity. Now every resident of our

province has a chance to get a piece of the action." Well, Mr. Speaker,

we've got to examine exactly what kind of a piece of the action these

people are going to get. Just how much of the $151 million of assets

are they going to have access to?

First of all, they have no

decision-making power. We even see that in the bill there aren't even

going to be any annual meetings; there's not going to be any general

meeting. They want to do something that most large corporations would

be very happy to do — not to have general meetings, not to have to

circularize all their members, which costs them a great deal of money,

but simply to publish something in the newspaper, publish the annual

report and then carry on about their business. There must be dozens of

companies out there wondering whether they can get in on this kind of

action, this kind of exclusion from the Companies Act which requires

them to do a number of things which are generally very expensive. If

you have a very large corporation, you do, but not BCRIC — they're

going to do it differently.

But what does it really mean to

the average individual who gets five free shares: He has five pieces of

paper that have a value; it gives him no voting rights. He has no right

to receive a copy of the annual report; he's simply the holder of five

vouchers. If he gives them to his neighbour, then the neighbour becomes

the owner. If 20 people get together, designate one person to go down

and register the shares, then they've got 100 votes. He cannot have it

both ways when he talks about people having a piece of the action. It's

free, but nothing is freer than free. It's free, and that's all it is.

Nothing in that particular ownership gives any responsibility in

relation to the corporation. The only way that you can get

responsibility, that you can get involvement, is if you have extra

money and you can purchase the shares. But you need a lot of money. You

can buy five shares for $30, 10 shares for $60, but what does it really

mean in terms of the large corporation?

He made reference in

his speech to some of the problems that exist today with large

corporations. We have seen in the past three or four years in North

America an incredible move toward takeovers and buybacks. Small

shareholders get squeezed out because they do not hold enough shares to

put them into the majority shareholder class. That's something

certainly the investment market has to be concerned about if we're

going to have a continuation of these kinds of buybacks. It's going to

be a very serious problem in terms of the confidence in the investment

field.

We have no basic information, other than what the

Premier tells us, about the investment habits of people in British

Columbia. He may have more information about investment markets than we

have because for almost a year that government has been sitting on the

Schroeder report, which deals with the operations of the stock market

in all capital markets. It would have been very valuable for the

members of this House, the investment community and the public at large

to get some understanding of exactly what goes on in terms of the

capital markets and the participation of the citizens in those

particular markets. That information is not available to them, not

available at all. They've decided to sit on it.

Going back

to this whole question of participation and having a piece of the rock,

one can become extremely cynical about the kind of move the Premier has

made in terms of the disposal of assets. For instance, one of the

assets that has gone into the BCRIC shares is Westcoast Transmission.

Westcoast Transmission shares can be purchased by anybody in this

province by simply going through a broker and getting the shares, or

going to a bank manager and asking him, if you have the money, to

purchase them. B.C. Telephone shares, which are not part of this

particular portfolio, are being held by the government and can be

purchased in exactly the same way. It's quite open. That's the kind of

competitive market that the Premier subscribes to, but somehow he's

been very critical of it. He suggested that there has been a barrier

for all of the average people in this province to participate in that

kind of investment. There hasn't been a barrier; people do not want to

do that kind of investment. He was decrying in his opening remarks that

Canada has a reputation of being a great saving nation and that's quite

true. It was good in terms of development, but this cockamamie idea of

giving away the assets of this province in free shares to people who

have absolutely no power whatsoever in terms of the holding of these

free shares, and suggesting to them that now they have a piece of the

rock, is patent nonsense, absolute nonsense.

My colleague

for Victoria described some of the very serious dangers that can exist

in terms of who will eventually make the decisions in this corporation.

So far we have not seen the board of BCRIC make any decisions

whatsoever. For instance, my colleague referred to the fact that we

tried to find out from the Premier last year what was Mr. Helliwell's

salary. He said: "I'm not at liberty to say; you have to go and ask the

board."

MR. BARBER: He refused to say.

MR. LEVI:

He refused to say. Interestingly enough, when Mr. Helliwell was on Jack

Webster's program, he was asked: "What's your salary?" He said: "Well,

I'd rather not say." Webster said to him: "You don't want to say

because the board said you shouldn't say?" He said: "Oh no, the board

has no objection; I simply don't want to say." Mr. Helliwell's salary

is not important in this matter other than it shows refusal of the

Premier to get used to the idea that full disclosure with respect to a

corporation is necessary. His first attempt at disclosure was to say:

"Go ask the corporation!" He has made every decision since that

corporation was set up. For this arm's-length, private company

operating in the public sector, he's made all the decisions.

