1979 Legislative Session: ist Session, 32nd Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, JUNE 26, 1979

Night Sitting

[ Page

399 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Committee of Supply: Executive Council estimates.

On vote 6.

Mr. King –– 399

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 401

Mr. Leggatt –– 402

Mr. Davis –– 405

Ms. Sanford –– 406

Mr. Hyndman –– 407

Mr. Cocke –– 408

Mr. Brummet –– 409

Mr. Barber –– 410

TUESDAY, JUNE 29, 1979

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

(continued)

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Prior to starting in committee this evening, I thought I would share

briefly with the members a small note which was passed to me this

evening at the end of my dinner. It was wrapped in a fortune cookie,

and said: "Try to see various points of view." That in itself brought

me to Beauchesne's 128th edition.

In earlier meeting of the

committee today, we somehow managed to sway a little far from where we

should have been. I would like to read, if I may, from

chapter 3 of the

fourth edition of Beauchesne, rule 128. It is on various pages in

various volumes, but 128 remains 128. It reads:

personal attack, by one member upon another, is an offence against the

House, in the person of one of its members, which, on account of the

respect due, from every member to the character and dignity of the

House, as well as the importance of preserving regularity in the

debates, calls for the prompt interference of the Speaker, in order

that any irregularity, into which a member may have been betrayed in

the warmth of debate" — isn't that a lovely little phrase which

captures this House so well? — "may be rectified, and that any

expressions, which may be disrespectful to the House, or painful to the

feelings of individual members, may be explained, apologized for, or

retracted."

So perhaps we could consider that while we start the debate.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that that extra delightful delivery was exceptional.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member.

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

MR. KING:

I hope the Chair will take note that this is the first time I have

entered the debate in the Premier's estimates. Accordingly I would

suggest that the Chairman's remarks may well be timely.

Mr.

Chairman, I want to make a couple of points with respect to some of the

debate that went on earlier. There has been controversy going back and

forth across the floor regarding the

interpretation of statistics,

which is always a bit of a dicey game. There are those people who can

interpret statistics to tell whatever story they wish to tell to make

their own particular interest look good.

For the Premier's edification, the point I want to make is that interpreting

statistics as a guide to judging the economic health of the province is hardly

used by the British Columbia Ministry of Labour, by Statistics Canada, or indeed

by any agency of which I know, as an indicator of economic health. In-migration

relates, rather, to the economic health that may exist in other parts of the

nation and the employment opportunity which may be obtained in any particular

part. It also, as far as British Columbia is concerned, relates to a very beautiful,

natural environment which we are fortunate enough to enjoy on the west coast

and throughout British Columbia. In Canadian terms, it relates to exceptional

climate.

want to suggest to the Premier that the real indicator of economic

health for our economy in British Columbia, or indeed the economies of

any jurisdiction within Canada, is usually viewed and weighed against

the growth in the workforce in any particular year. Other economic

indicators are the gross national product of the nation or of the

province. But in terms of population and in terms of the statistics

game relating to people within our province, the only real economic

indicator is the growth in the labour force.

To set the

record straight, it might be useful to have a very brief glance at what

happened to the workforce in the years 1972-1976, partially covering

the term of a previous Social Credit administration, an NDP

administration, and the current administration. In 1972 the total

workforce in British Columbia was 950,000 — that includes men and

women. In 1973 the workforce achieved the one million mark for the

first time in our history — it then grew to 1,200,000. In 1974 the

workforce was 1,600,000; in 1975 it was up to 1,103,000. In 1976 it

grew to 1,135,000. Indeed, the years 1972-1975 showed a little faster

percentage increase than any subsequent year except 1978.

It's

foolish to talk about the in-migration and the total population as a

realistic indicator of the economy of this province. The Premier knows

that. This afternoon he went to some lengths to impugn the integrity of

the statistics which the Leader of the Opposition put before the House.

I suggest if there is any seriousness and sincerity in making that kind

of judgment and interpreting the statistics, then the Legislature

should be prepared to accept the statistics and the conclusions from

those statistics which flow from the government's own department. The

Ministry of Labour is charged with the responsibility of maintaining

that kind of statistical data. What is used as the indicator of

economic health is the success of any administration combined with the

private sector in job creation and investment growth, et cetera. The

Premier's long dissertation about the ratio reduction and in-migration

is totally irrelevant and totally meaningless in terms of any analysis

of the state of the economy from 1972 or before that, or of the present.

take the Chairman's admonition seriously about not wanting to offend

the sensitivity of any member of this House, but I do want to note that

the Premier has been most reluctant to answer any questions posed to

him in consideration of his estimates. The tradition of parliament, in

my view, is that the discussion of ministerial estimates provides

basically an opportunity for opposition members to elicit information

from the minister.

I find it difficult to believe that

ministers have full regard for the history and the traditions of

parliament when in response to serious questions put to them they

filibuster, they ramble, prattle and give lengthy and irrelevant

dissertations that in no way relate to the question. If there is any

desire on the part of this government to come to a new era of

sweetness, light and cooperation in this chamber, then I would say they

are going to have to start demonstrating a greater sensitivity and a

greater responsiveness to their ministerial obligations. They must

recognize

[ Page 400 ]

that

the opposition is a part of the government process in a parliamentary

democracy, and that the opposition has an obligation and a mandate on

behalf of a great number of people in this province. Indeed, under the

current circumstances we have a mandate from over 45 percent of the

population.

It is our role, and a very essential and

important one, to elicit information regarding government spending,

ministerial policies and views and opinions. We criticize and offer

alternative suggestions. That is the essence of how our system works,

and I find that when in response to a serious question by opposition

members we see the First Minister of the province engage in a long,

rambling dialogue, attempting to retrace the history of previous

administrations and place his own peculiar

interpretation on that

history and to deal in a very personal way with the role of members in

the last election, it can only lead to retaliation by other members of

the House and a hostile climate in this Legislature.

Mr.

Chairman, I believe that it is incumbent on the First Minister to set

the tone for the Legislature. I believe that the First Minister in the

House today and yesterday has set a very poor example indeed — to his

colleagues and to new members of this House of how a minister should

accept his responsibility, and the regard he should have for this

institution and the large number of people in this province who need to

have information, who have the right to have a balanced point of view

presented to them so they can make a judgment.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Don't lecture the House!

MR. KING:

Mr. Chairman, with respect to the hon. minister, the kind of wild

dissertation we heard from him this afternoon speaks for itself, and I

would perhaps listen to the counsel of any other member of this

Legislature than one who has been so inconsistent as to embark into

wild tirades for 14 hours in this Legislature in repetitive and

tiresome debate which was as irrelevant as that member's representation

of his riding.

With respect to the sensitivity and feeling

of members, my colleague, the Leader of the Opposition, asked the

Premier of the province if he was not prepared in the calmness of the

post-election era to consider the very insulting and very damaging

comments that he had made in this Legislature in announcing the last

election, when he referred to members of the New Democratic Party as

national socialists. Mr. Chairman, if there is anything calculated to

generate hostility and acrimony, it is that kind of particularly odious

suggestion. I want to say that I, for my part, was and am offended. I

am not a veteran of the last world war; I was fortunate enough to be

only 15 years old when it ended.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You look older.

MR. KING:

That's not unusual, after having to put up with the kind of asinine

comments that float across the floor from time to time — that's enough

to age anyone.

But I am discussing a matter that the members

may think is comical. I don't, and I'm saying in all seriousness that I

was very offended and I remain very offended.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes, and I get offended with the ties from that side of the House too.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. KING:

Mr. Chairman, I'm going to ignore the minister's comments. If I

considered the gentleman man enough, I would probably ask for a

retraction; but I doubt that I can dignify it by giving him that status.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You're starting to talk like Frank Howard.

MR. KING:

Well, I'm a very tolerant individual, Mr. Chairman, and I'm going to

maintain a benevolent attitude despite the demeanor of that member and

his rather insulting comments.

Mr. Chairman, I am and I will

remain offended regarding the Premier's comments that we are in any

associated with national socialism. As I indicated earlier, my father

was a veteran of World War I and was wounded twice in defence of the

British parliamentary system and the democracy that we as a party have

a history of protecting and upholding. My father was also a veteran of

World War II, as were two of my brothers and indeed, one sister. I

believe that many members of this House are veterans, and I want to ask

how members on that side of the House would feel if the leader of our

party, particularly when he was Premier, had called an election based

on a charge that the party he opposed was composed of national

socialists — in other words, fascists and Nazis. I think that was an

affront to thousands of British Columbians, I think it was an affront

to the dignity of this Legislature, and I think it brought politics in

British Columbia to its lowest ebb ever.

There are people in

the city of Revelstoke who belong to the Royal Canadian Legion, and

they're very active in that institution as well as being members of our

party. They were so incensed by those remarks of the Premier that they

were prepared to march down to Victoria and demand an audience with him

as veterans who fought for this country. The Premier never fought, and

I doubt whether he or his family has the record of defending freedom in

this nation that my family has. I resent very much being called a

national socialist.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: You're a phoney.

MR. KING: I'm a phoney? Well, you're not a human being, my friend; you're not even a man — neither one of you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame!