He's

come into this House the second time in two years and he's trying to

tell the members of this House, as he tried to tell the public of

British Columbia: "Come with me, with my scheme." The scheme, frankly,

is operated a little bit

[ Page 133 ]

like

a bucket shop since the election was on, because he challenged us over

here. He said: "I'm prepared to make the BCRIC share issue the issue in

the election." We said: "Go ahead." I can't recall one individual in

the 3,000 homes I called on who actually made mention of the BCRIC

shares, other than to sneer at them. Now this doesn't do us any good as

a province.

In all the debate that goes on around this, what

kind of standing are we seen by with people who are in the investment

communities outside of British Columbia or even outside of Canada? Here

we've got a Premier who is going to sell off some of the assets, and we

don't know what he's going to do next. He may decide to set up a

corporation and go into the hospital business. He may decide that

long-term care should be better operated in the private sector, so then

we'll have that kind of a corporation, and he'll say: "We'll give you

some shares in it; we'll make them free, and you'll have a piece of the

action."

The kind of reasoning that he exhibits in this idea

is that somehow nothing that a government does, in terms of being the

holder and the steward of the assets of this province, is better than

having each individual have a little piece of it. The member for

Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) nods his head. One day, Mr. Speaker, we'll put

a value on this building that we sit in here. We'll form a company,

we'll sell shares or give them away, and before we can have a

legislative session in this building, all the shareholders will have to

get together and pass a motion that we can even do that, because that's

the kind of idiocy that the Premier is talking about when he takes

assets, puts them into a corporation, and then says: "We're going to

give everybody something for nothing." What do they wind up with? Five

pieces of paper.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

says: "If you really want to participate, if you really want to be in

on the decision making, if you really want to do something for British

Columbia, pump your money into it." Well, that's not anything new.

MacMillan Bloedel have been out there for years; Can-Cel have been out

there for years. They're all companies that can be invested in. We

don't need an intermediary, quick-buck artist like the Premier to tell

us that's the only way people are going to invest in this province.

That's absolute, patent nonsense. We don't need that kind of Howe

Street bucket shop operation.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's sad.

MR. LEVI:

What is sad, Mr. Member, is all of the money that has been poured in.

It may take us a couple of years to find out exactly what it has cost

to promote this pre-election and election-time scam they put over on

us, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's going to be somewhere in the

region of $40 million to $50 million when we've counted up all the

incredible costs of the advertising, the processing of applications,

and all of the time and effort that has gone into the Systems

Corporation to produce this kind of scheme. That's what's sad about it.

And

what is even more sad about it is that people out there did not believe

it. They did not believe it in the way the Premier presented the

argument. If he'd stayed with the idea that it is an investment

corporation he might have been on better ground than he is now, because

he's certainly not on any kind of ground at all when he is trying to

suggest that almost two million people will be participants in what is

the largest corporation in the world, because it will have well over

two million shareholders. The only thing is that you have two types of

shareholders: the first-class citizens who have got money, and

second-class citizens who just hold bits of paper. That's what this

kind of legislation does, is to create two kinds of investors in this

province: those who have no money and no power, and those that have all

the money and will take all the power. That's what we're going to see

in this kind of corporation.

His philosophy, which he didn't

mention, Mr. Speaker, because of the nature of the free-enterprise

system, is that everybody's going to have a go at it by themselves, and

everybody has to stand on their own two feet, whether they are able to

or not, and participate, and if they can't participate let them fall by

the wayside. But what, in fact, they have done is perpetuate a class

system of those who have and those who don't have. We're going to give

five free shares to everybody who applied for them, and there are

enough people out there who are having enough frustrations in applying

for them anyway, because they're not able to produce the adequate kind

of identification that will give them these free shares.

What

he has done. In fact, is to create two classes of people, and he should

not be forgiven for that because he's driven, again, the wedge between

those two groups of people which simply emphasizes the kind of

philosophy he represents in his party — that the power belongs to the

people who have the money. On this side, when we started to put assets

together for the people, somehow he decried that. He said that's not

the way to go in terms of assets, and that people are happier if they

can have a piece of the rock. Well, he's never going to be able to

demonstrate that, because people are not going to be happy with

something they can't see and they can't feel. Five pieces of paper

don't allow you to vote, don't allow you to even receive an annual

report. You're just a nothing, just for the greater benefit of the

Premier to show that his system, his free enterprise system, is what

works.

Well, it doesn't work in the way you've set up this

corporation, because they have nothing. You've never stood up and said

to the people, 1.5 million of them: "If you maintain only your five

shares, you have no rights whatsoever. You'I just get your $30 or your

$40, and that's it. They've never talked about what kind of

participation those people can have. Old-age pensioners are unable to

afford shares, the discounted-value shares; they can't afford them, so

they are second-class people. "You just stand in the background and

hold your five shares and we people with all the money will make all

the decisions." Well, the kind of decisions that were made in the

government, when the government owned the assets.... And every three

years you get that big general meeting, which is the general election,

when the people can participate in deciding whether they agree or not

with the way the government handles its stewardship.

should know this time, because of this brilliant idea of BCRIC shares

and all of the other programs that he didn't introduce, that he came

pretty close to being defeated.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Tell me what it's like.

[ Page 134 ]

MR. LEVI:

We'll tell you what it's like. We've been there and come back. Despite

the fact that you didn't want us to come back, we're back.

The

important thing is that the idea he developed was simply not believed

by the public. They didn't believe him when he said that this is a

better way to go than to have the government control the assets of the

province. He would have you believe that all governments who control

assets are somehow super-totalitarian groups that make decisions

despite what goes on in parliament. I wonder what Peter Lougheed would

say about that kind of thinking — or any of his other right-wing

friends who operate in this country.

What we've had this

afternoon is the kind of illusion that the Premier prefers to deal

with, where he drops these little hints about how free we are because

we are going to have five shares, and that we are going to participate

in a "piece of the rock," when in reality we have no participation

whatsoever.

This free-share idea that he came up with

overnight was produced for one reason: in his own cynicism he thought

that he could win an election if he was to produce this giveaway.

That's what he had in mind. He didn't have the people in mind when he

thought about the free shares. He argued strongly enough two years ago

in this House that an investment program like BCRIC shares is the way

we should go. And suddenly he comes up with the free shares. He has

never yet given us the reason why he has gone from the investment idea

to the free-share idea. In the committee stage we will want to hear

from him why he changed his mind. Did he change his mind because nobody

in the investment corporation believed him or understood him or thought

it would work? That's what we have to find out from that Premier. He's

going to have to be much more specific than he was in this cursory

flapping over the issue.

I personally cannot forgive him,

because he has created two classes of people. He has continued to drive

a wedge between the people who have and the people who don't. In this

world you have no money if you have no power, unless you have a

government that is prepared to see that you get your rightful share —

and your rights. He's gone the other way. He's gone back to the idea

that if you have money you have power; that's what's implicit in the

BCRIC shares. It's a sorry sight to see in British Columbia.

MR. KING:

I am going to be fairly brief on this matter. I hadn't really expected

to speak on this issue at all. I was very interested in some of the

remarks the Premier made when he was on his feet. For the first time

the Premier admitted in this Legislature that the shares are indeed not

free. Perhaps my colleague from Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi)

should refrain from referring to them as free, because the people of

the province have indeed paid for the assets involved in this

corporation, and the shares are not free. The Premier, who is the one

who is very fond of saying that there's no free lunch, admitted that in

the Legislature this afternoon.

That being the case, I'd

like to know how he justifies the ad that's running in today's paper

and has run for a number of months. In the Colonist

for June 14 it says: "One day left. BCRIC free shares offer expires

June 15." I wouldn't accuse the Premier of taking liberty with the

truth, but you can't have it both ways. He can't admit in this

Legislature that the shares are not free and suggest at one and the

same time that this is truthful advertising, put out under his auspices

in the daily newspapers.

I wish the Premier would be

consistent and tell it the way it is. The people have already paid for

the assets. The shares in fact are not free. Why is it necessary to

resort to deceitful and deceptive advertising to flog the shares?

The

other things that I was concerned about.... After all, the Premier is

the First Minister of this province. I want to be very delicate about

how I phrase this. I object to his charge in the Legislature that the

New Democratic Party as an opposition or as a government has ever

advocated or indeed ever indulged in confiscation of property. There is

absolutely no truth to that statement, and the Premier knows it. So why

would he make a statement in this Legislature he knows to be untrue?

said our party had indulged in expropriation. I challenge him to

produce one shred of evidence that this party has ever expropriated or

confiscated any private property or any business whatsoever in this

province. The only confiscation I am familiar with in this province's

history was that committed by his daddy, with respect to B.C. Electric

and the Blackball Ferries, that were confiscated and denied access to

the courts of our province to gain fair compensation. That is a fact.

That is a matter of public record. So why would the Premier get up and

propagate charges that he knows to be completely untrue in this

Legislature? Why would he put forward arguments that are absolutely

false?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Propagate charges? Do you know what "propagate" means?

MR. KING:

language. If he does, perhaps he should consider a refresher course or

something of that nature. That's up to him. I'm sure he shouldn't rely

on his Minister of Education. Perhaps he should see someone else. But

he has a variety of problems, and if that happens to be one of them

that's beyond my control.

I'm interested in why he would

stand in this Legislature and blatantly throw out charges he knows are

false. How can you in good conscience do that as the First Minister of

this province? You did it all through the election campaign, and in the

heat of an election campaign perhaps one can be forgiven for flirting

with the truth. But certainly in this Legislature particularly a

Minister of the Crown should be expected to recognize the truth and

respect it.