MR. KING: Anyone who calls me a fascist, I tell you, is subhuman.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. Hon. members, earlier in the evening I read from

Beauchesne. I'm going to try once again; this is from Sir Erskine May,

and it just very briefly says: "Good temper and moderation are the

characteristics of parliamentary language. Parliamentary language is

never more desirable than when a member is canvassing the opinions or

the conduct of his opponents in debate." This evening there has been a

repetition of what we experienced this afternoon. It appears to emanate

from both sides of the House. I ask that the members who wish to

participate in this debate wait until the speaker who is

[ Page

401 ]

currently on his feet has finished, and then participate if they feel so inclined.

The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke will please continue.

MR. KING:

I, and many others, were deeply offended by the Premier's charge that I

and members of my party in any way associate with or believe in the

doctrines of fascism and Nazism. Those were the stated comments of the

Premier, not on one occasion, but repeated a number of times. If he has

any respect for parliament, if he has any respect for decency in

politics, if he has any respect for thousands of veterans in this

province who fought to preserve this nation as a free one, where

difference of political opinion could be debated, without slanderous

accusations and charges being made, then he should apologize to this

Legislature. Members can taunt and gibe all they wish, but I want to

tell you that there are many people out there in the community who feel

far more angry than I am tonight, and, believe me, I am angry when I

see the cavalier way in which the Premier and many of his members treat

this whole incident.

If the Premier ever wants any good will

in this institution again, if he is interested in elevating political

debate in this province, if he is interested in addressing himself and

his administration to the issues of the day, then he has an obligation

to stand, like a man, in this Legislature and admit that his remarks

were intemperate and to apologize for the insult that he inflicted on

thousands of British Columbians. Failing that, Mr. Chairman, I have to

assume that we will continue in the kind of acrimonious state that this

Legislature has declined to since the election of the remnants of the

Social Credit government. I hope the Premier will do that in all good

conscience and in all good will.

There is one other matter I

hope the Premier will respond to. That relates to the issue of BCRIC,

and I'm not sure whether I should discuss this under the Premier's

estimates or not. I appreciate that there is a bill before the

Legislature on this matter and I would ask your advice as to whether it

should be discussed at this particular time or not. But the Premier did

deal with the organization and the establishment of the British

Columbia Resources Investment Corporation.

I note that by

press release dated June 4, 1979, the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr.

Waterland) has indicated that a large portion of the tree-farm licence

held by Can-Cel has been relinquished by that particular company. I

will read that press release into the record of the House, because I

think it has interesting implications for the new investment

corporation. It indicates that Can-Cel forests have been reduced.

"Forests Minister Tom Waterland announced today that Canadian

Cellulose Company, Can-Cel, has agreed to a reduction of its tree-farm licence

No. 1 located on forest lands in the Skeena and Nass River valleys in north-western

British Columbia, Prince Rupert forest region. TFL 1 has been reduced from approximately

2.7 million to 1.0 million hectares and the annual allowable cut is similarly

reduced from 2 million to about 1.2 million cubic metres of wood. Waterland

has been assured by both ministry and company officials that the reduced annual

allowable cut, annual wood supplies from various other company properties, purchased

logs and excess chip production in the region are sufficient to meet the wood-supply

requirements of Can-Cel's northern manufacturing operations — the two Prince

Rupert pulp mills and the Terrace and Kitwanga sawmills. Waterland said the

deletions are all Crown land and will again come under direct provincial control.

The areas will be reviewed for inclusion in one or more of the following timber

supply areas: North Coast, Kallum, Kispiox and Prince George. Reviews of these

areas will be completed in stages, with the final one being completed in late

1980. Some of the wood volumes from the deleted areas may be available for the

small business program."

The

chairman of BCRIC, Mr. Helliwell, indicated in a television interview,

when the share issue was suspended on June 15, that far more capital

had come in than they anticipated and that the corporation was now

cash-rich and asset-poor. I wonder about the mechanism for the

reduction of the tree-farm licence of Can-Cel, one of the component

parts of BCRIC. I want to ask the Premier who made the decision to

reduce Can-Cel's timber supply. As the Premier well knows and the

Legislature well knows, the value of timber companies in British

Columbia relates in large measure to their timber holdings, their

licence holdings. That has now been reduced in very significant

fashion. The Minister of Forests indicates that the company has agreed

to reduce their licensed fibre.

My question to the Premier

is also this: who asked them to reduce their timber supply? Was it the

government of the province of British Columbia? Was it the

administration of BCRIC? What effect does the Premier anticipate that

this reduction in the forest licence held by Can-Cel may have on the

share value of the British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation?

am particularly interested in answers to these questions. I wonder if

it was political dictation that caused Can-Cel to agree to reduce their

timber holdings and I wonder if this kind of political intervention

will continue to affect the resources held by the British Columbia

Resources Investment Corporation. I would appreciate it very much if

the Premier would respond to these matters that I have raised, Mr.

Chairman.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, we have

been treated tonight to a rather sad situation from the member for

Shuswap-Revelstoke. He stood here in this House, and he told the

members of this Legislature that politics had reached its lowest ebb.

He proceeded to demonstrate just how low that lowest ebb could be by

taking statements out of context and trying to relate those to a period

in the history of Europe that was very sad to the entire world.

knows full well that the Premier, when referring to socialism on a

national scale, was referring to the brand of socialism which had been

brought about in this province by that party when they were in

government. They attempted to turn over the resources of this province

to the federal government in return for a trend of socializing this

country on a national scale. He knows full well that there was never

any intent by the Premier or anyone else to relate the term "national

socialism," or socializing on a national scale, to any other political

movement that ever took place in this world. That member should be

ashamed of himself for

[ Page 402 ]

distorting

statements and trying to raise an issue like that. He is sanctimonious

enough to tell about his family's

part in World War I and World War II.

Do you think, Mr. Member, that there are not millions of people in this

country whose families took

part in the wars in Europe?

MR. KING: The guy called me a national socialist....

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Member, you should be ashamed of yourself for stooping to such a low level of political garbage! Mr. Member, you....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The Minister of Forests has the floor.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

Mr. Chairman, the member opposite is obviously embarrassed about the

disgraceful dissertation which he gave to this House. He should be

absolutely ashamed of himself. Mr. Chairman, I had to say that. I'm

disgusted with the speech that member made. It's just the lowest thing

I've ever heard in this House. You know, I used to have some level of

respect for that member. I always thought he was a rather forthright

member even though his political leanings are much different than mine.

But I've certainly changed my opinion of that member here tonight.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Hon. member, order, please. Earlier this evening and at the start of

committee and once again some time ago, I drew to the attention of

members on both sides of the House the directing of personal attacks at

other members. I appreciate that in the heat of the debate people

sometimes say things they don't want to say, but it's the duty of your

Chairman to try and maintain order. I'm going to ask that all members

once again respect the rules of debate and direct themselves towards

the estimates of the Premier and stay away from personal attacks on

other members. Please continue.

HON. MR. WATERLAND:

The only question the member asked in his long speech this evening was

related to Can-Cel and tree farm licence No. 1. If that member wanted

to do some research, and if he had read the prospectus of the B.C.

Resources Investment Corporation, he would read that negotiations and

discussions with Can-Cel regarding the reduction of TFL 1, which has

much more wood than they could use, took place long before the B.C.

Resources Investment Corporation was ever even thought of. These

discussions have been going on for the last couple of years. That

member should have read the prospectus so he would have been fully

aware of that. It was ongoing, and it was clearly disclosed in the

prospectus of the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation.

MR. LEGGATT:

I'd like to begin by asking the Premier some questions on the

estimates, rather than getting into the history of the last 40 years in

this country.

The first question I have of the Premier deals

with his comments concerning fisheries jurisdiction in his initial

remarks. I have some concern with an enhancement program presently

underway. It's costing us all a good deal of money, and it doesn't

matter whether you wear a federal hat or a provincial hat — that's a

lot of money that's going into an enhancement program. I'm concerned

that the major industry in this province, and rightly so, being the

forest industry, has a tremendous amount of political clout and

influence. I suppose that's also rightly so. My concern is that where a

conflict arises in regard to the enhancement program, and where we're

looking at enforcement in terms of rehabilitating our salmon resource,

which has the capacity to double, provide tremendous job creation and

tremendous export, we may find that the clout of the forest industry is

so heavy that the fishing industry loses in terms of its enhancement

program.

I'd like to be assured, Mr. Chairman, that if the

Premier is going to be successful, as the results in the Newfoundland

election apparently show he may, that is a jurisdiction that is going

to go to the province. I want some assurance that there's going to be

some clout to protect those streams for the fishermen of British

Columbia. That clout doesn't really show in the Queen Charlottes. We

want to make sure that there is a law in British Columbia that protects

those stream-beds, so that we can double that fantastic resource that

we have here in British Columbia. I'I leave that subject; but I'd like

the Premier to respond to that, in terms of the political realities of

the power groups in the province of British Columbia.

I have

no doubt at all that one of the greatest power groups in this province

lies in the forest industry — not merely in the corporate sector, but

certainly in the trade union sector as well. And I want to know how any

government of the day is going to resist tremendous pressure from the

forest industry not to go ahead with this fantastic enhancement program

that's underway. So I must tell you, Mr. Chairman, I have some

reservations about this immediate move in terms of fisheries

jurisdiction.

The Premier also indicated that British

Columbia has been contributing a good deal to the balance of payments

in Canada. That's correct; there's no question about that. We are

certainly, I suppose, carrying a good deal of the burden in terms of

Canadian trade. I'd like the Premier to respond in terms of one very

important issue that's come up which has adversely affected our balance

of payments. That is this irrational move on the part of the Premier's

friend, the Prime Minister, to move that embassy in the Middle East

from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

AN HON. MEMBER: You have to be kidding. Where do you think you are?