You made the charge that we had confiscated and expropriated. That's untrue, and you know it. You know it. You made that charge.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Read the Blues.

MR. KING: I'll read them tomorrow. I'll read back to you your exact words.

Mr.

Speaker, I take exception to charges against our party which are

blatantly untrue. It ill behooves the First Minister of this province

to indulge in charges he knows are untrue.

I wanted to make

two points on the BCRIC shares, one of them with respect to an item on

the television news last night from Vancouver, where a lady was shown

buying up the so-called free shares somewhere in east Vancouver for

$10, offering $10 to all comers to divest themselves of the

[ Page 135 ]

so-called

free shares. The camera moved on to people, obviously unemployed and in

some difficulty — people who were the residents of very poor hotels in

the east end of Vancouver, people who had to rely on the Salvation Army

to eat — going to that lady's little stand where she had an

advertisement that she was paying $10 for the so-called free shares,

and selling out their right to apply for these shares for $10.

the Premier really serious when he suggests that this whole exercise is

going to contribute to the education of people in British Columbia so

that they will know how to invest in our resources? It proves the point

that my colleague from Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) made. It's

fine for people with money to invest, but there are hundreds and

thousands of people in this province who are living hand-to-mouth, with

no employment security without even the facilities to avail themselves

of a decent meal. Their shares are rapidly going to end up in the hands

of some of the rich friends of this government. Already it is

happening, even before distribution of the shares.

The

transparency of this whole scheme should make government members hide

their heads in shame. There's another point; I had the issue raised

with me a number of times during the election campaign by some

constituents. One of the points the government should think about is

the fact that there is another group of British Columbians precluded

from obtaining their shares. And guess who they are. They happen to be

the service men and women of this province, the people who are in the

armed services.

I have a letter in response to a query from

the chairman of the BCRIC corporation, explaining that unfortunately

shares cannot be distributed to personnel who are absent in the armed

forces but who were normally residents of British Columbia. Unless

there's been some very recent change which is not reflected in the

legislation, that is still the case. That is the advice that comes from

the chairman of BCRIC.

I am prepared to concede that BCRIC

is under the political direction of the Premier and, in effect, that

there is no independent administration. But I think that the whole

thing has been put together in a shoddy political fashion. There are

exclusions on economic grounds. There are exclusions in terms of the

sloppy method of drafting the legislation. The response I saw to an

inquiry regarding the status of people in the armed services was that

they are precluded from obtaining shares. This was done because they

haven't resided in the province. Well, of course, that's true. Many of

them have been out of the province for five or ten years. But they

joined the forces in British Columbia, and they intend to return here

when they are discharged from the service of this country. I suggest

that it is a shame that they are not allowed to purchase under the

current circumstances. I would suggest to the Premier, if that is

correct, that he better check with the corporation which was answering

the inquiries on this matter. If it is clearly stated that armed

services personnel are now entitled to obtain the shares, I'm happy to

hear it, but I wish he would direct that advice to the chairman of the

BCRIC.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I am constantly

amazed at the quickness with which the Premier has responded to the

questions made in second reading by some of the members. I am also

pleased to see the in-depth knowledge that he has of BCRIC, the

intricacies in the administration and how the decisions are made. Yet

he can't answer a simple question: how much is Mr. Helliwell making? It

seems that he knows the answers to embarrassing questions but doesn't

choose to answer them. He also knows the answers to other

administrative detail that would be the fascination of a clerk 1, step

1, and is able to give those in an abundant flourish of immediate

knowledge.

I want to deal first with a bit of the history of

the assets of this corporation. I am pleased that the Premier is going

around this province telling people that the assets are valuable. I

would not want the Premier of this province to go around and tell

people what he thought of the assets at the time they were purchased by

the New Democratic Party. When we purchased the Westcoast Transmission

shares on behalf of every single taxpayer in this province, we were

subject to some of the most abusive debate that has ever been witnessed

in this House: "It's wrong; it's a terrible investment; it will lose

money, and tut. tut, tut, you shouldn't make purchases like that." When

we bought Plateau Mills the same personal abusive and vituperative

language was used in abundance by the then Social Credit opposition.

The behaviour of some members is isolated forever in history in the Hansard

of this House, in terms of some of the statements made by the then

members, including the Premier of this province. We sat on government

benches and had abuse, in terms of personal attacks, hurled at us

because we made these purchases on behalf of the people of British

Columbia, for all the people of British Columbia — not just the rich,

not just the poor, but for all the people of British Columbia. We were

attacked for protecting the interests of the ordinary people of British

Columbia. We said that they had the sense, the ability, the capacity,

to have ownership in their own resources.

Was it a

pioneering device? No, what was pioneering was the method of ownership.

Prior to our election and office, public acquisition of assets was set

in a pattern of seizure, without access to court. Who was it that

established the pattern of seizing private property? Was it the New

Democratic Party? No. The only seizure of private property that I've

witnessed in this chamber was by Social Credit when they seized the

corporation formerly known as B.C. Electric Company, without any access

to the court. Some of the now numerous lawyers that are present in this

House would have been puzzled by the debate at that time. Indeed, there

was the free enterprise party saying that private property rights could

be immediately dispensed with because of public interest.

Who

was to determine the public interest? Why, the government of the day.

As long as the government of the day was Social Credit then the public

interest was being served. But if the government of the day was of

another party, which had freely bought assets, then the public interest

was not served. I will never forget, as long as I live — despite the

banter and the humour and the bonhomie that seems to be the hallmark of

this new cooperative, legislative session — the kind of intense,

personal, vicious insults that were hurled across the floor at me and

my colleagues during those particular debates when we bought Can-Cel

and saved that corporation from failing into the hands of international

interests who had demonstrated time and time again in the history of

this province that when it served their corporate headquarters’ needs,

they would close down in British Columbia and dispense with jobs and

investment in this province.

[ Page 136 ]

Yes,

Mr. Speaker, I know that the Premier and his opposition colleagues at

that time said: "Oh, no, we have more trust in the international

corporations to look after British Columbia than we do in the

government of British Columbia."

AN HON. MEMBER: Who did you save it from? Who?

MR. BARRETT:

Plateau Mills: you should be careful through you, Mr. Speaker — who you

suggest we saved it from. Do a little research and you will find some

interesting aspects.

MR. KEMPF: You bet you will.

MR. BARRETT:

Yes, you certainly will. I remember the accusations made by the now

Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) at cabinet

ministers in the government that I served; the indications that he had

evidence that we were buying shares; the accusations that were hurled

across the floor that we as persons and members in this House were

buying shares; the wild accusations and statements made at that time

with not a shred of evidence to back them up. Then, of course, when we

bought Plateau Mills, and when we bought Kootenay Forest Products, who

were the great defenders of freedoms and individual rights? Why, it was

Social Credit again saying that the government should not buy this,

must not buy it. Let the Americans buy it. Let any international

corporation buy it. Let any little group get together — Japanese,

Germany, anything — with a front group or up-front and buy these assets

before the people of British Columbia should have a chance at them.

Mr.

Speaker, with a great deal of courage the government of the day took

the abuse, took the criticism and said clearly, openly and honestly

that these assets would be acquired for the people of British Columbia

and, indeed, did so, and did so in a courageous manner. We did not

seize, nationalize or expropriate one company. We rejected the

centralist, bureaucratic, dictatorial government precedents established

by Social Credit when they seized Black Ball Ferry, when they seized

the B.C. Electric Company and displayed to all and sundry in the free

world that a government of Social Credit was two-faced and would not

protect the interests of private property or private investment. The

most scandalous black name received by the government of the province

of British Columbia in the international investment marketplace was on

the day that B.C. Electric was seized by a government that was elected

in the name of free enterprise.

Mr. Speaker, I don't mind a

little bit of review of history. Of course, you weren't in the House

then. Had you been, as principled people you would have voted against

that seizure, I know that, and you would dissociate yourself from a

government that would be involved in that kind of seizure. I hope that

opportunity never presents itself, but you too — through you, Mr.

Speaker — will be forced under the blandishments of previous Social

Credit leadership to cave in on principle and vote for seizure of

private property as was demonstrated by your party. You've joined the

party and you have, as part of your obligation, to be responsible for

the history of the party you've joined, and you can't escape that.

Don't tell me that you didn't join that party without full knowledge

that the only expropriations of private businesses in the province of

British Columbia took place under the party's banner that you've

identified yourself with.

When the purchases were made, Mr.

Speaker, the predictions of dire ruin, bad investment and horrendous

results of people owning assets were forthcoming from these benches in

a non-ending stream. Not only was there personal abuse, but the

economic predictions were that Westcoast Transmission shares were a bad

investment; Can-Cel would not make money; Plateau Mills was a bad

business; Kootenay Forest Products was losing too much money; and the

whole thing was a disastrous investment. That total capital cost of

some $40 million shared equally, Mr. Speaker, by every single taxpayer

in the province of British Columbia — rich and poor, old and young —

$40 million worth of purchases, have a capital replacement value now of

well over $350 million.