MR. LEGGATT:

Well, you can say what you like about it. A person who is the leader of

a province surely has a position on that. Surely he's willing to commit

his government to a position to protect the Canadian dollar. Or is he

just going to continue to sit in the weeds? I think the Premier should

respond one way or the other in terms of his position vis-à-vis the

federal government and the position that they've taken that they are

going to move the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. That's had a

tremendously adverse effect in terms of Canada's position in the world

economic community.

HON. MR. BENNETT: What's Broadbent say?

MR. LEGGATT: Broadbent is clearly against this move. I'm very happy to associate myself with the remarks

[ Page 403 ]

he made on television yesterday, and today as well. I hope the Premier will respond to that.

During

the course of the Premier's remarks he indicated, looking over here,

that the hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody was nodding in agreement when

the Premier was criticizing the New Democratic Party for failing to

control PWA and allowing it to get into the hands of the Alberta

government. And that was quite correct; I had very strong feelings at

that time that we should have taken over PWA — we should have kept the

head office right here in British Columbia.

But let's ask

ourselves: what, if the New Democratic Party government attempted to

take over PWA, would have been the Premier's position on that takeover

move? Wouldn't he have been up ranting and raving about these terrible

socialists who were going for takeovers again? You know, he can't have

it both ways all the time. That was a takeover of a private corporation

by a government, Mr. Premier — through you, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. BENNETT: It was no government takeover; you weren't listening.

MR. LEGGATT: I want the Premier to listen to something else. He has been in power since 1975....

AN HON. MEMBER: Back into history!

MR. LEGGATT: I'm not going to go back into history.

You

have been in power since 1975, and what have you done about these

complaints you've been making on the floor of this House about the

failure to take over PWA? What have you done about developing a

competitive policy in British Columbia? Why don't you get yourself an

airline, Mr. Premier, and do something about giving PWA some

competition, and deliver some decent air service into the interior of

British Columbia? That's what you should be doing.

MR. BRUMMET: I'm going to read this back to you.

MR. LEGGATT: I hope so.

Mr.

Chairman, the Premier's more interested in sitting here rewriting the

history of the province of British Columbia than in getting on with the

problems that are here today, not those that were here yesterday.

There's no point in continually saying "You guys did this" and "You

guys did that." You see, they've only had one successful election, Mr.

Chairman. That was in 1975, and they're bound and determined to always

run the 1975 election again. You know, it worked once and they think it

will work forever. I just want — through you, Mr. Chairman — to assure

the Premier that it's worked once and that's all; it's not going to

work again.

The Premier has skated around another issue, a

vital and important one, which is the subject of PetroCan. I was very

happy to have been part of a minority government. I see my colleague

from Skeena (Mr. Howard) and the member for North Vancouver–Seymour

(Mr. Davis)....

HON. MR. BENNETT: When were you part of a minority government?

MR. LEGGATT: In 1972 we were part of that particular parliament.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You weren't part of the government.

MR. LEGGATT: We were happy to take credit for the good things that were achieved in that period of time.

Interjection.

MR. LEGGATT:

Mr. Premier, I'm happy to go on record as saying that PetroCan was a

creation of the New Democratic Party of Canada. I'm proud of it; I

always will be.

Unfortunately the Premier has failed to

understand the significance of that particular move in terms of

Canada's energy needs. I think the member for North Vancouver–Seymour

appreciated the significance of that move. I'd like to hear these

caucus discussions between the two of them, in terms of what their

respective positions are on PetroCan. If PetroCan is such a bad thing,

don't buy any Phillips 66 gasoline. That horrible company now controls

Phillips 66 in the west. Are they charging too much? Is there a real

problem in Phillips? Not at all.

AN HON. MEMBER: What does that have to do with estimates?

MR. LEGGATT: It has a lot to do with estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Perhaps if you addressed the Chair we could proceed with orderly debate.

MR. LEGGATT:

In terms of PetroCan and what was accomplished, I think we should go

back to what has been an energy policy for Canada that made a great

deal of sense. That energy policy for Canada was developed by two

people in this country: one of them was Tommy Douglas and his

assistants; the other one was Hon. David Barrett, then Premier of

British Columbia. A great deal has been made of an apparent offer to

somehow give away the energy resources of British Columbia to the

federal government, as if the federal government were some kind of

foreign power. I'm beginning to think that you guys are bucking for an

ambassadorship to go back there.

Canadians are Canadians

whether you wear a federal or a provincial hat. You still own those

resources whether the federal government or the provincial government

controls them. You as a person will still own them.

Interjections.

MR. LEGGATT:

Yes, you will. The Premier looks surprised about that. He doesn't think

they will. He thinks it's better if Shell Oil owns them: that's really

where it's at.

I think I should read into the record exactly

what it was the then Premier of British Columbia said at that time.

This is his submission to the federal conference of the Premiers and

the Prime Minister. He said:

"On November 10

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

natural gas rights granted to it by the constitution, if the government

of Canada resolved to assume control of all the country's petroleum

reserves and ownership, the means of petroleum production,

transmission, processing and distribution.

[ Page 404 ]

"Mr.

Prime Minister, I refer to your statement this morning on page 6 where

you say Canadian producers should have first claim to Canadian markets.

That, sir, is impossible under the present circumstances because 79 to

90 percent of those producers are American-owned under the present

circumstances. So unless we have Canadian public ownership, the dream

that you spelled out on page 6 is impossible.

"Our

offer stands. In our view, such a program for recovery of national

public sovereignty over this vital industry is the best answer for

Canadians to the energy problems that we are here to discuss. However,

the federal government has yet to indicate its willingness to adopt

this solution. I understand there is some resistance by some of my

fellow provinces, so today we are offering an alternate plan."

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

That's

what was said. The Premier doesn't want to read the whole thing. He

should read it all into the record, because it is the essence of what

is a decent energy policy for this country. He also said: "This plan

contemplates continued provincial ownership of the resource" — do you

hear that, Mr. Member? — "and continued recovery, processing and sale

through commercial channels..."

MR. BARRETT: You didn't read that, did you, Bill?

MR. LEGGATT: You didn't read that one.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You don't understand what you're doing. Don't ask me to explain it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LEGGATT: It continues:

"...but

with a very different system for the distribution" — I'm getting to the

good part now — "of resulting profits. As a petroleum producing

province, we would expect the full assistance of the federal government

in obtaining a true, competitive energy value for our resource on the

export market. For our part, we are ready to make from the proceeds a

contribution towards the stabilization of domestic petroleum prices

during a reasonable period of adjustment to world energy market

changes."

I can go into a great deal more detail, but within

that is the essence of survival for Canada in terms of our energy

resources. If you get up here and make this kind of phoney argument

about giveaways, how can you possibly ever develop a national energy

policy?

The Premier made some very grand statements here

about going to the province of Quebec and saying: "Oh, please, stay

with us. Don't leave. We've got to keep the country together." This is

great motherhood stuff, Mr. Chairman; but he won't give them one dime's

worth of energy to survive or stay within the province. He hasn't said

anything about equalizing energy prices across Canada.

You've

got to, once in a while, come to the bargaining table with something.

What's happened is that the Premier has continued to go to the east

with nothing. That's one of the reasons this country is in a bit of a

sad state in terms of its national unity position.

I want to

say another word about a surprising statement I heard this afternoon

which deals with the question of succession duties.

HON. MR. MAIR: Have you read that paper, Stu? If you have, you're the only one there who has.

MR. LEGGATT:

I have read those papers, and I must say I didn't think the

five-regions concept was the most horrible thing I've ever heard. Okay?

But in terms of another statement, I find surprising the pride with

which this government takes in having abolished all succession duties.

Surely someone who has left an estate of $2 million owes just a little

bit back to the rest of the community. What is this business of: "Oh,

we've got to have these giant capital acquisitions; we can't force

these people to pay anything back"? They owe something back to this

community because this community helped them rise, and helped them

grow, and prospered with them, and helped them develop all these funds.

And now they don't want to give a dime back. They'd rather take it down

to Palm Springs and play around the pool with it. Well, Mr. Chairman,

that's a philosophy I reject. That's a philosophy of outrageous

selfishness.

Back to the Premier's estimates. I now want to

ask the Premier another specific question. It deals with something as

at least a B.C. nationalist. I certainly couldn't call him a Canadian

nationalist, but as a great supporter of the province of British

Columbia I respect the position his minister took in negotiating sea

boundaries. The objection they took to the federal position was wise

and right. But something else is missing in this. Right now the

Entrance in the north of British Columbia.

I want to know

where the Premier has been in terms of representation to the federal

government to say: "You enforce the boundaries of B.C. You look after

the province of British Columbia." I've had no indication that the

Premier or any other member of this government objected to this backing

up by the federal government in terms of maintaining that particular

boundary.

I want to say a word or two about foreign

ownership. Let's talk about MacMillan Bloedel. That's just as

interesting. This is the one that was saved from the horrible tentacles

of CPI. I listened carefully this afternoon because the Premier told us

why he had saved it. It was because it was getting too big. Its size

was its problem. We don't want this giant corporation in British

Columbia. It's got to be held to size; it's got to get smaller.