Mr. Speaker, in the business vernacular: "Not a dog in the bunch. "

Every single investment was a good investment. And how ironic it is now for

me to witness the greatest touting of these investments — not from the New Democratic

Party who are modest in the success of those operations, not from the members

of the opposition who were indeed here at the time as government when they bought

them, but it is the voice, it is the tone of the leader of this government that

is going around this province and has gone around this province saying: "By

golly, gee, every single one of those investments is a good investment. Buy

some more."

There

are those people, Mr. Speaker, who look in a mirror on occasion and

reflect upon their past statements and behaviour and say: "In the past

I've made some mistakes. Would it be too much for the Premier of this

province to say: 'I was wrong when I attacked the purchase of those

assets'? Would it be too much for the Premier of this province to admit

frankly and candidly that every single purchase that he's now touting

as a good buy was indeed thoroughly researched and bought as a good buy

by the New Democratic Party?"

As one who was for a brief

time responsible for cleaning up the mess of the Columbia River Treaty

that left a debt of over $1 billion in the hands of the people of

British Columbia, I find it somewhat ironic that one of the means of

cleaning up that debt, that mess from the Columbia River Treaty is

being dissipated by this little gimmickry going on with the Premier

now. Now $100 million a year must go out of the taxpayers' money of

this province to pay for the Columbia River Treaty sell-out.

Their

record, Mr. Speaker, of purchase and negotiation and dealing has, been

one of consistent sellout, giveaway and economic disaster. I didn't

sign the Columbia River Treaty. I didn't take

part in the decision that

was made to seize the B.C. Electric. I wasn't here when those huge

debts were loaded on the people of British Columbia when access to

resources and access to alternative economic ventures were closed by a

government that had a closed mind. But for the first time in the

history of this province, Crown assets were returning money and taxes

to the people of British Columbia at an unprecedented rate. They voted

against it and now, after being in government, they say they're a good

deal.

Mr. Speaker, for a Premier who is so skilled in

answering these clerk 1, stage I administrative moves, for a Premier

who's able to respond in good-humoured banter to

[ Page 137 ]

some

of the more elementary questions, as he decides them, of the questions

of the opposition of the administration, when he was asked on

television on the Jack Webster show how much profit was made by

Can-Cel, well, folks, he didn't know. For a man who once came into this

House and gave in his first report as estimates as Premier of in effect

how many pencils he'd sharpened in his office, and he couldn't tell the

public of British Columbia how much profit Can-Cel had made, one felt

that he was embarrassed to tell them what that figure was.

you know how much profit the company that you own, and you own, and you

own, and even those of you that aren't there own...? Do you know how

much money that company made in the capitalist word of profit under

public ownership in five years? The Premier did not know. Was it $10

million on a capital investment of $1 and absorbing a mortgage of $69

million at a 6 percent per annum interest charge on that capital? Was

it $1? Did they make $5? Did they make $10 million? Did they make $50

million? Did they make $100 million? No indeed, sir, they made $134

million profit on behalf of the people of British Columbia under public

ownership. And where did that money go? Well, the Premier didn't know,

he told the caller. He didn't know that $80 million of that profit,

instead of escaping to Latin America, or Japan, or to Washington, D.C.,

or to Great Britain, came right back here to the province of British

Columbia and put British Columbians to work in reinvestment in that

corporation.

He didn't know that answer, Mr. Speaker. Oh, he

can tell you that servicemen can apply. Oh, he can tell you clerk 1,

step 1 answers about administration, how the ads have been

misinterpreted. But when he was faced by the questioning of Jack

Webster, he didn't know. When Mr. Webster pressed him, he said: "Oh,

they didn't make any profit at all." Yes, you did.

MR. BARBER: Oh, why would he say that?

MR. BARRETT:

I don't know why he would say a thing like that, but he was cornered.

And when the Premier gets cornered, he is a very different fellow. Why,

he had the opportunity to deal with me on these questions during the

election campaign. Mr. Speaker, I know that the Premier most certainly

was not frightened of meeting me in public on television. I know that

the Premier desired to discuss these issues on television. The problem

was that his

schedule was already made up from the last election to

avoid meeting me face to face in the election campaign.

told Jack Webster there was no profit, with a flip of the hand, and

when pressed again by that caller, said: "Well, if there was any

profit, it was reinvested." Boy, oh boy!

HON. MR. BENNETT: You're not telling the truth, Dave.

MR. BARRETT:

You are suggesting I'm not telling the truth. You get up and say that I

am not telling the truth. I witnessed you on television when you said

that, and I was there too and I went on TV the next day.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: You'll wait your turn.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You asked me to get up.

MR. BARRETT: You'll wait your turn. You'll get your turn. Sit down.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You weren't telling me the truth when you asked me to get up.

MR. BARRETT: Don't get jumpy. There's lots more to come yet.

Mr.

Speaker, that one corporation alone made a profit of $134 million. The

purchase we made of the Westcoast Transmission shares was made out of

the first profit made from the Petroleum Corporation of British

Columbia, which one particular member spoke 14 hours against, Mr.

Speaker, Can you imagine? Fourteen hours and he hadn't even begun to

unwind the spring. Well, it was like my colleague the other member for

Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) said: "Just put your mind in neutral and

let it all hang out." Imagine them running around telling the people of

British Columbia Can-Cel is a good investment, Plateau Mills, Kootenay

Forest Products, Westcoast Transmission!

Thank you for the

admission that the purchases made by the New Democratic Party are all

making money. However, if you do not like the New Democratic Party,

withdraw the shares in the companies we bought and go out there and

flog off B.C. Hydro after the death of the Columbia River Treaty.

Mr.

Speaker, then there is the question that we must deal with in terms of

whether MLAs can have free shares. He said MLAs can have free shares —

absolutely no problem. I would prefer not to violate second reading of

any bill by referring to a section, but it has been brought to my

attention that there is indeed a

section in this Act exempting this

particular acquisition of assets by an MLA because of the Constitution

Act.

You note, Mr. Speaker, there is no amendment of the

Constitution Act — none at all. Our forefathers, in drafting the

Constitution Act, cautiously warned — as a matter of fact, more than

cautioned, explicitly forbade — any MLA to be placed in conflict of

interest around the ownership of assets held by the Crown. I refer my

legal friends, who are much more skilled in these

interpretations than

I am, to

section 23(

l) of the Constitution Act. Even a high school

principal would understand that one.

So we find an

exclusion, Mr. Speaker, but for what purpose? It is an exclusion to

ensure that what the forefathers of this province set out to protest

against in terms of conflict of interest would be excluded in this case

so that the political games could go on with the resources corporation.

Well, Mr. Speaker, what about the shares? The Premier has told us you all have five free shares but we'll take away your vote.

Now

there is an important principle of democracy involved here. When a

government acts for the people and in single action or collective

actions, if the voters are unhappy they can vote against that

government or for something else. Up until now, in terms of every

single action with these Crown corporations, the people of British

Columbia could have a vote. Now they're given five free shares but

they've given up their right to vote. If the Premier of this province

was serious about his argument

[ Page 138 ]

about

people participating and having a hunk of the rock, then I challenge

him to amend this legislation and ensure that every single citizen has

a vote for those five free shares.

We're going back to an

old concept — the return to the poll tax. If you can afford to buy a

vote, you buy 100 shares and you have a vote. If you can't afford it,

you get five free shares and shut up and don't bother us again.

Tell

me about the single mothers out there who are trying to raise their

children on a limited income, and how they're going to buy 100 shares

to protect their vote. Tell me how the elderly, who've actually had

some of their supplements cut back by this government, are going to

vote. You tell me how these people, who have had the opportunity of a

direct say in the operation and control of their assets, are now going

to have a vote. Only if you have money will you have a vote. It is a

new form of the poll tax, and if the Premier disagrees with that he

should put in an amendment to ensure that everybody who holds five

shares has a vote.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to use my few

remaining moments to deal with the philosophical gap that exists

between myself and the Premier, between his party and mine. Jingoism

and rhetoric leads him to say: "Oh, we want everybody to feel that they

have individual ownership. We don't want the government to own this or

own that. You've got to feel that you have a piece of the action."

The

whole concept, once peeled off like an onion, smells worse as you get

closer to the core. You take off that top rhetorical label, and as you

get closer to the smell you find: "Oh, yes, let Big Daddy do it; here's

five free shares but we'll keep the vote; oh, yes, you can run these

little things on your own but we know best about the internal runnings

of government." Do you really believe what you say when you say you're

going to break it all up and give them each a little piece? Do you

really believe you have actually dissipated the control from a small

core of people, who will become even smaller once the ownership is

concentrated on the basis of wealth and not on the basis of free men

and free women in any election process? Do you really believe that you

think you can tell people of this province that individual competitive

action by rubbing their shares up against each other is more beneficial

than people in some instances doing things together, cooperatively?

is my predecessor in this province who understood there were times when

governments must act on behalf of all the people of British Columbia,

and spend public funds for public corporations. That's what led to the

B.C. ferry fleet — yes, the B.C. ferry fleet, a socialist enterprise

owned by all the people of British Columbia. Every time they step on

one of those ferries they feel the alienation between themselves and

government, because they don't own a hunk of the ferry. Every time they

step on that ship they feel like they are pawns in a big-government

game, because the state owns the ship they're travelling on. If you

believe that kind of rhetoric, Mr. Premier, then I suggest you get an

acetylene torch and carve the ferry fleet up into two million pieces,

so that everybody can understand that they own a piece of the action,

and can take their little hunk of ferry and go home with it, because

they don't want to cooperate with big government in public ownership.