Well,

I was back in Ottawa when something called the Bryce commission was

doing an investigation into corporate concentration. That's of genuine

concern about how large corporations were dominating the economy of

Canada. So I thought: we have a government and a Premier who is very

concerned about a worthwhile objective to try to keep competitiveness

in the marketplace and make sure that we don't have great giant

corporations dominating small business and dominating the market. So I

thought I'd like to see what their brief was to the Bryce commission,

because the Bryce commission had 196 separate briefs on the subject of

corporate concentration. There was one from the government of Ontario.

Various representatives from all

[ Page 405 ]

across

the country expressed their concern to the Bryce commission. I don't

see one word from the government of the province of British Columbia

about corporate concentration on the Bryce commission — not a word.

Maybe it was too expensive to send a representative back. I don't know.

Maybe it was going to be too costly. I know the Premier is concerned

about money; he doesn't give any research out.

Mr. Chairman, the other day the Premier was kidding us about mistakes, and

he was kidding me because I had misread the BCRIC legislation. He said: "Gosh,

there's lots of control in there. You guys are talking out of the wrong

side of your mouth. We won't sell that stuff abroad." And he's

right. It's in there. Of course, he started off with B.C. preference — that's

out. The next move is going to be selling those shares abroad. I'm just

waiting for the market forces to see what happens. We'll see what happens

if those shares happen to drop and what desperate moves would happen to that

corporation if they decide to try to make sure they grow. They want a bigger

market for those shares.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Will you apologize like your leader? Will you?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Please address the Chair.

MR. LEGGATT:

I'I certainly apologize when I am wrong. Why do you think I'm on my

feet? I'm apologizing for misinterpreting that particular legislation.

But I want to tell the Premier something. He kidded us because he said:

"Well, that member's probably tripped in his stall; he's just there

angling for more research help." You're darned right I am, Mr.

Chairman, Anybody who appreciates the parliamentary process knows there

has to be adequate help and research for the opposition. It makes them

a better government, as a matter of fact. I don't see that appreciation

in this House — not at all.

HON. MR. MAIR: Did you forget your name?

MR. LEGGATT: There's nothing the matter with having adequate resources for every member of this particular House.

"B.C. Is not for sale." That has been a sort of model. It's almost

a slogan this government ran on, and I'm not too sure who said what to the

Foreign Investment Review Agency, or whether this government was for foreign

investment review or not for it; I'm not sure. All I know is what they did

with their own assets — they sold them abroad. Surely those actions speak far

louder than all the words in a campaign.

do have some words, however — and I hope if these words are incorrect,

someone on that side of the House, Mr. Chairman, will get up and

correct them — I'd like to read from the Financial Times

of October 10, 1977, an

article by Mr. Hugh Nangle, following a

conference between Mr. Evan Wolfe and Jean Chretien. This was the news

report: "British Columbia's Evan Wolfe pressed Mr. Chretien to do away

with the Foreign Investment Review Agency on the ground that it is

discouraging much-needed foreign investment. He found little support at

the conference table." Now could we possibly be so misled?

Interjection.

MR. LEGGATT: I don't know. But you'I have to check with Hugh Nangle of the Financial Times ; he was there. Perhaps the Premier will now ask Mr. Wolfe whether he still has that view or whether he had it originally.

The Victoria Times

this year on January 19 said as follows: "Economic Development Minister

Don Phillips said B.C. has never pressured Ottawa to dilute the powers

of the Foreign Investment Review Agency, as claimed by Barrett on

Thursday." Somebody has got to get their act together over there. We

really know where you stand on this subject. There is no philosophic

commitment to ownership of Canadian and B.C. assets by Canadians, and

there is no philosophic commitment against foreign ownership. I don't

think the public are fooled for one minute. But they keep running

things up the flag, and they salute it, and they say: "Well, let's try

this one on for size; it sounds like a good slogan." And they try it.

And everybody gets sort of confused for a while, not sure where they

are. Be honest about it: it is in fact harming foreign investments to

be a complete purist as a Canadian nationalist. Take the flag and be

courageous enough to do it: that's what we say. You have to be able to

do that. But be a Canadian nationalist first; have some feeling for the

future of Canada. This is not going to be just another American

franchise province — not as long as we in the NDP have anything to do

about it.

Every once in a while the Premier looks over here,

saying: "Ha ha! You've got some problem there, Mr. Barrett. There's Mr.

Leggatt there — he wants your job." He's really taken with this

leadership problem. It almost seems to be preying on his mind. When I

look at the first member for Surrey (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) sitting

right behind him — and I know the Premier has this preying — not on

this side it's worrying him, though. Oh no; it's over there.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Especially if I'd lost twice.

MR. LEGGATT:

Mr. Chairman, there are winners and there are losers, but without

leadership this province is the real loser as long as this Premier is

here. We've got to spend less time rewriting history in this place and

getting on to dealing with some of the other problems. I'm not going to

get into the national socialism debate; I think it was an easy one for

the Premier to deflect. All he had to do was get up, and it would have

been a one-minute job to defuse that issue. But because he thought

there were a couple of Brownie points he hung on to it for a while,

thinking: "Well, we'll get a little edge on these guys." What happens

is we get into this kind of abrasive debate. That kind of debate is

completely unnecessary, but the reason for this debate is the Premier.

and there is no question about that.

MR. DAVIS: We've

had a wide-ranging debate; it's touched on resource development,

international trade and on foreign ownership. These are very important

subjects. I want to deal with an aspect of resource development which

is very important. It has been a major issue in Alberta and an

important issue in Saskatchewan. It is the two-price system for selling

our resources in Canada and in the markets of the world. We've had a

two-price system in this country in respect to manufactured goods for a

century, ever since the national policy was brought in by John A.

Macdonald in the 1870s; that two-price system saw a world price and a

higher price in Canada for manufactured goods.

[ Page 406 ]

Canadians

as consumers have paid considerably more for manufactured goods

generally made in central Canada than they would have paid had they

been able to buy them without an import duty. Today that import levy

averages around 20 percent. As Canadians, whether we live in Toronto,

Vancouver, the Peace River district or Newfoundland, we are paying 20

percent more than we would pay if there weren't import duties. We are

paying it, basically, to buy Canadian-produced goods, produced by

Canadian labour largely in central Canada. We've had a two-price

system, but it has been a two-price system in respect to manufactured

goods. Now in the 1970s we have what could be, and I hope is not, the

beginnings of another two-price system. It's a two-price system which

sees Canadians who produce resource materials getting less than the

world price for their product. The Alberta government has been very

concerned about the fact that the oil produced in Alberta was selling

internally in Canada for considerably less than the world price. But

Alberta has also been concerned about the fact that the oil produced in

Alberta was selling internally in Canada for considerably less than the

world price. But Alberta has also been concerned about the fact its oil

sold in the United States was also returning to Alberta only the

internal Canadian price, not the world price.

Alberta

currently, and I'm talking in very round figures, receives about $12 a

barrel for oil which is worth nearly $20 a barrel on world markets. It

does so because the federal government has now introduced an export

tax. So we now have not only import duties on manufactured goods, but

an export tax on our raw materials. We have it, in effect, on natural

gas as well because natural gas going to Toronto is priced at a much

lower figure than could have been obtained had they been able to sell

it directly to the United States. Our concern has to be whether this

trend in the energy area, that of levelling export taxes or

administratively, through regulatory bodies, arranging for a lower

internal Canadian price than the world price, will persist and will

spread. Will it spread into coal if world oil and coal prices continue

to rise? Are we going to see not only Alberta coal but British Columbia

coal shipped to Ontario for a considerably lower price than can be

obtained by selling the coal to Japan and that trade perpetuated,

essentially, by an export tax levied by the federal government?

can't imagine Saskatchewan being happy about a two-price system for

potash whereby potash was sold at a low price and export tax was levied

by the federal government, with a higher price obtained in foreign

markets than that coming back to the producing province. I can't

imagine Premier Levesque in Quebec being happy about asbestos from that

province being sold at well below the world price as far as he and his

producers are concerned, and yet yielding a much higher price on world

markets. I can't imagine Ontario being happy about nickel being

marketed in a two-price system. There is less return to the source

areas, to the source provinces, to the producers, than could be

obtained if there was free trade or relatively free trade — or the

current kind of marketing we have in respect to lumber.

When

I was in Ottawa in the period 1973-74 there was a heady period in which

a new industrial strategy was being developed. It didn't mature; it

didn't materialize. But there were a number of members, including

ministers from Ontario, who suddenly saw a vision. It was not only that

the manufacturing industries of Ontario would be protected by an import

duty but that they would also get their raw materials at less than the

world price, that they would get their oil, their gas, their

electricity — whatever it was — at less than world price, and this

would give them a competitive advantage in the markets of the world.

That

would be a two-edged strategy. It certainly would favour the

manufacturing areas but it would be detrimental to the basic interests

of the resource-rich provinces. We currently have in federal-provincial

conferences, for example, provinces like Newfoundland looking ahead and

saying: "If we find oil on the Continental Shelf, we want the world

price. We don't want a lower Canadian price. We don't want an export

tax levied by the federal government on our resources." I'm glad we

don't have this sort of thing in respect to lumber, but it could

conceivably happen. I'm glad we don't have it in respect to our fishery

resources, that we as producers get the world price.