MR. LEA: Sell them all a rowboat.

MR. BARRETT: Well, you can't have a rowboat either, because that means cooperating, Mr. Member.

Rugged

individual enterprise is what the Premier wants. Why sell off the

winners? Why not throw in the risks of the losers as well? The subsidy

for the ferry fleet is over $45 million a year. Every single taxpayer

gets stuck with that subsidy, but the profits of these corporations,

that came in to offset that subsidy, will be gone.

Mr.

Speaker, it is my prediction that within a matter of months, through

the process outlined in the excellent presentation of the first member

for Victoria (Mr. Barber), those assets will fall into the hands of a

few people, offering financing as a device to get around the limits on

financial institutions buying at first crack. Don't worry about buying

the shares; we'll loan you the money and then, when you want to pay

back the money, just sell the shares to us and we'll call it even. Did

you anticipate that, Mr. Premier? Do you sanction that — through you,

Mr. Speaker — corporations are going to loan money to people to buy

shares, and they will take those shares back as payment for those

loans? Do you approve of that? Did you plan it? Will you do anything to

stop it?

Not at all; you won't stop it. And because you

won't stop it you will allow this precious single opportunity for the

people of this province to have some say in their economic destiny to

slip away into thousands of international investors and to large money

holders.

If any whirling dervishes truly exist they will be

found in the graves of the founders of Social Credit, who would really

whirl in their graves to see this one opportunity for public

participation in the economy being dissipated by a party that calls

itself Social Credit. You have no connection whatsoever with the

founders of Social Credit, who understood some basic

redistribution-of-wealth problems. You have come in here as a right

wing administration guaranteeing that those who are already super

wealthy, those who already manipulate the marketplace, will have

another arrow to shoot in a limited arena of competition.

What

have you got against the people? What have you got against people

coming together and who are cooperating and planning their own destiny?

Why have you sold us out through Cargill, through Gray Line? Why have

you blocked the opportunity for people to truly come together in a

cooperative fashion and at least hold their heads up high in the

international marketplace and say: "We can indeed be maitre chez nous."

Games!

Within 24 months the principal control of those

assets will fall into a very few hands, and we will have lost forever

the opportunity for us to do things not for ourselves, but for an idle

political game. There is no control. The assets will be lost to the

people of British Columbia, and it's all for a little bit of politics.

MR. HOWARD:

Like others who have attended the House, I have paid a great deal of

attention to the debate, particularly and specifically to what the

Premier said in his introductory or opening remarks.

We need

to classify the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation as a political

company. Looking at what's happened up until now, we have to classify

David Helliwell, president of that company, as a political stooge. It's

regretful indeed that moves are made to set up a corporation of this

nature and to have it so closely tied to a political party and the

concepts that political party has.

One of two things will occur: either B.C. Resources Investment Corporation will do what the Premier tells it to

[ Page 139 ]

— in which case it will be of no value whatever to the shareholders of

that corporation — or, alternatively — and I think this is the case —

the government will do what B.C. Resources Investment Corporation tells

it what it wants to happen. In which case the government then becomes

subservient to a corporation set up by this Legislature, and will

reflect therein its total subservience to the private

ownership-capitalist system.

Let's look at a couple of

fundamental things about a corporation that the Premier knows better

than anybody. As I understand it, he grew up working in corporate

structures on his own hook for some time, with some success. He knows

the ins and outs and the fundamentals of corporate structure and

corporate policy and corporate attitudes. The officers of a

corporation, and the board of directors of a corporation, have their

primary and their first responsibility to that corporation.

HON. MR. BENNETT: To the shareholders.

MR. HOWARD:

They do not have their primary responsibility to the shareholders,

contrary to what the Premier says. If he holds that view, then I wonder

why he himself was such a success in the corporate field.

The

primary responsibility of the board of directors and of the officers is

to that corporation, and to keep that corporation alive. The Premier

will agree with this: if, for argument's sake, it comes to a question

between the responsibility of the board of directors to pay out or not

pay out dividends to shareholders to keep the company alive, then they

won't pay out dividends. They'll keep the money in the company, and

they'll keep it alive.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not true.

MR. HOWARD:

All you have to do is ask your buddies in MacMillan Bloedel what that

company did when it had a loss situation a few years ago of quite a few

millions of dollars. They curtailed their dividends. They said: "It's

more important to keep the money in the company, because we're losing

money." They could have paid dividends, but they didn't; they kept the

money. Ask your friend. I know he shakes his head in disbelief.

HON. MR. BENNETT:

I'm in disbelief of what you're saying because I think you're serious.

At least we know they're kidding. You're serious. At least we know

Dave's laughing; but you're serious.