Now I'm

concerned about publicly owned corporations. I'm concerned about

PetroCan. I'm concerned about nationally publicly owned corporations if

they become the sole instrument for development in the particular

industry. If you have PetroCan being the only

developer-producer-transporter of oil and gas in the country operating

in the provinces as well as the territories, what's to say that

PetroCan won't be directed by a government in Ottawa to find more

resources in a particular province and ship those resources, not for

export and for sale at the world price but to other provinces — and

notably the central provinces — at less than the world price? That

would be my main concern about PetroCan becoming the only vehicle for

resource development, particularly oil and gas development in this

country.

I think there is a role for PetroCan. I think it's

a role similar to that, for example, of British Petroleum, acting like

another private corporation in the private sector — large, competent,

Canadian-owned, but not an arm of the federal government. It should be

an agency, a corporation, in other words, that basically makes good

sound business arrangements and looks for more resources in this

country, makes more oil and gas available. I think that is a role for

PetroCan, but it should not be the sole oil and gas corporation in this

country and certainly not as an arm or instrument of the federal

government.

Equalization payments exist in this country. The

national government can tax in any way it wants, with any mode or

method of taxation equally. It is to be hoped it taxes all Canadians

equally. It makes sure that its payments across the country for federal

projects are reasonably distributed across the country. It also

nowadays ensures that the incomes of the provincial governments are

comparable across this country — that the income of a province like

Newfoundland is comparable to the average income of Ontario, Alberta

and British Columbia. That's the sort of thing we can reasonably do as

Canadians.

But I do not believe that the resource-rich areas

of this country should be discriminated against by a two-price system,

and I don't believe that there should be national corporations which

would completely dominate a resource area and act as an arm of the

federal government in a policy sense.

MS. SANFORD: I

would like to comment briefly on the term "national socialist," which

the Premier first used on prime-time TV on the day he called the

election.

[ Page 407 ]

Mr.

Chairman, I must assume that the Premier had full understanding of the

fascist connotation of the term "national socialist." Certainly within

my constituency people would come up to me and express their dismay and

their sorrow and sometimes their disgust because the Premier had chosen

that term. Now if my assumption is correct, and the Premier knew the

connotation at the time he used it, he must stand up in this

Legislature, in my view, and apologize to this House and to all of the

people of the province.

Mr. Chairman, if he did not know the

connotation of the term when he first used it the day he called the

election, he certainly at this stage of the debate must have an

understanding of the connotation of that word.

In any case,

Mr. Chairman, it is incumbent upon the Premier to stand up in this

Legislature during these debates and apologize to this Legislature and

to everyone in British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, I would like

to raise one other issue that has not been raised under these estimates

to date. This goes back a bit to a commitment made by the Premier on

the floor of the House in 1977 regarding the expenditure of funds

committed by this Legislature under the previous NDP government to the

children in Vietnam. I would like to quote briefly from the statements

made by the Premier in February 1977, as quoted from Hansard .

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: They didn't put up one nickel.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Minister, I am quite aware of that.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The New Democratic Party never put up any money. Say it for the record.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Comox continues.

MS. SANFORD:

Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm)

is yelling across the floor of the House that there was no money put up

by the previous government in a special fund. I don't deny that. What

I'm going to do at this stage is quote from the commitment made by the

Premier in February 1977. I would like the Minister of Municipal

Affairs to listen closely to what the Premier said at that time. I’ve

got it written out here so that it will be correct: it’s out of Hansard . I would like the Premier to listen too, because these are his own words, and I have a question based on these words:

regard, Mr. Chairman, to the one question concerning the money that was

voted by this House for children in Vietnam, I am sure the obligation

remains with all of us. Nobody denies that. The fact that not only that

money but other money had been spent by the former government still

doesn't relieve the obligation of the Legislature that goes beyond

normal spending.

Then, Mr. Chairman, the Premier went on to say in February 1977:

Whether it is on the municipal level, the provincial level or

the federal level, people elect new governments and throw out old ones so that

they can have a change in policies. It is a well-known fact that in these elections

governments can't commit future governments because future governments are

elected to make changes.

This is really important, Mr. Chairman:

However, yesterday we were dealing in a very sensitive area that

was not a commitment of government but was a commitment of this Legislature.

There is a strong distinction. It was a commitment that went beyond politics.

It was a commitment made unanimously by a Legislature on a basis of human need.

That commitment as legislation will be kept.

Now

based on what I have read into the record again, Mr. Chairman, and the

very clear commitment as outlined by the Premier at that time, I would

like to ask what plans he has to carry out the commitment he so clearly

stated to the Legislature in February 1977.

MR. HYNDMAN:

Mr. Chairman, my remarks will not be lengthy. I have a couple of

questions for the Premier relating to federal-provincial matters, and

also relating to the question of foreign investment.

prefacing my remarks, for the benefit of the member for Prince Rupert

(Mr. Lea), I want to make just one observation in passing to the member

for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King), and I say this very sincerely. I

don't propose to revive that debate on the phrase "national socialism,"

but I do want to, for the record, simply say this: whatever that member

may sincerely feel, and however disturbed he may be, and regardless of

who is right and who is wrong, I would like his side to know that our

side might say the very same thing about a very unfortunate phrase in

the campaign called "an attack on the sick,'' which brought grave worry

to people in hospitals in this province. I think — and this is all I am

going to say, Mr. Chairman — this had no place in the campaign and I

don't think in this debate at this time we should be in this kind of

rehash of the election.

What I simply want to say is that if

you want to get into that kind of note comparison, perhaps as

politicians we all fail. But I think it is unfair to suggest that all

the right is on one side; that one side is perfect in a campaign and

that somebody else is all wrong. That's all I propose to say about it.

Now

there are two areas, Mr. Chairman, which I would like to direct a

couple of questions to the Premier. They are germane to his estimates.

They are on the question of federal-provincial relations. I thought the

member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) prefaced what I really

had in mind rather well when he made the observation that the Premier

goes to the east with nothing. I think those were his words.

Well,

Mr. Chairman. the Premier seems to come back with something pretty

incredible for the people of B.C. The numbers suggest that in the four

years from 1975 to 1979 the amount of bargained, worked-for dollars for

British Columbia earned by this Premier have risen from about $450-odd

million to over $900 million. It's an increase of about $450 million.

a comparative basis, the increase annually now in federal-provincial

bargained moneys earned by our Premier equals the amount of that

tremendous subscription to BCRIC shares. Putting it somewhat

differently, if you're saying that there's been an increase of $450

million annually coming back to B.C. now — bargained dollars — and if

the sales tax per point earns the provincial treasury in the order of

$150 million, it's about the worth of 3 sales tax points a year. Mr.

Chairman, members may say the Premier goes down to the east with

nothing. He must go down with

[ Page 408 ]

some magic, because he's coming back with something. Those are incredible numbers.

My question — and I'd appreciate some comment

from the Premier — is given this remarkable growth at the rate of which

these federal-provincial earned and bargained dollars have been coming

back to British Columbia, and having regard to the change of

government, does the Premier expect that we have a realistic chance,

with continued hard work, of maintaining that rising rate of bargaining

those dollars back or, realistically, is the time coming when there

perhaps has to be something of a plateau?

Now my next series

of questions — and there are three, Mr. Chairman — relate to the topic

of foreign investment. We've had a very interesting path of debate from

the opposition since the House convened. You'll recall that through the

throne speech and the budget speech we heard a great deal about

unemployment and job creation in British Columbia. Now, more recently,

we've heard a great deal against foreign investment from the

opposition. As a dutiful new member, I thought I'd try to do some

research into this difficult question of foreign investment, and it

struck me that the province of Alberta might be a good place to start.

It appears to have by all accounts the humming economy of Canada,

perhaps an economy that people marvel at, with a remarkably low

unemployment rate in the order of 4 percent.

It's very

interesting to see what you find studying Hansard from the province of

Alberta, Mr. Chairman. A prominent member of the NDP — in fact, the NDP

leader in Alberta — just a couple of weeks ago was commenting in the

Alberta throne speech debate. He's Grant Notley, the Alberta NDP

leader, the lone member there. But he does, I think, a workman-like job

for his party over there. Mr. Notley and I went to school together. I

know something of him. He's a very balanced and fair-minded person, and

he had this to say two weeks ago in the Alberta throne speech debate

about foreign investment. This is from the leader of the NDP in the

province of Alberta. I think it's an interesting comment and perhaps

it's worth remembering. Mr. Notley said:

Mr. Speaker, I

don't think anyone disagrees that when you have foreign capital come

in, one has to look at it from the perspective of a balance sheet.

There are obviously going to be pluses. Certainly there are pluses. We

see the pluses in the Alberta economy today — a buoyant economy with a

very low rate of unemployment.

Mr. Chairman, that's the NDP

leader next door in the province of Alberta, who is fair enough to

observe that the question of foreign investment is a balanced one, and

he's fair enough to admit that in the province of Alberta, which has

admittedly some foreign investment, the balance has been a buoyant

economy, a very low rate of unemployment and some definite pluses. He

paints a balanced picture.

My questions for the Premier on

this question of foreign investment are these, because I think we've

had simply one point of view on foreign investment from our friends in

opposition. It's a hard-edged point of view. It's a very negative point

of view. I think it's fair to say that throughout the debates this

session, our friends in opposition have at no time uttered a single

positive statement about any possible benefit of foreign investment. I

think that may be just a little one-sided.

So, Mr. Premier, would you consider these questions again, as they relate to

your work at federal-provincial conferences, where you convene and discuss with

provincial Premiers representing many political parties and, indeed, the NDP

in Saskatchewan and formerly the NDP in Manitoba? The questions would be: First,

is the British Columbia position with respect to foreign investment generally

similar to that of the other nine provinces in Canada? Secondly, does any provincial

government in Canada advocate a hard-line approach against foreign investment?

And thirdly, if you hypothetically assumed that the British Columbia government

adopted the hard line against foreign investment suggested by our friends in

opposition, what would be the effect in terms of jobs and job creation in British

Columbia, reprisal discrimination against British Columbians investing outside

Canada, and the impact on British Columbia workers whose jobs depend on the

success of B.C. business and B.C. ventures outside Canada?

MR. COCKE:

Mr. Chairman, the cabinet sweepstakes are in full swing. We're all

delighted over here to hear those very thoughtful questions raised by

the second member for Little Mountain — sorry, Vancouver South (Mr.

Hyndman). It's so easy to forget, and I'm sure he'll be so easy to

forget, and I wouldn't be surprised if the Premier didn't forget the

answers to the questions that he's forgotten. In any event, I'm sure

we've all been delighted to hear that there might be some reprisals

from some other nation if, in fact, we resist foreign investment, which

already owns and controls some 65 to 70 percent of our economy.

also would like to take a little umbrage at the member's suggestion

that the opposition's suggestion that this government was attacking the

sick was something that sent everybody in our province into a tailspin.

I gather from that that when we come to his estimates the Minister of

Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) is to be treated very gently, that we

mustn't mention shortages in hospitals, shortages of staff and all of

the other problems that we are facing and have faced for many months in

our province.

The Premier has seen fit to leave the chamber.

I'm rather sorry that he has, because the question that I want to ask

him is a question that only he can answer, and his backbenchers and his

cabinet colleagues who are there to defend him....

AN HON. MEMBER: I'I note it down.

MR. COCKE: You'll note it down. Would you like to try to answer it? I don't think you could.

The

question that I want to ask him is indeed about an attack, but it was

an attack on a human being in New Westminster. It was an attack by a

person that I couldn't believe would attack another human being in the

way he did. In the election campaign — and I may reiterate this for the

Premier if he doesn't answer, if he isn't within earshot — there was a

pancake breakfast and a street assembly. During the electioneering a

young person heckled, and he was quite ill equipped to deal with the

polished politician and the situation that he found himself in. As a

result of his heckling he was sucked into coming up on the stage by the

Premier, and offered a microphone. The crowd, of course, screamed their

heads off. He wasn't heard, but he was a person who should not have

been treated in that way, made a fool of by the First Minister of this

province. It was one of the most shameful things that I have ever heard

of. The candidate running against me in New Westminster at that

[ Page 409 ]

time,

when confronted with that at an all-candidates meeting a week or so

later, said: "I dissociate myself with that behaviour." That's a quote.

You

can joke all you like. We've all seen the behaviour on television. I

think most everybody in our town knows his name. There is certainly no

reason why I am going to put it on the record here. It was certainly

public knowledge in our town. Would that be a further embarrassment?

Not on your life. But as far as I'm concerned, this is the kind of

behaviour that one expects, particularly from one who would make the

kind of charge that he made at the beginning of that campaign.

The

members on this side of the House say how much they not only regret the

charge of national socialism, but how much they abhor that kind of

behaviour. Talk all you like and as long as you like, but there is no

way that the political climate in this province can improve as long as

there is that kind of hate and that kind of vitriol. You know that the

one thing that I try to refrain from is that kind of absolutely

abhorrent behaviour, like this afternoon.

This is the first

time I've spoken in the House on this debate, and as a matter of fact

I'd prefer not to, because who wants to? In any event, Mr. Chairman,

that's what makes the world go round for this kind of politicking. It

strikes me that it's about time that there was some backing off from

that kind of behaviour. I have yet to see any kind of accommodation for

the feelings of others where that particular individual, the Premier of

this province, feels he can get away with pushing people around in the

way he has. I think it's a shame, and I think it's about time that his

colleagues assisted him in forming a new kind of pattern of behaviour,

a pattern that possibly would be more commensurate with his office.

MR. BRUMMET:

I said in an earlier speech in the House that nowhere in the province

was the difference between the NDP and Social Credit policies more

evident than it was in the Peace River country. Therefore, in order to

support the Premier's point that his government works best, I would

like to offer the following evidence.

The interprovincial

migration was very real in our area, Mr. Chairman. A lot of my friends

left; a lot of the oil and gas service companies left because the

reason for their existence in that area had been destroyed. Oil and gas

exploration and drilling had moved out, and these oil companies are big

enough to fend for themselves. They were pushed out of the province at

that time. They just went elsewhere and went to work drilling, but the

people in the Peace River area were the ones who had to give up their

homes, give up their jobs and move out because of the policies of the

NDP government.

It wasn't the oil companies that got hurt.

It was the people in the community. I would like to quote from the

Trade and Commerce magazine of April 1979, which, because it was so

damaging to the NDP, was actually withheld by this company until after

the election. It was a special issue put out, listing Fort St. John as

the city of the year. I would like to just read a couple of paragraphs

from there:

"The city languished in a state of mild

depression in the early 1970s as the provincial NDP government policy

sharply reduced exploration activities in the northeast. The impact of

this decision was felt throughout the Fort St. John economy as jobs

were lost and payrolls shrank. But a change in government in late 1975

brought a renewed hope and a promise of new policy stimulants to get

the oil industry rolling again. The beneficial effects of this

accelerated effort were felt almost immediately as oil companies once

again shifted into high gear. Drilling programs were stepped up

dramatically and oil services and supply firms were hard-pressed to

keep up with demand.

"More than three years

have gone by since this sharp about-face, and this black gold of

northeastern B.C. continues to lubricate the wheels of the Fort St.

John economy, this time at a record pace."

The regional

economic director made the statement that when the NDP government

controlled the investment dollars, the majority of the exploration

companies withdrew from the area and there was little or no growth or

development in the service sector. The return of the oil rigs, however,

changed all that. The statement of a national magazine gives you some

indication of what happened there, and I don't need that kind of

evidence because I was there. I don't know all the statistics. I didn't

study all the statistics, nor did I employ research people to look at

the picayune little details, because I didn't need to. I was there when

it happened. You can show a chart of the building permits in Fort St.

John as further evidence. The only decline in those building permits

happened from '73 to '74, and from '74 to '75, a very drastic decline

if any of you want to take a look at that magazine. You might be able

to see it from here. Here's the decline and then here is what happened

since — pretty drastic evidence of what happens when investment is not

afraid to come into the province. The Holiday Inn, a several million

dollar project, was not yet under construction when the election was

called. The owners said: "No way: we are holding until after May 10."

This, of course, was interpreted as a threat in the election campaign.

To those people it was an investment fact of life; they had witnessed

what happened before, and they certainly were not going to start

building a 120-room facility there if this type of possibility existed.

I might add that right after May 11 they started moving the soil, Mr.

Chairman, and it is now well under construction.

I'm rather

sorry that the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), Mr. Chairman. has

left the House. This afternoon he was so sincere and philosophical,

almost Socratic in delivering such an illogical and irrelevant

dissertation. He questioned the Premier about philosophy and then, just

to give you an example, he asked questions like this: "When are we

going to hear from the Premier? When are we going to hear about what he

thinks? When are we going to be able to share some of the views of the

Premier?" This was after the Premier had spent considerable time in the

last day or so explaining philosophy, policies, practices, achievements

and programs. But certainly I can see why the member for Prince Rupert

couldn't understand all this. His party is high on philosophy, but when

it came time to show some evidence of policies that make that

philosophy work, disaster was the result.

The Leader of the

Opposition spent considerable time, Mr. Chairman, criticizing the

Premier for not answering questions. He also spent time saying that the

Premier asked his own questions and gave his own answers. He spent a

good deal of his speech asking his own questions and answering them

with very simple answers. We had...well, I

[ Page 410 ]

was

going to say creating dragons, but perhaps I should say we had ample

evidence of creating great big mosquitoes and then, right before our

eyes, slaying them. He went on and made much of the fewer foreign

takeovers during his term. Certainly we've witnessed that in our area,

Mr. Chairman, because nobody was prepared to invest in British Columbia

at that time. Certainly foreign money was not buying anything in

British Columbia at that time.

I am also going to take this

opportunity to refer briefly again to the Leader of the Opposition, who

on numerous occasions has made reference to my previous occupation as a

principal. He seems to be obsessed with this. He must have had a

problem when he was in school. He must have spent so much time at the

office that something or other bothers him. Since I can't hide my

previous occupation, I thought perhaps I might play the role.

decided to rate the opposition leader for his performance this

afternoon. I could only give him a B for delivery, because he was not

his usual jovial self. I started out giving him an A for confidence,

but I took that down to a C-minus after the Premier had pointed to his

errors in the Mexican gas crisis and the interprovincial migration

figures. I started out with a C-plus for content, but I had to take

that down to a D, considering all the errors he made. I must admit I

had to stay with an A-plus for the courage he showed in the face of

overwhelming evidence. Near the end of his talk, he again criticized

the BCRIC program in the face of the overwhelming vote of confidence

the people of this province had given him — that takes courage.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

MR. BARBER:

I don't see the Premier anywhere. Has he left town tonight? I move the

committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 21

Macdonald

Barrett

King

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Lea

Lorimer

Leggatt

Howard

Levi

Sanford

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Barber

Wallace

Gabelmann

Hanson

Passarell

NAYS — 29

Waterland

Nielsen

Chabot

McClelland

Williams

Hewitt

Mair

Vander Zalm

Heinrich

Ritchie

Strachan

Brummet

Ree

Segarty

Curtis

McCarthy

Phillips

Gardom

Bennett

Wolfe

McGeer

Fraser

Jordan

Kempf

Davis

Davidson

Smith

Mussallem

Hyndman

Mr. Barber requested that leave be asked to have the division recorded in

the Journals of the House.

MR. BARBER:

I wanted to see the Premier back in his seat, handling his own

estimates, as he should. It's an ancient parliamentary device, much

employed by the Liberal leader in days of yore. I'm sure he's familiar

with it.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: Never! I used to be in the galleries, and I saw you do it, Pat.

I'd

like to raise four questions of policy and within each of them ask a

few questions. But I'd first of all like to discuss the question of the

Premier's comments the night he announced the election. I too strongly

share the feelings of my colleagues about the disgusting remark and the

disgusting reference made to national socialism in connection with our

own party.

The only New Democrat I've ever met who was

pleased that the Premier accused us of being national socialists was my

own campaign manager. He said it was good for 500 votes for us in

Victoria. As it happens, we have a great many war vets in Victoria.

Many of them voted NDP or CCF and went overseas to protect this country

and were insulted very deeply by a Premier who could be so callous or

so stupid or so much both, as usual, as to accuse them and us of being

national socialists. So on behalf of my campaign manager, the only New

Democrat I know who welcomed that idiotic remark of the Premier, I

thank him for giving us 500 more votes in Victoria. I do not thank him

for fouling the record of genuinely democratic socialists around the

world, who fought probably harder than anyone else against Nazism in

Europe and Nazism in its forms in other parts of the world. As hard as

anyone else they fought.

The Premier's remarks were either

the product of a hopeless dunce who doesn't know history or a man who

chose for the narrowest and unhealthiest of reasons to inflame the

temper of the electorate the night he called the election. No good came

of it; you lost support. Your own members — the more decent of them —

were embarrassed. At least one MLA sitting opposite, to my certain

knowledge, apologized for what you said during the campaign. It was a

disgusting comment; it served no good or decent purpose. A good and

decent man would apologize for it, and I ask you to do so tonight. You

apologize for it tonight and we'll never raise the subject again.

Continue, as did the former Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy)

with her trash about secret police forces, and we will remind her — and

you — from time to time about those untruths and about the motivations

behind the telling of them.

The second comment I want to

make is to share the comments made by my colleague for Comox (Ms.

Sanford). You made a promise to do a charitable, good thing for the

children of a country that fought a civil war for 26 years. You made a

promise, as did this whole Legislature, to do a decent and civilized

thing in another part of the world. It was a good promise when you made

it; it will be all the better when you keep it. I ask you: will you

keep that promise? The whole Legislature made it. Through them, the

whole people of British Columbia stood for something fine and

compassionate a few years ago. You made the promise yourself again, as

my colleague from Comox reminded all of us tonight. Will you keep the

promise? If you'll do so, when?

Interjection.

[ Page 411 ]

MR. BARBER:

So what? Because some small portion of greed, some small element of

selfishness, some narrow circle of self-interest says, "No, don't give

the money away somewhere else, spend it here on us," does that make it

right or fair? Do you justify your policies on the basis of having a

dozen calls on a hotline show and eight went against you, so suddenly

the policy has to be changed?

It was a fine promise when it

was made; it was a promise first stated by your own now Minister of

Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams). Why don't you keep it? Why aren't you big

enough to keep it? Why aren't you decent enough to keep it? You

yourself said it was a promise made not in a partisan spirit, but a

promise made more subtle and more humanely than partisan politics is

ever able to represent. You said it yourself, Mr. Premier. If you meant

it then, mean it now. If you meant it before, do it now. That's the

second question I put to you.

The third is in reply to what

I think was the most well-done, well-researched and well-presented

government speech of the day, and that was by the member for North

Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis). His own attempts to get into cabinet are

at least not as hopelessly sycophantic as are those of some others who

also want to get into the cabinet. The member for North

Vancouver–Seymour made a presentation about the nature of an energy

policy, about the extent to which, if at all, it should be tied to a

two-tiered or two-priced system. The member for North Vancouver–Seymour

made, I think, the best speech we've heard from the government all day,

or perhaps all week. One may not necessarily agree with the details and

the particulars of every one of his conclusions. But you have to admire

the man's intellect, the depth and the quality of his research, the

ability of its presentation. Were other government members as able, it

would be a more interesting debate.

I want to talk about

some of the questions he raised, and add to them some of my own

questions to the Premier about aspects of policy and instruments of

policy in the energy field.

I'm not aware — nor did the

member for North Vancouver–Seymour do other than infer it was — that it

was the original intention of PetroCan to put out of business all the

other petrochemical extractors, processors, refiners and distributors

in Canada. I've read the legislation, and that's not what PetroCan was

established to do. I don't know if he intended to leave that inference,

but did he, and were he here now, I'm sure he'd correct it. That wasn't

the purpose of PetroCan.

PetroCan serves a very different, a

very distinct, and a very bright policy purpose. I'I get back to that

in a moment, but I want to raise in the form of a question, before I

return to PetroCan as a particular illustration of a policy, some other

matters.

Government has, in its wealth of options, several

that can create for us here in British Columbia, and across the country

as well, instruments that make public choice. Let me illustrate.

Government can, if it will, protecting our own energy interests, needs

and commitments, use taxation as the principal instrument of public

policy. It can restrict its whole activity to taxation, if it wishes.

It can combine that, if it chooses, with a tariff and duty policy that

gives preferential treatment to Canadian consumers, or could, if it

were done, give some preference to non-Canadian consumers by virtue of

a pricing policy that failed, or was so slow or so clumsy that it

didn't take into account rapidly changing world market conditions.

Those are some of the options a government has. They have the option of

creating import and export pricing systems in energy, and in other

fields. They can do that, too. Taxation, tariffs and duties, import and

export pricing are among the several choices that a government could

examine when it comes to protecting interests of Canadian consumers,

Canadian investors in a world market where, to say the least, Canada

has always been at a disadvantage by geography, the cost of extracting

these resources, and the numbers of our people.

There is

another option and that option is public ownership. It's not an option

much dealt with by the member for North Vancouver–Seymour. It's an

option, it would appear, only dimly understood by the Premier.

If,

in the energy field in Canada, we were dealing with a situation where

the basic resources, the basic refining capacity and the basic

distribution network were not owned 90 percent and more by foreigners,

it would be fairly hard to make a case for public ownership in that

same field. But the unhappy fact is this: in Canada we have stupidly

allowed foreign ownership to take advantage and control of better than

90 percent of the petrochemical and refining industry. Surely no one is

going to dispute that. It's been a matter of unhappy public record for

a long time.

What is a government that cares to protect the

interests of Canadian consumers and Canadian investors to do when

confronted with that? Let me reiterate: they have the options of

taxation, of tariffs and duties, of import- and export-pricing systems.

They also have the option — theoretically, at least — of public

ownership to some extent for some purpose. It's not an option that this

Premier seems to comprehend. I wish he did, because it's an option that

many other capitalist, mixed economy and many other democratic

socialist nations have chosen around the world. They've done so for

perfectly good and rational purposes. They have not always succeeded.

Public ownership is a very difficult thing, and I'I get to that in a

moment, if I may.

Public ownership can and does create, by

itself, enormous problems: problems of management and accountabilit;,

problems of proportion, when it comes to its place in the market;

problems of accountability to the trustees of all the people, say a

Legislature like this. Public ownership has many problems in its

execution, but it does remain, all the same, one of the fundamental

choices that a competent administration can make to protect Canadian

and British Columbian interests.

It's a choice that this

government seems not to know much about. save in those rare instances

where they were lucky enough to inherit a really fine public

corporation. I think, for instance, of the B.C. Petroleum Corporation

created by the previous administration. They've been wise enough not to

change it. It works. Good for them; they've had the wisdom to ignore

their own nonsense when in opposition, and they've kept it in

government.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: We'll talk about ICBC as well in a moment.

any case, I want, if I may, to keep it to debate about the role, if

any, of competent public ownership in the energy field. Now if it were

not the case that the Canadian energy industry, using the term

generically, is 90 percent owned by foreigners whose interests are not

Canadian, but

[ Page 412 ]

foreign,

whose loyalties are not Canadian, but foreign, whose decision-making is

not Canadian, but foreign, then it would be hard to make the case for

some considered and appropriate public ownership in the energy field.

Our energy industry is owned and controlled by aliens, persons whose

fundamental loyalty, conviction and commitment is not to Canada.

AN HON. MEMBER: A racist remark.

MR. BARBER:

I use "alien" in the sense of Canadian law that distinguishes between

Canadian citizens and those who are not. Did you know that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Perhaps the debate would be more in order if you would address the Chair.

MR. BARBER:

It certainly would, Mr. Chairman. If the whole engine of the Canadian

economy is fundamentally resource extraction and processing, if we

remain a country of such a tiny population in such an enormous area,

then is it not possible to consider for just a moment that the ancient,

conventional and ordinary options presented by taxation, tariffs and

duties, import and export prices, are simply limited? Is it not

possible to think originally for once? Is it not possible to conceive

that we may have something to learn from the other great democracies

that have experimented with forms of public ownership in the energy

field?

AN HON. MEMBER: Like the Arabs.

MR. BARBER:

It would certainly appear that the Arabs are managing and controlling

their own energy resources and their energy interests better than we

are. It may not be in our interest, but it certainly appears to be in

their own. By that particular standard and measure, their policy would

appear to be more successful than ours. They serve their own interests

better than we seem to know how to serve ours. It's fundamental to ask

always in whose interest decisions are made. It's one of the bedrock

necessities of public policy debate that you always ask first, and then

again at the end, in whose interests are decisions made.

I'm

glad the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) is back. I

would like to reiterate that I think you gave the best government

speech we've heard all week. Congratulations to you. It was an

intellectually disciplined and analytic speech, and I think that's a

good and welcome thing. It was certainly a speech we never expect to

hear from the Premier. He spoke in whole sentences; the whole sentences

became whole paragraphs; the whole paragraphs had structure and formed

whole arguments. We're not likely to see such intellectual discipline

from this grammarian Premier we have.

Let's talk about the

role, if any, of public ownership in the field of energy. Part of the

debate that's going to take place is on the distinction, practical and

applied, theoretical and understood, between public ownership and

public control. Let me illustrate. All of the people are presumed to

own B.C. Hydro, and yet one reasonably has to ask whether or not Hydro

is in every aspect accountable to all of the people through this place.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: When Candide makes your notes for you and Jim helps, perhaps you could reply. Until then, would you listen?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BARBER:

Hydro is in a very significant way a failure of public ownership. Hydro

is a failure of public ownership, because we seem not to have learned

the ways in which public ownership becomes public control acting in the

public interest. If ever there could be illustrated a problem with

applied public ownership in the energy field, it is that of Hydro

itself in British Columbia.

A further problem, however, is

raised: the ancient debate of babies and bathwater. Do you want to

throw out the whole thing? It's probably not appropriate to do so.

There may be new ways of governing Hydro, new ways of breaking up its

decision-making, new ways of recreating accountability that would allow

us to get the best of both worlds. So too with PetroCan, surely. So too

with any other public enterprise. If the problem is lack of control,

lack of genuine accountability on the part of that public enterprise to

the public interest, then what new forms can be created? What new

devices and structures can be applied?

In other parts of the

world, the new structures are already in place. We've debated in other

estimates the role of worker participation, the role of co-determinism,

and the role of what is occasionally referred to as industrial

democracy in recreating and restating and at another level in another

and more subtle way genuine public control of this public enterprise.

PetroCan

lacks that altogether. At the moment, PetroCan has no such operating

principle; neither does Hydro. Hydro fails as an instrument of public

ownership to the extent that it fails to be accountable to all the

people. I suppose that's almost axiomatic. But the questions raised by

the member for North Vancouver–Seymour don't necessarily lend

themselves to the answers provided by the member for North

Vancouver–Seymour.

If the law is inadequate, you make it a

better law; you don't abandon the use of law altogether. If the

legislation that created PetroCan is not adequate to the purpose, you

amend the legislation. You don't throw it out altogether. If PetroCan

doesn't serve enough of the Canadian interest because it doesn't occupy

enough of the share of the marketplace, you don't privatize PetroCan.

You make it larger. You make it more appropriate. You give it more

weight, more leverage and more power. That may be one way that you

solve the problem. That may be one way you answer the questions posed

by the member for North Vancouver–Seymour.

If the failure of

PetroCan is that it cannot have enough influence in a field where 90

percent of the ownership of our energy is alien, then maybe part of the

answer is to make PetroCan larger and more influential. There are many

models to public ownership. Creating a Crown corporation is not the

only model at hand. There are new forms of public enterprise; there are

new kinds of public ownership. PetroCan was one and still is one until

Mr. Clark and the current government find a clever way to dispose of it.

MR. LEA: Free shares.

MR. BARBER: Yes, free shares in PetroCan.

[ Page 413 ]

What

a shame it would be if we were to dispose of and discard the only

serious attempt ever made by the people of Canada to control their own

energy industry. What a shameful thing that would be to have to turn

around in 20 years' time, when it's all owned by foreigners, when they

control the price, they make the policy, they determine the investment,

they determine where the drilling takes place and they determine what

we'll pay for our own resources. What a shame if we had to admit that 20

years earlier we were so dumb and blind as to let it fall apart, as to

negotiate it away, as to sell it to the Premier of a province who wants

to tie it into a resource portfolio for his own political interests.

That would be a purposeless and dumb thing to do.

The

member for North Vancouver–Seymour raised some really important

questions about the problems of a two-price system. He asked,

reasonably enough, why it should apply to energy alone. Could it not

also apply to salmon? Could it not apply to the agricultural industry

generally? Could it not apply to lumber and so on? Those are fair

questions. Maybe, in fact, two-pricing finally is not the most

appropriate solution to the problem of an utter lack of Canadian

ownership and Canadian control in the energy industry. Maybe the

traditional and ordinary forms of public ownership aren't the answer

either. There may be new forms of public ownership already being

experimented with in other great democracies that point some of the way

and offer some of the direction.

The law, in the ordinary

sense, can never be adequate to explain, to envision and to create some

marvelous view of the way the world could work if we were only all

fair. I think, for instance, of a fine poem — I am sure the member for

North Vancouver–Seymour knows it — by W.H. Auden. Mr. Auden was a great

Anglo-Canadian poet; he was a great political thinker; he was a man who

had some understanding of the limitations of law as an expression of

the human spirit. As part of the philosophic debate — well and

appropriately raised by my colleague for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), and

to some extent handled by the member for North Vancouver–Seymour — I

want to talk about, and I would appreciate the Premier's reply, whether

or not in the field of energy policy, in the debate about public

ownership, in the original thinking that must take place about new

forms of public ownership, some of the questions raised, if I don't do

it well enough, by a guy like Auden might be of some value.

would remind the Premier that Mr. Auden was one of the socialists who

struggled a while in a country called Spain. He was in the ambulance

brigade, in his case — he was a pacifist — but he was a socialist who

cared about what happened to human beings. I'm sure the comments about

national socialism would offend him as well.

Auden wrote a

poem called "Law Like Love". He tried to raise the philosophic problem

of how love as a human principle becomes law as a governing principle

in a democracy.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. I'm having some difficulty in relating the poems of W.H. Auden to the estimates of the Premier.

MR. BARBER:

The Premier is the principal lawmaker in British Columbia. If the

Premier's vision of law is as narrow and ordinary and banal as it

appears to be, then there's something wrong with the Premier. We won't

pass his estimates until he takes a new look at the nature of law in a

democracy. Is it possible that law can mean more than a simple statute?

Is it possible that law as a human principle can mean more than an

order-in-council? Is it possible that law has another complexion in

democratic human governance? If it's possible, then what form should

that law take? Let me talk about law as one of the great political

thinkers of our century, W. H. Auden, saw it. I think it's fair to

refer to other political authorities and, in this case, a most poetical

one:

Law, say the gardeners, is the sun.

Law is the one

All gardeners obey

Tomorrow, yesterday, today.

Law is the wisdom of the old

The impotent grandfathers shrilly scold;

The grandchildren put out a treble tongue,

Law is the senses of the young.

Law, says the priest with a priestly look,

Expounding to an unpriestly people,

Law is the words in my priestly book,

Law is my pulpit and my steeple.

Law, says the judge as he looks down his nose,

Speaking clearly and most severely,

Law is as I've told you before,

Law is as you know I suppose,

Law is but let me explain once more,

Law is The Law.

Yet law-abiding scholars write;

Law is neither wrong nor right,

Law is only crimes

Punished by places and by times,

Law is the clothes men wear

Anytime, anywhere,

Law is Good-morning and Good-night.

Others say, Law is our Fate;

Others say, Law is our State;

Others say, others say

Law is no more. Law is gone away.

And always the loud angry crowd

Very angry and very loud

Law is We,

And always the soft idiot softly Me.

If I no more than you

Know what we should and should not do

Except that all agree

Gladly or miserably

That the law is

And that all know this.

If therefore thinking it absurd

To identify Law with some other word,

Unlike so many men

I cannot say Law is again.

No more than they can we suppress

The universal wish to guess

Or slip out of our own position

Into an unconcerned conditiontion

[ Page 414 ]

Although I can at least confine

Your vanity and mine

To stating timidly

A timid similarity,

We shall boast anyway:

Like love I say.

Like love we don't know where or why

Like love we can't compel or fly

Like love we often weep

Like love we seldom keep.

AN HON. MEMBER: Beautiful!

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please! If we are to assume that the entire universe is in the

realm of the responsibility of the Premier's office, then I presume

that everything is available for debate under this particular estimate.

However, regarding reading of poetry, the Chair has great difficulty. I

appreciate the member might like to read poetry, but I have difficulty

relating it to the Premier's estimates. Please proceed.

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: It says something more self-damning than those dummies will ever know.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I must ask you to withdraw the unparliamentary language.

MR. BARBER:

I withdraw the word "dummies" — a vicious attack. I apologize. I will

say: than those well-educated people opposite will ever know.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:57 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1979,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada