1974 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, MARCH 4, 1974

Night Sitting

[ Page 775 ]

CONTENTS

Night sitting. Routine proceedings. Committee of Supply: Premier's estimates.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 775

Mr. Fraser — 775

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 778

Mr. Wallace — 781

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 790

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: PREMIER'S OFFICE

(continued)

On vote 2: Premier's office, $202,100.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Chairman, on the question of

the purchase of the B.C. Telephone shares and the Bank of B.C.

shares, I have the record and the dates and what company we

dealt through. If the House wishes I can have that photostatted

and filed.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): No grizzlies tonight, Mr.

Chairman.

I'm happy to take

part in the debate on the Premier's

estimates this evening. I'd like to touch on one subject that

hasn't been raised yet today, and that's the subject of the

Premier's salary. I would like to inform the press, who don't

like to be informed about their errors, but who have constantly

referred to the Premier's salary as being $52,000 a year, that

in my arithmetic, pertaining to the Premier's department before

us, his salary is a gross of $72,000 a year.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Rubbish!

MR. FRASER: Well, I'll break it down for you, Mr. Provincial

Secretary. I realize your arithmetic is not very good, so I'll

help you.

He gets $28,000 a year as the Premier and Minister of

Finance, he gets $24,000 a year as the MLA for Coquitlam, and

also in the vote we are discussing he gets $20,000 a year as

travelling expenses. All I say to you is that my arithmetic

adds that up to $72,000 a year gross.

I would like to make the other observation that he has six

or seven very intelligent and highly paid assistants — one at

$27,000, one or two at $21,000 or $22,000, and three or four

at $17,000 or $18,000.

The only observation that I'd like to make, Mr. Chairman, on

these is that I realize that that Premier needs this kind of

help, but I don't see why the public purse has to pay for all

this assistance, as they are doing now. I think that out of the

enormous salary that the Premier is deriving from the public

purse, part of his assistants' salary should come.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): How much of the

$70,000 is expenses? You haven't looked that up.

MR. FRASER: All I know is that there's $72,000 gross

available to the Premier's office.

I would say that he's the highest-paid politician on the North American continent, and exceeds the Prime Minister of

Canada by quite a lot. I doubt that he earns that kind of a

salary.

I would like to go back to the remarks of the Leader of the

Opposition (Mr. Bennett) this afternoon where he referred to

the account of public business. Mr. Chairman, I don't want to

get into the chicken-and-egg war and I don't intend to.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, does the Member want the

MLAs' salary cut in half? (Laughter.)

MR. FRASER: I didn't say that. I hope that I conveyed that

the Premier of the province isn't worth three times the salary

that an MLA is worth — that's what I tried to convey.

HON. MR. BARRETT: We'll cut the MLAs' salaries.

MR. FRASER: I would like to refer back, Mr. Chairman, to the

Leader of the Opposition's remarks about the Premier's conduct

in public business, particularly in business ventures. I still

think a public inquiry is needed on behalf of the government to

clear their name, for their protection as well as the

protection of all the people of this province.

I want to quickly get to what disturbs me the most in the

Premier's jurisdiction, and that's the operation of the British

Columbia Railroad. I'm happy to see the vice-president of the

railroad here this evening. I consider him a good operator, but

he's operating under very difficult policies.

I would like to review the operation of that public railroad

owned by the people of the province for the last five years. I

will start off with the fiscal year ending December 31, 1969,

when the railroad reported a net profit of $764,000-odd. In the

year ending of December 30, 1970, it showed an operating profit

of $896,000. In the year ending December 31, 1971, it showed an

operating profit of $989,000-odd. In the year 1972, ending

December 31, there was a further profit of $992,000-odd.

You will see, Mr. Chairman, that by those four years ending

1969, 1970, 1971, and 1972, this railroad showed an operating

profit each year starting at the low of $764,000 and ending

with a high in December, 1972, of $992,000. In other words, in

each of these operating years it showed that continuing

operating profit.

[ Page 776 ]

All of a sudden, Mr. Chairman, in 1973, ending December 31,

which has just recently been reported, we have a sudden

reversal. Unfortunately for the people of this province, it's a

very sad reversal. After the four years where they made an

operating culminative profit of $3.6 million, we have in the

one ending December 31, 1973, a net loss — I repeat, Mr.

Chairman, a net loss — of $3.3 million-odd.

What has really happened, Mr. Chairman, is that the profits

they made in the four years of 1969, 1970, 1971, and 1972, are

almost wiped out by the operating loss of 1973. This is very

significant, in my opinion. As the Premier told us this

afternoon — and reminds us every chance he gets — 1973 was one

of the best economic years in the history of this province. I

can't understand why this is not related and has not been

related to the operations of the British Columbia Railroad.

It has been further pointed out that the accounting for the

railroad hasn't changed. There's been no change there. There

certainly has been some change somewhere and I suggest to you,

Mr. Chairman, it happened at the executive level; we definitely

had a change and that was their first full year in charge. I

refer to the president as the Premier, and one of the

vice-presidents was the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) and

still is. I suggest to you that this is the only area that

changed in the public railroad. Therefore, as far as I'm

concerned, they'll have to accept the responsibility for the

change in picture of the operating results of the railroad.

The other alarming thing, Mr. Chairman, about this is that

when the 1973 loss was reported, only recently, the executive

vice-president and the man in charge of operations didn't make

any excuses for that loss but further rubbed salt in the wound

and said: "Expect another loss for the operating year 1974." I

ask: what is going on? Imagine budgeting for a railroad that

has always made an operating profit. All of a sudden it goes

into a loss and now they're anticipating and giving up and

predicting a further loss for the year we're in right now, the

calendar year 1974.

I would like also to comment on the existing car shortage

which I brought up today in the question period. It was

immediately brushed off by the president of the railroad and

the Premier by saying that things weren't that bad, and it

wasn't their fault, and so on and so forth.

The other remark he made was the fact that they inherited

this mess from the prior administration. I want to tell you

that the shippers on that railroad won't buy that bunch of

guff, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, Alex!

MR. FRASER: I'll admit that in 1972 and 1971 and 1970 they had a shortage

of cars for a maximum of 30 days in every year — not 12 months — 30 days in

every year. And it was correct. So what has happened?

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): Thirty days in

every month.

MR. FRASER: Thirty days in every year. Mr. Chairman, I'd

like to bring that Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley)

to order (laughter) or turn the lights on in this building so

we can see something.

Interjections.

MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I wish you would bring this unruly

mob to order, so I can get on with the serious business of the

country. (Laughter.)

Back to this rail car shortage on the BCR. At the present

time there are manufactured wood products alone on the BCR line

between Squamish and Prince George of 6,000 carloads. I refer

to lumber and plywood, manufactured, ready to ship to markets

of the world, that cannot be shipped. I don't think really, Mr.

Chairman, the president of the railroad realizes that this has

been going on now for 12 months, there is no immediate help in

sight and, the further thing that he doesn't realize apart from

the lost revenue to the BCR, is the lost revenue to all the

people of this province through taxes that the industry would

pay if they could ship these goods when the level of the market

is at the highest.

They always can get cars on the BCR when the market — and I

refer to the lumber market — is uneconomic, and as soon as it

becomes economic, the railroad cars disappear. Quite frankly,

Mr. Chairman, there is something very, very rotten in Denmark,

and as an example, in January they put all kinds of cars, empty

cars, into the BCR system over the Christmas holidays when

nobody wanted to work. They had all kinds of them, but the

market was depressed; they caught up somewhat in January, but

the market was still depressed. On February 1 the lumber

market started to increase, and it has advanced, by the way,

$40 a thousand since February 1, so it is a very lucrative

market at the moment. But do you know what, Mr. Chairman? You

can't get any rail cars at all. So what goes on?

I'll suggest I know what goes on, and I would like to hear

the president of the railroad admit it. There is absolutely no

co-operation from the CNR and the CPR as related to turning

over cars to the BCR. It gets steadily worse and every month

that goes by.

AN HON. MEMBER: We're building cars though.

MR. FRASER: I realize they are building cars, and those cars

are built in Squamish; that is a good deal. And that will help

us, or our grandchildren in 1990,

[ Page 777 ]

but it won't help us in 1974.

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): Where do you want to build them?

MR. FRASER: The other thing that I would like to mention,

while I am on the operation end of the railroad, Mr. Chairman,

is that it was some two years ago in this Legislature that I

sat here and almost voted with the opposition of that day, to

change the name of the railroad from Pigs Go East to the BCR — British Columbia Railroad. But in any event it changed, about

two years ago now, and the people in the Interior are quite

incensed at the management of this railroad, that at their main

stations — their station areas — PGE Railroad is still painted

across these old buildings.

Now I am not recommending that they put on special paint

programmes. This was discussed when the name was changed. It

would gradually work over. But why give priority to a flatcar

when you have these main station buildings in towns like

Williams Lake and Quesnel, where thousands of people are

driving by them every day, and look up and look at PGE, two

years after we changed the name? I don't think this is good

enough and, Mr. Chairman, if they can't afford the paint, maybe

the Premier will donate it to them, and they will donate the

labour to put it on their own buildings. But I think it is

shameful that the buildings haven't been changed right now. My

observations are that they have done a lot better job on

changing the name on their rolling stock than they have on

their permanent buildings that are located in the very focal

centres of the Interior communities. It is a complete oversight

of management, and I would like the Premier to bring it to the

attention of the management.

Getting back to the car shortage, I want to relate a little story, Mr. Chairman,

that has been going on for 12 months, and is still going on, and I refer to

the.... I believe the name of the company is the North Central Plywood Operation

in Prince George. They are a new plywood company in the last two or three years,

and fairly successful. They are shipping a lot of product, but they can't get

any cars and, Mr. Chairman, you know where they are located — on a PGE or BCR

industrial site in Prince George. So do you know how they get cars? They phone

the CNR for cars, and they say,"We're very sorry, we can't deliver you any

cars because we haven't got any." So they say "Fine", they hang the phone up,

and the CNR at Prince George phone them back and say,"Well, we've got cars,

if you can bring your finished product over to our tracks on the other side

of town." They say,"Why should we pay for that?", and they say,"Oh, you don't

have to pay for that. We'll send cartage trucks over there to pick the plywood

up and put it on the cars that are sitting here empty, to take the traffic away."

That is going on there, and I say to you, Mr. Chairman, what

is going on? If they've got empty cars that will be loaded on

their own tracks, why can't those empties be shunted over to

the BCR industrial site for loading where the product is being

manufactured? Believe me, there is hanky panky and lots of

it.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): That Member for Fort

George (Mr. Nunweiler) sits there and says nothing.

MR. FRASER: I only emphasize this point to show the

non-co-operation that BCR is getting from the CNR and CPR.

It is about time we started playing this game with our cards

on top of the table instead of everyone being mousey-mousey and

mealy-mouthed and not wanting to talk about it. But all our

citizens of this province, it is costing them a lot of money,

and these mainlines better be brought to time. I see the

Premier brought it up at the Western Premiers' Conference the

other day, and I feel, Mr. Chairman, that the Premier is on the

right track, but he should get on an airplane, preferably

tonight, and go to Ottawa to get the Department of Transport

there to drop the hammer on the CNR and CPR, and demand the

turnover of these cars to the BCR. It is strangling the economy

of our country when it could be in excellent condition.

The other thing that I would like to emphasize, Mr.

Chairman, to the Premier, is that because of the unreliability

of the car shortage — the car situation from the railroad, the

BCR — big shippers in the Interior lumber industry have made

other arrangements. If they put 100 empties on the spot there

tomorrow, they won't use them because they can't be considered

reliable — they can't be sure they will have the cars the next

day. Consequently, they have made arrangements with truck firms

to haul the products north out of Quesnel to Prince George, and

the products out of Williams Lake south to Ashcroft. The reason

they have done this is because when they get the products

there, cars are waiting for them and there are customers who

are waiting for the product — they can quote a firm delivery

date and they can live up to their bargains.

So I say that this temporary 12 months of shortage has done

permanent damage to the operation of this railroad for years to

come. As a British Columbian once and always, I resent this,

and I think the Premier, as the president, should move in here

with all his might and get this corrected. The BCR was always a

railroad to be proud of, particularly from about 1955 to 1972.

The government of the day turned it from a Toonerville trolley

operation into a recognized railroad, and we

[ Page 778 ]

seem to be slipping back into this Toonerville trolley

operation. I resent that, due to the good people who operate

the railroad and the increased equipment they have. I think

that there are influences far beyond them that only the

president and the vice-president can get busy and correct.

I think that's about all I want to say at this point in the

Premier's estimates, except to ask a question. Are we allowed

to discuss B.C. Hydro in the Premier's estimates tonight? He, I

believe, is the fiscal agent for B.C. Hydro, and I have a few

comments about B.C. Hydro.

Mr. Chairman, I won't be long on this. Nobody has brought up

B.C. Hydro under the Premier, but I think we should. It really

ties in with the forest industry again. I refer to the waste of

products from the lumber industry that is going on today in our

province. I refer specifically to the product hog fuel. We have

a new pulp mill at Quesnel, and I am proud to say it is burning

40 per cent of the hog fuel that is produced from the mills in

that area, and it is generating its own electricity and steam.

Sixty per cent of this product is going to a junk waste pile 14

miles up the road, and they have a mammoth mountain there now

they don't know what to do with. Fifty truck loads a day are

going into it, and they don't know what is going to happen.

They are dealing with the Minister of Lands and Forests through

the Pollution Control Board for an extended permit, and of

course they will have to have it.

My point is that B.C. Hydro has been approached to put in a

generating plant to burn this hog fuel and generate electricity

out of it. That great tsar that this government hired, David

Cass-Beggs, said, "We don't know what you are talking about,

and we are not interested." I say to the Premier, and to the

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A.

Williams), get cracking here. We supposedly have an energy

crisis, and here is an opportunity to resolve a real major

problem, in transportation, energy, and everything else, and

convert it to a proper use that our citizens can use. Quite

frankly, the citizens aren't interested in whether that power

generated from hog fuel is going to cost 10 or 15 mills. If you

have a very small amount of that fuel fed into the overall

Hydro system, it is not going to have a two per cent increase

effect on the generating capacity of B.C. Hydro.

I suggest to the Premier, the Minister of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources told David Cass-Beggs to run the sawmill

industry out of the Hydro office, and so did the Minister of

Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer). He is not here. I thought

he was asleep in his seat, but he is not here at all.

(Laughter.)

You know, I have to catch people when I can, and the Premier

is here as the fiscal agent for Hydro. I leave that with you;

that is one observation that I have on Hydro. With that, thank

you very much for listening.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that the

questions on Hydro be directed to one of board members. I'm not

familiar with the particulars of the hog fuel. Is that still in

British Columbia? Yes, it still is. It's still a provincial

problem and it's not in the presidency or the republic of the

Cariboo.

MR. FRASER: If you'll turn it back to us, we'll look after

it in half an hour.

HON. MR. BARRETT: All right, Chairman Fraser of the Republic

of Cariboo, we'll look into it.

MR. CHABOT: Which Minister?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Either the Minister of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) or the Minister of

Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer).

Mr. Chairman, I want to review our car acquisition since mid

1973. We purchased 1,000 bulkhead flats from the Hawker-Siddley

Company; 800 of them have been delivered to date and the

remaining are coming at eight a day. Total price was $14,800 a

car. We had to buy these, Mr. Member, through you, Mr.

Chairman. That's a lot of money.

Now we had 500 bulkhead flats leased from Procar on a

five-year lease — 500 cars from Foss Tug & Launching, 500

cars acquired by BCR leased to shippers — and 1,800

shipper-lease cars, plus the new plant in Squamish.

Mr. Chairman, I think the government has done everything we

possibly could including the construction of the new car

plant.

In terms of what the Member said about the CPR and CNR, I

want to say that this is the second time in the history of our

relationship, through you, Mr. Chairman, that I find I'm in

agreement with him. The first time was when you denounced Phil

Gaglardi. That was in 1972 during the election campaign, and

that saved your riding, Mr. Member. You did the wise thing; by

denouncing Phil Gaglardi you got elected.

Now you're denouncing the CNR and the CPR — and when in

doubt, Mr. Member, always kick the CPR. But in this instance,

Mr. Member, I think you're getting very, very close to the

bone. When we came to office we had agreed in cabinet that we

would co-operate as much as possible with the federal

government.

We had a meeting with Mr. Marchand and Mr. Jamieson. Present

for the government of British Columbia were the Minister of

Lands and Forests (HON. R.A. Williams) and myself to discuss

northern development, the route of the BCR and co-operation

with the CNR.

We signed the agreement in principle referred to by the

Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) this

[ Page 779 ]

afternoon. I made it clear that if we weren't satisfied with

the detailed terms, we would not follow through.

Mr. Member, I've had reports, verified reports, exactly of

the nature that you've complained on tonight, where shippers

have phoned to the BCR, have asked for cars, were told there

were none available. They phoned the CNR; the CNR would say:

"There are no cars available that we can put on the track, but

if you ship your lumber by truck to one of our loading sites,

we'll provide you with a boxcar."

Well, Mr. Member, when I first heard these reports, I had

some serious doubts that this was actually taking place. But

evidence gathered, despite denials of the CNR, tended to

indicate that that indeed was the case, and that led to my

statement you referred to at the Western Economic Conference.

Now I'm extremely disappointed that I must share with you your

concern. It is my firm opinion now that the CNR is deliberately

withholding cars from the BCR.

MR. CHABOT: You caused the problem.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The problem, Mr. Member, has been caused,

in my opinion, not because of the 5 per cent tax, because we

find conversely, as much as I hate to admit this, that the CPR

is co-operating at a better level than the CNR is. It's very

hard for me as a CCF — NDPer to say publicly that the privately

owned CPR is co-operating at a better level — not perfect, but

at a better level — with the BCR than is the publicly owned

CNR. It appears that the bureaucrats, Mr. Member, should not be

blamed. It is the politicians at the end of the bureaucrats who

must have full responsibility for either ordering or not

ordering that certain things be done.

There's no question in my mind that Mr. Jamieson has been

very sincere in his efforts with us, and I also think that Mr.

Marchand has too. But I do not believe that Mr. Marchand is

fully aware of the games that are being played by the CNR.

I want to announce tonight that if the CNR continues this

type of activity with the government of British Columbia, we

will not go through with the agreement in principle, because

the CNR has not shown good faith up to this point.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): That's really going to

hurt their feelings.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, it may hurt their feelings, Mr.

Member, but they will lose an opportunity of co-operative

development of this province. It means that, if necessary, we

will go it alone as the Province of British Columbia. And, Mr.

Member, if we do go it alone, it will be on British Columbia's

terms.

MR. SMITH: You sold us out.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, we sold out nothing.

MR. SMITH: You sold us out.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Sold out what?

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): You lost us $47

million.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What $47 million, Mr. Member? There was an

opportunity to gain $200 million worth of co-operation with the

federal government, and I made it clear this afternoon that we

would go back and ask for the money that they never gave

anyway.

I still believe there is room for co-operation between the

provincial government and Ottawa. I don't believe that it is

the intention of the federal Liberal Party to allow this

situation to develop. I don't believe that it is the conscious

decision of any politician in Ottawa to place the CNR in this

position of squeezing the BCR. If I thought for a minute that

was the case, then I would subscribe to the old argument and

the old clich that there would be a case for western

alienation.

I still don't believe that this is a deliberate federal

policy. But I don't think that Mr. Marchand, after all of our

pleas, understands the seriousness of this situation.

It also means, Mr. Chairman....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, I sent wires. I sent wires to

Burbridge of the CP. I must say, Mr. Member, that I don't feel

it's a deliberate policy by the federal Liberal Party. I don't

believe that. But I just don't believe that the Minister

understands the consequences of these kinds of actions.

There is the question of the Clinton-Ashcroft cutoff. The

CNR wants to co-operate on that. We want to co-operate too, but

we have to seriously consider, in the best interests of the

Interior lumber producers, that if the CNR continues to act the

way they are, as the Member reported tonight, we'll have to

seriously consider either going through the Clinton-Ashcroft

cutoff our self or with the CPR.

Now I'm not suggesting any threats. I'm suggesting that it's

reached the point....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Member, you can interpret it any

way you want.

[ Page 780 ]

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, we have to do what we have to

do and the federal government has to do what they have to do.

But the problem outlined by the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser)

is right on, and the report that he brought in tonight is not

fancy. It substantiates reports that we've had as well.

We're not throwing up our hands and making a wild attack on

the federal Liberal government in terms of western alienation.

I say again, I don't believe this is a conscious decision on

the part of Mr. Marchand, but we have seen precious little

action in terms of directives by the Minister to the CN to live

up to their agreements to get those cars to the BCR.

As shippers on the line, our customers have told us these

incidents, and our customers also get very angry. They're B.C.

residents too and they want the B.C. railroad to work well. But

if they're told by a CNR official, "We haven't got a car for

you, but you load up on a truck and bring it over here and

we've got a car for you," then no one could suggest that

would be federal policy. It must be a decision made somewhere

down the line.

Well, the politicians have a responsibility to correct it,

Mr. Member, and that's the point I am making.

I'm making the accusation that the Minister is aware of this

and has taken no action to this date — Mr. Marchand.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Has no power to act? Well, Mr. Member, if

Mr. Marchand has no power to act in terms of the CNR, then why

did he sign the agreement in principle on behalf of the CNR

with this government?

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Member, I say to you that the

CNR does have a responsibility and I am hopeful that Mr.

Marchand will meet that responsibility by telling the CNR to

live up to it.

They are jeopardizing the co-operation that we want to have

in northern development.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I believe the CNR is an instrument or an

extension of the federal government. No publicly owned

corporation should act autonomously from the government and no

corporation should be left to its own devices. Any federal

government or provincial government that said that was the way

it would be, ad infinitum, is not meeting its

responsibilities.

The responsibility of the Minister is to determine whether or not the complaints

from the Government of British Columbia and the Interior lumber operators are

valid or not. When we get reports that Interior producers can phone the CNR

and have a truck come and pick up their lumber and put it on the CNR boxcar,

but that boxcar won't be turned over to BCR, then that feeds the flames of western....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Will you table the

telegrams?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, I'll table the telegrams and

information, Mr. Member, certainly.

So, Mr. Member, that's the second time I am in agreement

with you. Once when you renounced Gaglardi and now when you've

pointed out the problem with the boxcars.

In terms of operating costs, when we face the cost of

interest and depreciation on the Fort Nelson extension, our

operating costs will rise dramatically. That Fort Nelson

extension was authorized by the previous administration and we

think it's a good one. But let's face the fact: once making

that commitment, there will be interest and depreciation

because there won't be that much revenue immediately on the

Fort Nelson extension.

The argument used by the former government is the one that

we accepted when we voted for every single bond issue for the

BCR — PGE as it was then — that it is an economic-development

railroad and the money put into the railroad was good for the

Province of British Columbia. So when we face those costs,

those costs are valid on the basis of an argument we had and

agreed with in opposition, and we agree with while we are in

government.

Now in terms of painting, Mr. Member, it was the policy of

the former administration to say that because of the costs they

would gradually catch up on the painting. Well, Mr. Member, I

will ask the new vice president to speed up the painting,

especially in the Cariboo.

MR. FRASER: Of the buildings.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Of the buildings. Especially in the

Cariboo, because no matter what you may do, we will still be

known as B.C. inside the Cariboo — through the railroad.

I want to say also that yes, the Member for Fort George (Mr.

Nunweiler) sent an extensive letter to Mr. Marchand on the

boxcar shortage and Senator Perreault said he was going to look

into it and correct it. As a matter of fact, Senator Perreault

announced after he looked into it that 1,000 bulkhead flats

were on their way. Those are the ones that we bought. I had to

phone Ray Perreault and tell him. It's not the first time I had

to help Ray. I tried to give him advice in the leadership race,

I was wrong. I told him to hang on. He's better off than the

bunch of you right now.

[ Page 781 ]

MR. G.B. GARDOM (West Vancouver – Point Grey): Order!

(Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, excuse me, judge. (Laughter.)

So, Mr. Member, we'll try and contact Mr. Marchand.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Now we know.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Before I sit down, I would like the House

to recognize Mr. Mac Norris, who is the new vice-president of

operations. Mr. Norris came to the railroad some years ago

after 24 years experience, some of which was with the CPR. He

was the regional manager of operations with the PGE and

latterly with the BCR, then the general manager of operations,

then the vice-president of operations, and now is the new

vice-president of the railroad. He is a professional

railroader, and most of us here are amateurs.

MR. WALLACE: I enjoyed the Premier's comments. In debating

the estimates of the Premier and Minister of Finance, I don't

think we should rehash the budget debate although it is

important, I think, to recapitulate the general philosophy of

this party in relation to the budget. I heard the speech from

the First Member for Vancouver – Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) today

and it just reminded me exactly of the speeches he used to make

when the former administration was in power. It was the same

speech.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver – Point Grey): Same budget.

MR. WALLACE: Different government. But anyway, the fact is

there should be no mistake that we are either overtaxing or

under spending. It is just that simple. There are enormous

surpluses of funds and I am not in any position to confirm or

deny the figures that the First Member for Vancouver – Point Grey

put forward. It is quite clear that the style of the present

Minister of Finance is not very different from the previous

Minister of Finance.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Shame.

MR. WALLACE: I might say that the Minister of Finance this afternoon

in one of his responsive speeches to the opposition said that if we have enough

surplus next year, "Sure, we'll look after the people in the nursing homes."

All I have to say, Mr. Chairman, is that he was making that speech in 1970.

Four years ago, when he was here in the opposition, he was saying that the money

was already in the coffers and that the Social Credit administration was ignoring

people in their elderly years who were going broke paying $600, $700, $800 a

month in a nursing home.

Don't give me that stuff, Mr. Minister of Finance. You've

got all kinds of money in the coffers right now, just like the

former administration did, and your sense of priorities is all

wrong. If you have $25 million to buy a piece of a pipeline,

surely you have a few millions, a few crumbs, to spend on

behalf of people in their elderly years who can't look after

themselves.

You are always telling us how pious we are over here. Well,

I'm saying you are rather pious and hypocritical.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Twenty-five million would do the job.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Pious.

MR. WALLACE: We don't need $25 million. I am trying to

remain objective in my seat over here. I try to look at things

in a fair, objective, critical way and I try to be

constructively critical. If that is being pious, as the

Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) says, well, I'll accept that

criticism.

All I am saying is that we are not going to rehash the

budget. But I hope for the very last time, could I make this

plea to the Minister of Finance: could he dip into that large

surplus he has?

Finally out of the library I have some of the speeches the

Premier made when he was in the opposition.

Yes, they are from Hansard , January 25th, 1971;

partial Hansard — throne speech and budget speech. There

we have Mr. D. Barrett, Monday, January 25, 1971, talking about

the Sandringham Hospital. I think, Mr. Chairman, the same

Premier might recall that I supported him by seconding his

motion on the order paper that something be done both about the

employment of people working in the hospital at less than

minimum wage and the problem of financing chronic hospital

care.

We went on and he debated this and made a great play on the

need to correct this situation, I know the Premier and the

Minister of Finance as a humanitarian, and he believes these

people should receive better treatment. All I am saying — and I

hope, Mr. Chairman, for the very last time — is let's have some

action now that the Minister of Finance and former Leader of

the Opposition does have his hand on the money bags; let's get

in there, Mr. Minister of Finance.

I'm completely in favour of culture and physical fitness and

a few other very legitimate goals which the Minister has

supported in his budget. But, Mr. Chairman, can there be any

more deserving cause in our society today, any more single

deserving cause than the elderly citizen who becomes disabled

and

[ Page 782 ]

has no financial support from this government whatever.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: And, as the Member on my right hand says,"I

promise not to talk about the budget," so I'll leave it

there. I've covered the subject repetitively.

In the whole question of the Minister of Finance's function

in this House, one of the points which has been overlooked to a

degree is the fact that there's a considerable amount of

revenue which is to be raised after this House prorogues. Maybe

I'm just rather simple on these matters but it was always my

impression that parliament met to discuss revenue to be raised

and money to be spent.

I have to repeat, before we get onto other elements in the

Minister's department, that we are to have money raised from

mineral royalties. The Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) is

looking up at the heavens as though he's looking for some

inspiration, and God knows he needs it. (Laughter.) We seem to

have the raising of revenue which might — I say might for the

Minister himself said it could probably be anything from zero

to 700 per cent.... We have agreement from the Minister of

Mines that their estimated revenue from the Mineral

Royalties Act could be out by as much as 700 per cent.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that all?

MR. WALLACE: The Member says,"Is that all?" Well, all I

know is that the Minister of Finance has said we can expect $20

million from the new royalties. We have the industry saying it

could be $140 million, and we have the pink-shirted Minister of

Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) agreeing, "Well, it might be that." It

might be anything. If we have a Minister of Finance who can be

out by that much, we certainly have to take a very long look at

the efficiency of his whole administration.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Do you

know the price of copper?

MR. WALLACE: The price of copper, I believe, is about $1 a

pound, is that right?

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): $1.04.

MR. WALLACE: What might it be next year, up or down?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. Would the Hon. Member address the

chair?

MR. WALLACE: The Rt. Hon. Minister for Dewdney (Mr. Rolston)

tells me it's $1.04 a pound.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Where? Canada or the London Metal

Exchange?

MR. WALLACE: Anyway, Mr. Chairman, the point I'm trying to

make is that this is revenue which we cannot realistically

debate because the bill hasn't even been debated. I can see

you're getting very restless, Mr. Chairman, so I'll move on to

the next subject.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's not being restless; he's falling

asleep.

MR. WALLACE: We also have the Task Force on the Forest

Policy carrying out investigations from which, no doubt, there

will be very substantial changes in the fees and licences for

the timber leases going back to 1909, or some such prehistoric

year.

AN HON. MEMBER: Today is March 4. When are you going to

table the report?

MR. WALLACE: I see the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams). pricking up his ears and

beaming benevolently in the obvious anticipation that there's

maybe another $20 million, maybe another $100 million, maybe

another $140 million coming in from the forest industry.

All I'm saying is that the Minister of Finance comes into

this House and asks us to debate financial matters when, in

point of fact, at least half the ball game hasn't even been

told.

If you want another example, and I'm sure you do, there is the whole area of

education. We've had the Minister of Finance tell us that millions of dollars

have been allocated to education. But what we really discover is that the government

knows full well — and that expression certainly reminds me of somebody (Laughter)...

MR. GARDOM: The dear departed.

MR. WALLACE: ...that in fact it has not allocated enough

money for the legitimate needs of the Department of Education.

So, once again, when we finally put the bar down at the door

for the last time and we all go home and the press shower their

paper all over the floor, the Minister of Finance decides to

what degree he'll dip into his big money bag and fork out some

more money for education. It might be $2 million, it might be

$20 million, it might be $50 million. Who knows? But here we

are as supposedly responsible legislators sitting in the

Legislature in Victoria supposedly debating the affairs of the

Minister of Finance when really something

[ Page 783 ]

approximating 50 per cent of the ball game has been revealed

to us.

Apparently while this present government in opposition

castigated the former administration for its educational

policies and its financing attitudes and the need for

referendums, et cetera, they prefer to go on to the policy that

it's the squeaky wheel that gets the grease. In other words,

once we all go home, the Minister of Finance and the Minister

of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) will decide in their own

discretion and wisdom that the school boards which make the

biggest fuss will get more money.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver – Howe Sound): The Egg

Marketing Board will give a seminar on how to approach the

Premier.

MR. WALLACE: Now, this brings us to the next point, Mr.

Chairman. Regardless of all the verbiage and all the long

speeches we've had in this House, we unquestionably have in

this province today an interfering Premier. I'm putting it no

more or less than that, Mr. Chairman. I've listened to the egg

and broiler thing and I've read the press reports and I've read

Hansard . When the Premier tells me he said or did not

say a certain thing, that's fine with me. I accept that and

that's my attitude to this dispute.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: It sounds like "Gullible's Travels" to

me.

MR. WALLACE: What I do not accept is that, even with the

best of intentions, the Premier had any right to get into the

middle of that fight in the first place. It's quite obvious

from what the Premier has said, from what the Minister of

Agriculture has said, and from what many opposition Members

have said, this marketing board situation has many shortcomings

and is not working well.

Far be it for me of all people to suggest that the Premier

and the Minister of Finance should have some greater degree of

patience. I readily admit I'm not the most patient person

myself — but then I'm not the Premier.

MR. H.S. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): Do you have many

patients?

MR. WALLACE: I've got lots of patients spelt with a "ts" but

not "ce." I just suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the Premier has

shown a lack of judgment in getting into some of the situations

which really are avoidable, unnecessary and undesirable. With

all the goodwill in the world, the Premier should not agree to

getting himself in the position he has got himself in with the

egg and broiler people, or the turkey-hatching egg people, or

any kind of agricultural people.

I just happen to believe the Minister of Agriculture (Hon.

Mr. Stupich) has that responsibility. I think he is quite

capable of dealing with it. In fact, I have developed great

respect for the Minister of Agriculture since the last spring

session of this House. While I agree that the Premier felt he

was probably bringing some sanity into the situation, let us,

in leaving this debate, hope he has learned that often the most

well-meaning individual is the guy who gets you know what.

AN HON. MEMBER: Make the reference to the marriage

counsellor.

MR. WALLACE: Well, I'm sure the Premier knows what a

frustrating business it is to indulge in marriage counselling.

I've tried that on occasion too as a physician. Everything

seems great when you're in the office, but the next day one or

the other party phones up and tells you she got a black eye

last night. You realize that your counselling really didn't make

too much progress.

In education, again regretfully I'm quite convinced we have

an interfering Premier. I just happen to believe that the idea

of creating dialogue with the public on education was just a

tremendous idea. I hope very sincerely that it continues. But

if it was going wrong or if the direction was drifting or if

the Minister of Education was losing confidence in the

commissioner, then the Minister of Education should deal with

that situation.

We have what one commentator has described as "the

foot-in-mouth style of governing," where the Premier

runs off at the mouth making statements on television, while

the Minister of Education is in Montreal, with somewhat

unfortunate results. He almost gets into another Minister's

area when he talks about the Royal Bank plan for financing

credit terms for ICBC premium payments.

I think, Mr. Chairman, that we have to recognize that the

Premier is an interfering Premier. I give him enough objective

criticism that he thinks he's doing the right thing and he's

helping the situation, but he's just getting himself in a mess,

and I hope that these events will not be repeated in the

future.

In debating the Premier's department, I think we must,

inevitably, discuss something of the federal-provincial scene.

While I can't agree with the Premier's philosophy, I think that

at the energy conference in Ottawa he was certainly the most

clearly defined Premier of all the 10 provinces as to what he

stood for. Nobody at that conference could have been in any

doubt as to what Premier Barrett was saying at that conference.

I don't claim that you could say the same for the other nine,

including some of the Conservative premiers.

If that, at least, is a clear definition of where this

province stands, I think the Premier deserves credit

[ Page 784 ]

for being, to that degree, straightforward and clearly

understandable.

The Premier mentioned Mr. Marchand. I've always tried to

make it a principle in this House that one never talks about

personalities, so I won't single him out, but after my first

experience at a federal-provincial conference I must say that

the very obvious arrogance and exalted attitude which exudes

from federal cabinet Ministers has to be seen to be

believed.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Are you just waking up to

that fact?

MR. WALLACE: No, I'm just unfortunately proving the fact for

myself by my own experience. I don't happen to have been at

federal-provincial conferences before. But the grandstanding,

autocratic, superior, bombastic attitude of federal cabinet

ministers is something that has to be seen to be believed. I'm

just like the Premier; I'm just a country boy.

In that atmosphere I think there must be many other citizens

in British Columbia who wonder, as I did, why we have so much

difficulty understanding each other at the federal-provincial

level.

I used to read press reports and comments from various news

writers, and I couldn't believe that things were so complicated

when the actual avenue of approach and the simplistic nature of

some of the problems seemed so capable of solution if federal

and provincial people would sit down and talk. But after that

first parting of the veil I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that

I now know why federal-provincial relationships are a very

difficult matter to develop in a productive way for this

province.

I think, as I said earlier in a debate, that the people of

British Columbia have not really been told the very serious

nature of the imminent rise in prices on oil and gasoline. It's

all very well to say, "Oh, yes, we should have a uniform price

across Canada, with the exception of transportation costs,

"but one element which was very clear at the energy

conference was the fact that the Maritimes have already

suffered in a very serious way from the rise in prices which

has already occurred on petroleum products.

First of all, let me say that it seemed to me that, with the

exception of the Premier of this province, everybody was

fencing at the energy conference — just dancing around saying a

lot of words that didn't mean a great deal. That conference

wound up, in my view, in complete and total failure with the

exception of the decision that the price freeze would continue

until the end of March. That's the only positive constructive

decision that came out of that conference.

Donald Macdonald spent a whole day of everybody's time talking in generalities

and vague suggestions about modest fractions and more modest shares, and a piece

of this and a portion of the next thing, and then released the precise figures

to the delegates to the convention at 6:30 that evening so that they could sit

down and squabble overnight and come up with a decision in the morning — such

absolute insult to all the provincial Premiers of this country.

I really feel that it is about time the people of British

Columbia were told what really went on at that energy

conference. Naturally all the provincial Premiers want to be

considered as statesmanlike in their approach, and I don't

criticize them for that.

I think that any one of the 10 of them would have been quite

justified in telling Mr. Trudeau that they were insulted as to

the machinery of the meeting and the very contrived way in

which the federal government chose to put the provincial

Premiers right on the spot. If that is federal-provincial

co-operation, I have another name for it. I call it political

gamesmanship, and I think the people of British Columbia should

know that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. WALLACE: Mind you, Mr. Chairman, the problems exist, as

the Premier well knows. I see right in the Sun tonight that

Premier Lougheed of Alberta and Premier Blakeney of

Saskatchewan have been off doing their separate

wheeling-dealing with Prime Minister Trudeau. Now, what was the

point of the energy conference if a few weeks later Trudeau

chooses to sit down with Premiers individually and make

separate deals? Where does British Columbia stand in all this?

I would like to know, and I'm sure the Premier will answer.

Has this Premier had any individual communication with Prime

Minister Trudeau regarding the prospect of extending the price

freeze until the end of June? There have been press reports

that this kind of settlement has already been reached. We have

Premier Lougheed reportedly saying that all he wants for

Alberta's citizens is a fair return for the value of his

resources.

AN HON. MEMBER: His resources?

MR. WALLACE: I'm sorry. I shouldn't have said that. Premier

Lougheed has said that he asks a fair return for the value of

producers' resources. I must correct that — they were not his

resources.

That, of course, raises the point which the Member for North

Vancouver – Capilano (Mr. Gibson) mentioned. It isn't the

producers' resources either; it's the people's resources.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Who takes over at the end of

March?

[ Page 785 ]

MR. WALLACE: That's what I'm trying to find out.

His version of a new pricing system for oil, according to

press reports based on the telegram, calls for higher price for

Canadian industrial consumers and a lower one for homeowners

and car drivers.

I think we should all be aware in this province, Mr.

Chairman, of the statement of Prime Minister Trudeau, and I

quote again:

"Last week, ahead of the meetings and setting the stage, the

Prime Minister warned Alberta and Saskatchewan that Ottawa is

prepared to take 'very radical and drastic measures, if

necessary, to end the country's oil pricing problems.'"

I don't think any of us should be under any illusion as to

the serious nature of the energy problem in this province.

Granted, we have the energy sources, but the question of

transmission and pricing in relation to international prices is

of fundamental importance.

Having asked the Premier if he's had any contact with Prime

Minister Trudeau about extending the price freeze, I would also

like to ask the Premier in passing, Mr. Chairman, whether the

Government of British Columbia has made any specific

application to the National Energy Board to further increase

the price of natural gas.

There was some discussion on natural gas prices this

afternoon, and one of the Members asked why there should not be

a lower price to the B.C. consumer compared to the price for

exported products. This again drew some attention at the energy

conference. It is my understanding that economists just do not

believe that it is a wise use of resources to have a two-price

system and that the domestic price should at least approximate

the international price. It is my understanding that the

Premier of this province agreed to that general statement in

principle.

But the fact is that the price of gasoline is about to go up

in this province, certainly if the price freeze ends at the end

of March. This province is committed to participating in

subsidies to keep the price as close as possible the same

across Canada, with the exception of transportation costs.

I think the Premier would serve a great purpose tonight if

he would outline for the people of British Columbia just

exactly where the Government of British Columbia stands in its

policy towards these challenges and what the financial

commitment will be by this government.

I think we should repeat that while the agreement with what

was originally El Paso was that the price existing

domestically, we also have regulation 11A of the National

Energy Board Act , which gives the National Energy Board the

discretion or the right or whatever word you want to use — the

opportunity — to set different prices from domestic price compared to

exported price. I wonder if the Premier can tell the House

whether at any time this government has suggested to the

National Energy Board that it utilize the provisions of

regulation 11A.

One area that deserves some critical appraisal is the whole

question of the fundamental attitude of the Premier and

Minister of Finance in regard to public ownership. He stated on

more than one occasion that the solution to the energy crisis

is the public ownership of her natural resources. In fact, in a

moment of bravado, the Premier stated that if the federal

government would accept that principle then he would gladly

make the resources of British Columbia available under an

umbrella of public ownership on a national level.

I think, Mr. Chairman, that it's timely to emphasize this

whole philosophy of public ownership. At a convention in

Toronto in 1971 a certain outline of NDP policy was spelled out

and debated, and it's my understanding that the Premier of this

province supported that manifesto, as it was called. I think

that at this time in the history of British Columbia it's very

important for all the people of British Columbia to recognize

what was included in that manifesto and supported by the

Premier of this province and by several other cabinet Ministers

on these benches over there, and to compare the actions and the

legislation of this government with the outline of that

manifesto.

Mr. Chairman, with your permission I'd like to read a few

paragraphs from the manifesto:

"As democratic socialists, we must present a radical

alternative to the shambles of free enterprise and the

colonization of Canada by American corporations. We must commit

ourselves to the democratic ownership and control of all major

economic institutions by the people.

"Without large scale public ownership, discussion of other

basic socialist goals like income redistribution, rational

economic planning and workers' control becomes Utopian. Without

control of the key sectors of the economy, an NDP government

will be the reformist housekeeper of a society dominated by

capital both foreign and domestic."

Later on in the manifesto, it states:

"The choices for socialists are clear. As long as corporate

domination of the economic and political system continues,

there will be a waste of resources, both human and material,

continued social inequality and the destruction of the

environment.

"Public ownership is essential if profits are to be spent in

the much needed improvement of social services, the elimination

of regional disparities and the creation of the jobs and

[ Page 786 ]

housing which Canadians so badly need, rather than for capitalist

investment and accumulation.

"Public ownership is essential if we are to break the

monopoly of power presently held by foreign and domestic

corporations and build a socialist society based on popular

control.

"Yet another area where private ownership exists in

contradiction to people's needs is that of industrial

decision-making. The limitations of traditional" — the Minister

of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) should listen to this — "collective

bargaining are becoming increasingly obvious. As long as

industry remains in private hands, the speed of work, the use

of new technology and critical decisions about plant layoffs

and shut-downs will be determined by capitalists, not by the

men and women they so drastically affect. Public ownership is

an essential precondition for true industrial democracy."

The manifesto goes on to outline the basic principles as

follows:

"As part of its political programme, the NDP must commit

itself to the immediate nationalization of resource industries

and financial institutions including banks and trust

companies."

lnterjection.

MR. WALLACE: You don't like this, eh? This is the NDP

manifesto, my friend. Yes, that's right, and they were thrown

out, right? But your Premier signed this manifesto.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member please

address the Chair?

MR. WALLACE: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I apologize for not

addressing the Chair, but we have a disturber up here on the

left.

I was talking about the nationalization of resource

industries, Mr. Chairman, and I continue to quote:

"These two areas are the key to breaking corporate power in

Canada. Their public ownership will pave the way for

nationalization of other sectors.

"The NDP commits itself as its long-term goal to the public

ownership of major corporations in the manufacturing,

resources, financial, transportation and commodity distribution

sectors of the economy. Compensation for nationalized

enterprises shall be made through low-interest, long-term

bonds. Corporations which obstruct nationalization by economic

sabotage or other undemocratic means will be expropriated.

"Workers' control shall be established in all public enterprises

within the context of socialist planning at the national, regional and community

levels."

Finally, Mr. Chairman:

"On a local and provincial level we must begin

extra-parliamentary activity around unemployment, plant layoffs

and shut-downs, polluting corporations, and reactionary labour

and welfare legislation. It is essential to organize mass

meetings of its own membership to back socialist demands put

forward by our legislative representatives."

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I think this paragraph is most

significant:

"The era of consensus politics is ending...

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) says,

"Hear, hear!" You don't believe in majority rule, Mr.

Attorney-General.

"... and the Canadian people are beginning to fight

back against the forces which oppress them. The alternatives

are clear: we can ignore them and be doomed to irrelevance, or

we can join them and together create the kind of radical

people's movement capable of building an independent socialist

Canada."

Now, Mr. Chairman, I've read sizeable fractions from this

manifesto because our Premier supported that, as did many

Members of this government. I think that in fairness one can

look at the actions of this government and much of its

legislation, and it is certainly off on the path which leads to

ever-increasing public ownership.

Now, I want to be fair and say that the manifesto contained

many other things such as the problem of bilingualism and the

difficulties in integrating women into the labour force and

many other subjects. I just happened to have chosen the

section

dealing with public ownership because the Premier and I across

this floor have often agreed to disagree.

The big difference between the Conservatives and the

socialists is an ideology regarding the role of private

enterprise vis--vis public ownership. I respect the

Premier's right to believe what he believes, and I've tried to

spell out by quoting the manifesto what the Premier believes. I

happen to believe in the incentive to the private individual

and to the private sector, provided there are adequate

regulations and controls on the private sector.

I know that the Premier will get up and defend his point of

view, which is absolutely the way it should be. But I do think

that when we get to this debate, where we are discussing the

Premier's office and the Minister of Finance's estimates, the

people of British Columbia should be given an opportunity to

know very clearly what they are choosing between — the

[ Page 787 ]

philosophy and the policies which flow from the philosophy

of the socialist party, or the philosophy and the policies

which would be adopted by this side of the House.

The Premier has talked about the repatriation of the

economy. We are all in favour of that to the degree that it

does not deny certain disadvantaged people in our society the

help they need right now — not next year, or five or 10 years

from now. It's all very well to wave the flag and say that we

have repatriated part of Westcoast Transmission, but there are

people in our society today, particularly the elderly and the

sick, who are not receiving their fair share of the provincial

pie. I'm just as happy and eager as any other B.C. citizen or

Canadian citizen to see our economy being repatriated, but

there has to be a clear definition of priorities. If our

services to people have some glaring gaps, as indeed I believe

they do have, then I have to say regretfully, through you, Mr.

Chairman, that the Premier is a little ahead of his time in

putting the money into the acquisition of companies while human

beings in this province are being left out in the cold.

I was rather interested in the Premier's comments I heard on

the speaker in my office today on B.C. Tel and the fact that it

is a monopoly. I only have to say: what about Autoplan? It's a

monopoly too. It happens to be state-owned, but it looks as

though we will have much of the same problem with Autoplan that

you could reasonably say we have with B.C. Tel. You've no

system of comparison, Mr. Premier. Two or three years down the

road, when the car insurance rates have gone up by X or Y or Z

per cent, we've got nothing to compare them with.

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver – Little Mountain):

Saskatchewan's went down.

MR. WALLACE: Manitoba just went up 13 per cent, my friend,

so don't talk about Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan is as flat as a

pancake. B.C. has got other geographical problems. So let's not

compare apples and oranges. Why don't you just go back to

sleep? You looked so peaceful a minute ago.

Mr. Chairman, I know you are going to call me to order

because we have a disturber up here and I can never resist the

needle.

Seriously, Mr. Chairman, I think this is a factor which

should be taken into account. You can't argue for a monopoly on

the state side of the fence and argue against a monopoly in the

hands of private enterprise. We just happen to believe that no

monopoly is a good thing.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources):

What do you suggest?

MR. WALLACE: We suggest competition.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a magic word — competition.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, it is a magic word. We just happen to

believe that individuals function better, produce better,

achieve more, and strive harder when there is competition.

After all, we teach our kids to get out on the playing field

and run around a track and try and run faster than the other

guy. We get them out of the....

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Now we get the disturber suggesting that you

might kill yourself with exercise, Mr. Chairman. (Laughter.) I

don't think that's a danger that he is running, actually.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, there are quite a few, I guess.

HON. MR. BARRETT: How many are operating in B.C.?

MR. WALLACE: One. Yes, I agree, that's a monopoly. I'm not

saying it's desirable. The point I'm trying to make is that I

don't accept that a monopoly is good for the consumer.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Is it better if it is public or

private?

MR. WALLACE: As long as there is competition, my feeling is

it is a great idea if you have both public and private, and

then the best man wins. Anyway, I don't mean to belabour that

until the cows come home, but we just don't believe in

monopoly.

AN HON. MEMBER: What have they got now?

MR. WALLACE: Well, we have monopoly and the Premier said

today that he is not happy with it. I don't think, frankly,

that I'm all that happy with B.C. Tel either. So maybe if there

were some way in which we could have two companies instead of

one, we could call on the competitive element to produce the

better service.

Mr. Chairman, to get back to the Premier's office and the

Minister of Finance, I don't think we should overlook the

interesting example that the Premier set when he went down to

Quebec to court Rn Levesque, who basically supports the

separatist idea. It seems to us to be a contradiction to the

Premier's avowed dedication to Confederation.

I think it is interesting, Mr. Chairman, that when the

Premier was down there in Montreal, he was

[ Page 788 ]

interviewed. In The Vancouver Sun of November 27, the

Premier is reported as saying that he realized that separatism

posed a serious problem in the province of Quebec, but he

suggested that there was also an element of inherent separatism

among the populace of B.C. I'm quoting the Premier, Mr.

Chairman, on November 27, 1973:

"'If you think that in the Province of Quebec you have

historical, emotional pressures for separation,' he said, 'then

you should meet some British Columbians. We don't have the

cultural, but we have the north-south pressure.' Barrett said

he feared that the withdrawal of Quebec from Confederation

would mean the transformation of British Columbia into another

California.

"His appeal to Levesque to remain within Confederation was

'based on purely unselfish motives.'"

I think, Mr. Chairman, that at this point in the leadership

that the Premier is giving this province, and a lot of it is

very good, I would suggest that we should be aware....

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, I manage on my own, thanks very much. I

don't need help from them or you or anybody else.

I think that it is very interesting that the Premier should

attempt to strike a liaison with the leader of the party that

gained 30 per cent of the vote in Quebec.

"'For those socialist policies held out by that party, I

say to that party, intellectually and emotionally, there may

have been a need to argue for separatism, but practically and

economically you don't have to separate. Join with us from

Quebec right across to B.C. — join a socialist Canada.' Barrett

said the diversity offered by the Parti Quebecois would serve

to strengthen the country, not divide it."

I just think that it is timely, Mr. Chairman, that we should

recognize some of the statements which the Premier made in

Quebec. I would suggest that anyone who could consider that

Rene Levesque's fundamental goal in politics was not to achieve

separatism must be overlooking what is very obvious to the rest

of Canada. While he may have socialist goals in his philosophy,

I think it is pretty obvious to the great majority of Canadians

that his overriding and primary goal is to take Quebec out of

Canada.

I would, with respect, suggest to the Premier that it is very dangerous to

flirt — and I use the term in the context that the Premier talked about making

love to Quebec — with a politician in another province who can wrack up 30 per

cent of the vote and whose primary goal is to take his province out of Canada.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you think that is really his primary

motive?

MR. WALLACE: I do indeed think that the primary goal of Rene

Levesque, without any question, is to take Quebec out of

Confederation.

Again, when I criticize the Premier for interfering in

agriculture and interfering in education, with the greatest

respect I would suggest that he is interfering with

Confederation too and that his good intentions to spread

understanding involve some very real dangers that he himself

shall be misunderstood.

I don't think some of the interviews I have quoted which the

Premier made in Quebec in any way mitigate the danger that the

Premier of this province is willing to ally himself with

another Premier whose primary goal is separation from

Canada.

I have another subject that I would just like to mention

briefly. Back in October of last year, when we were faced with

serious potential problems regarding the supply of natural gas,

the Premier of this province prepared what has been called,

accurately or otherwise, the emergency powers bill. While this

bill was never tabled in this House, it was a subject of

concern, simply because, rightly or wrongly — and I hope the

Premier will put the facts straight when he answers questions —

it was compared to the federal legislation which was brought in

to the federal House at the time of the kidnapping of Pierre

LaPorte.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: The Conservatives supported that.

MR. WALLACE: The feeling was that this government was

apparently prepared to bring in legislation to this province

which contained some very far-reaching, autocratic type of

power over the rights and freedoms of the individuals in this

Province of British Columbia.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Which the federal Conservatives

supported.

MR. WALLACE: The federal legislation, Mr. Chairman, was

brought in in an atmosphere of extreme urgency and apprehension

regarding an event that was rather peculiar to the life of the

Canadian people — namely, a public kidnapping and threat to the

life of a prominent cabinet Minister in a certain province.

While the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) chirps

up and yaks about the federal Conservatives supporting that

bill, I would suggest that that kind of situation, compared to

the price of natural gas, is a little different. I just want

this whole

[ Page 789 ]

House to know, when we are talking about this kind of

legislation, that we happen to place a very high regard on the

freedom and rights of the individual.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Now you show me; I don't happen to live in

Quebec. He has wakened up again, I notice.

We happen to live in British Columbia, and we don't happen

to have the FLQ in British Columbia. And we don't happen to

have the violence and threats against the life and survival of

public figures. The evidence that was presented federally at

that time, to which the Minister of Public Works refers,

contained a great deal of force to the effect that there might

be a very serious threat to the life and health of many people

in the province of Quebec and, indeed, a threat of anarchy.

All I say, Mr. Chairman, is that that kind of threat, which

was very serious...and it is always easy to be smart in

retrospect. Okay, maybe we can all smartly turn around and say

that Prime Minister Trudeau overreacted. To this day I am not

sure of the facts, whether he did or he didn't. But it is very

easy to be smart in retrospect. All I am saying, Mr. Chairman,

is that the Premier of this province has admitted that he

prepared a bill which involved the conferring of substantial

powers.

I would quote him, Mr. Chairman. He was asked why it wasn't

introduced when he had prepared it. He said that the situation

had changed, but that such legislation must be seriously

considered — and I am quoting him now from a newspaper

clipping: "It" — the legislation — "must be seriously

considered, perhaps next session, in a much calmer

atmosphere."

I think the Premier of this province owes it to the House to

tell us whether he intends to pursue this particular policy and

introduce a bill of this nature providing the kind of powers to

government which are somewhat foreign to the basic concepts, as

we understand them, of the democratic system of government.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, we have had a great deal of

acquiring various companies and industries to compete with

private enterprise. I think again it is only fair to say that

competition is only fair when you are all following the same

ground rules. If you are running a race, the rules should apply

equally to each competitor in the race.

I would have to suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the Premier, in encouraging increasing

public ownership in the acquisition of Kootenay Forest Products, or Dunhill,

or various other companies which the Premier has encouraged the government to

take over.... It is all very well if you are contesting as an equal, but if

you happen to be the referee as well, it makes it rather a lopsided contest.

To be more specific, Mr. Chairman, I am talking, for

example, about the fact that Plateau Mills has been sold by

B.C. Cellulose to the government, so that Plateau Mills will

not pay federal income tax.

The Premier is frowning, but I am quoting from one of his

own press releases.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Sold from Columbia Cellulose?

MR. WALLACE: This is what was stated in a press release. So

maybe the Minister, when he replies, can correct that.

MR. CHABOT: A Crown corporation to set it up.

MR. WALLACE: But to take a more specific example, Mr.

Chairman, the government decided to acquire Dunhill. Again the

Minister of Finance can correct me if I am wrong, but the

information which has been publicized is to the effect that the

government insisted they must have 90 per cent of the shares.

Again, I understand federal legislation is such that if the

government of this province owns 90 per cent of the shares, it

does not pay federal income tax.

Now this business of competition is just great. I would be

willing to go into business and compete with a whole raft of

people if they had to pay federal income tax and I didn't. It

makes the situation, Mr. Chairman, just a little unequal, I

would suggest. I hope, if I am wrong, that the Minister of

Finance will correct the misunderstanding. But it seems to me

that this is the situation that is developing as the government

acquires more and more of the private sector.

On that same theme, I think we should all take note of the

speech that was made by the Member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) in

Kelowna, where he...and let me interject to say that the

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A.

Williams) has made it quite plain that the Member for Alberni

was not quoting government policy.

But that Member for Alberni happens to be chairman of the

Select Standing Committee on Forestry. I think, Mr. Chairman,

again, that the people of British Columbia should not be fooled

by the fact that the Minister has said he was not describing

government policy when he said — and the headline is here —

"Private Forest Firms Second to Government."

Here again is the government supposedly competing with

private industry. I would suggest from the kind of comments

that were made by the chairman of the Select Standing Committee

on Forestry, that we should wake up and realize very clearly

that this government believes in a certain type

[ Page 790 ]

of competition, where there is just a certain advantage to

the government.

I have tried to describe it in terms of income tax, and I

think that the Member who is the chairman of the forestry

committee has also described it in terms of service to the

industry.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would just like to talk again

about the whole question of federal-provincial co-operation.

The Premier has just returned from a meeting of the western

premiers, and I would just like to say how much I appreciate

one of the statements which was made after that conference. I

am quoting The Vancouver Sun , Friday, March 1.

"All the premiers emphasized that the provincially run

scheme is intended to complement rather than bypass federal

planning efforts."

I think that as long as this is fundamental to efforts by

the western premiers to act in co-operation, we have a real

hope not that we would endanger Confederation, but that the

western premiers would indeed be able to get greater respect

and better progress at national provincial conferences.

I hope that the Premier will perhaps touch on that aspect of

the conference, and that aspect of the aims and goals of the

western premiers vis--vis Confederation, when he

answers these questions.

HON. MR. BARRETT: (Mike not on.) ...Mr. Chairman, is a very

wide-ranging speech by the leader of the Conservative Party

(Mr. Wallace), in my estimates, some of which I will try to

respond to and others I will suggest be raised with other

Ministers.

First of all, the comments about the national energy policy,

or lack of it, by the federal government. I agree with the

Member who did come down and did stay for the whole conference,

as did the First Member for Victoria (Mr. Morrison) and the

second Member (Mr. D.A. Anderson).

MRS. JORDAN: Did you stay for the whole conference?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, I stayed for the whole conference,

but your leader didn't, Madam Member.

I'm glad that the Members took advantage of the opportunity.

It was the first time in the history of British Columbia that

opposition Members have been asked to any conference.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We went to the western one.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, the western one as well. That's the

second time and I hope that it's the beginning of a tradition

that lasts as long as this House lasts.

I want to say that there was a direct result of the Premiers' energy conference.

All the Premiers are new within the last few years. There has been a dramatic

change in personnel in the last few years.

In the past, the annual conference of the provincial

Premiers was essentially a social event, with a very limited

formal agenda and very little formal discussion on issues that

concerned us. I've seen that change in my limited time, but the

toughest time in terms of agenda and working together came at

the energy conference.

Now, I share your comments about the energy conference per

se. Just a few weeks before the energy conference, the Prime

Minister was quoted as saying that it was the single most

important federal-provincial conference; the future of the

country was at stake. When we arrived at the conference, we

were asked and we did state our positions, and we expected a

response from the federal government.

What the Member has described is absolutely correct. The

Minister of Energy, Mr. Macdonald, came in with a proposal

about a half hour before the meeting adjourned. It was a

complex proposal, and we were expected to respond overnight. As

a matter of fact, the very fact that we criticized its

appearance at the last minute was treated with disdain by the

federal spokesman as, "Well, what more did they expect?" Of

course, the conference was totally ill-prepared by the federal

government. They had no policy.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, I don't think so. I don't think that

any politician could intentionally ball a thing up the way they

did.

MR. WALLACE: Well, they did.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, they didn't do it intentionally

because they are so separate from giving orders in terms of

what they want spelled out as a policy, from what finally comes

out of the cranking machine, that they're incapable of

translating a position to a policy.

One Member got up here tonight and talked about the number

of my staff. It's absolutely ridiculous. I'll have to have

another person to help with the mail, because I'm answering

mail now. That was never done before. Last Monday over 1,000

single pieces of mail came into the office. We're getting a lot

more and we intend to answer it, whether it's good or bad.

Mr. Member, when you see the many, many people backing up

the federal Ministers, you would expect that there would be a

clear-cut statement. Even little P.E.I., through Premier Alex

Campbell, had a statement and a position, and so did British

Columbia. But the federal government did not come prepared with

a single statement about an energy

[ Page 791 ]

policy whatsoever, and this was two weeks after the Prime

Minister had stated that this was the most important meeting in

terms of future Confederation.

The Liberal Party in my opinion is not a political party; it

never has been and it never will be. It was once described by a

political historian as an alliance for power. And that is

exactly what it is — an alliance for power.

It has no further support in the west. If there will be any

gains by the Liberal Party it will be mainly the fault of the

Conservatives, because they're scrambling for a policy too.

MR. McGEER: Don't leave the NDP out of it.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The NDP has been the balance of power and

kept the Liberals there, extracting a number of commitments

that they thought were worthwhile. That's a decision I think is

certainly valid in terms of the situation of the federal policy

makers.

MR. SCHROEDER: Now tell us what you really think.

HON. MR. BARRETT: As for the federal Social Credit Party,

where are they? Poof! With a French accent, because there's not

even enough out here to go "Poof".

MR. PHILLIPS: Poof! Poof! (Laughter.)

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, well that's what we're coming to. The

position I took was not supported by any other Premier.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Chairman, I didn't go back to

the conference to take a position that I didn't believe in. I

went back to state honestly, as the Premier of this province,

exactly what I believed in. I said so, and I didn't dodge the

issue. You're free to disagree, but at least I didn't beat

around the bush. I stated honestly exactly what I feel, and I

said again that I believe that all of the natural gas and oil

in this country should be publicly owned under federal control.

I believe that.

After having said that and acknowledged at the conference

that I had no other support, I acknowledged that. But I stated

my position openly and honestly.

I went on to suggest that the second best alternative, in my opinion, was the

establishment of a national petroleum corporation to monitor and control marketing.

It appears that the federal government is moving in that direction in terms

of a public corporation.

I think it is the responsibility of any politician to state

what his policy is. I'll stand or fall on that policy, and I'll

tell you that if the federal government were to say tomorrow,

"Okay, Mr. Premier, we accept your offer and we're going to

call a national election on your offer," I would call a

provincial election and say: "Okay, this is the issue. The

issue is that I am prepared to have this party stand or fall on

the policy that the resources of oil and gas belong to the

people of this country and that we will share them with all

Canadians if they're publicly owned."

I would fight a provincial election on that issue if the

federal government said that's the direction they wish to go,

because it would be the responsibility of all British

Columbians to have a voice in that change of policy.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: For Hydro I proposed, Mr. Member, a

national power grid to exchange power, and I went further. I

said as long as there is no net export of power, we should have

a north-south grid — coming from an NDPer. Yes, I said that we

should have a continental energy grid, as long as there's no

net export of power. I said so publicly, and had you stayed

there, Mr. Member, you would have heard me say that, as the

Member said over there.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I can understand the Liberal

Party's embarrassment. How do you have to interpret the

statements of the Prime Minister of this country, who after we

left the conference, then said that we will get together again?

I'll read his telegram.

Before I finish that I want to answer the one question

raised by the Member concerning that conference. That is that I

do believe there is a benefit out of that kind of conference. I

see us growing all the time. There is developing a greater

understanding between the provincial Premiers, as witness the

visit of Premier Moores to the Province of British Columbia

today to talk about a particular concept. We will continue

those discussions. He's a Conservative; I'm a democratic

socialist.

In terms of our policies and our Conservative neighbours in

Alberta, let it be clearly understood that without the

emotionalism around the world "socialism", Peter the Red,

as I kindly refer to him in Alberta, has copied exactly our

Petroleum Corporation. And more power to him! It's a good idea,

Mr. Chairman.

It isn't bad because it comes from a socialist, or it isn't

bad because it comes from a capitalist. If it

[ Page 792 ]

makes sense for the people of a jurisdiction, then by all

means buy it and implement it; and that is what Peter the Red

has done.

He is a good man. He is a Tory. I find that I even get along

with Regan of Nova Scotia, who I thought was very, very blunt

and critical of his own federal party — and he is a Liberal. If

you are suggesting, Mr. Liberal leader, that he was only tough

because he's got an election at home, I don't believe he is

that kind of man. But it reflects your Liberal cynicism to even

suggest that particular approach.

Now, Mr. Member, the Prime Minister said....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: They are fine men, both of them. They are

fine men and they are fine democratic socialists. Mr. Member, I

was pointing out the fact that we cross party lines at these

conferences and that we do get along very well. The primary aim

is for something better for Canada — not for the re-election of

the Liberals; and you can't seem to get that through your

head.

I understand the federal Liberals have now not only hired

one PR firm, but they have retained the firm they had last time

and now have hired a consortium. The approach is to spread it

all over, hit every possible base and let's establish a policy

contrary to the last one, the slogan "The Land is Strong."

They're trying to sell cheese, Mr. Chairman — the land is

strong. What will we get next time? You ask these questions.

I'll read you all these telegrams I received from the Prime

Minister after the energy conference.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Tell us about your policy again,

Dave.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, my policy is consistent and I

know you are opposed to it. I say it again if you want to hear

it. I believe in public ownership of the gas and oil in this

country by the people of this country.

I want to quote from The Toronto Sun , an editorial in

a Conservative daily — and the title? — "And It's Not Even

Socialism." This is the schizophrenia that happens in our

community around the word "socialism."

"If the federal government were to suddenly get into the

oil business, setting up a Crown company to compete with Imperial Oil, Shell,

Gulf, et al, we suspect there would be a sigh of relief from Canadians from

coast to coast. At least it would be action instead of words, and it wouldn't

be socialism. Why? — because of the spectre which haunts many Canadians who

look at the inhumane record of so-called socialist countries of the world and

shudder."

That's why it wouldn't be socialism — because the word is unpleasant.

But the idea is okay; therefore it's no longer socialism. I go on to quote:

"It seems only to make common sense. So did Medicare, but

there was a time when that was dangerous socialism too. It

seemed to make common sense. In fact, one could make an

argument that the government has an obligation to enter into

the oil business, setting up gasoline and fuel outlets to

compete with private enterprise."

The Toronto Sun ; better that the government make the

profit than the oil companies. It goes on to say:

"Surely everyone must be offended at the news that Exxon,

the world's largest oil company, increased its profits last

year to $2.44 billion, equivalent to more than the full

provincial budget — up 60 per cent. Imperial Oil of Canada, an

Exxon subsidiary, did even better percentage wise, boosting its

profit by 69 per cent. That's too big a profit. It smacks of

gouging.

"Governments can run hydro and telephone services quite

adequately without wrecking the free enterprise system. The way

these oil giants expand and wield power, holding back oil,

generating crises, manipulating and confusing, does not serve

the public interest."

That's not the Waffle Manifesto. That's The Toronto

Sun .

"They serve only their own interests and it is the people

who pay."

I can see the letters to the editor stamp marked "Moscow"

and saying,"Welcome comrades." It goes on to say:

"The only way Canadians will ever get a break is if the

government takes over or competes with the giants. Otherwise

the people will continue to pay more. The politicians will get

richer. The oil companies will get richer faster and the

politicians will generate even more hot air."

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, it's The Toronto Sun . Oil

company profits for oil companies operating in B.C.: Imperial

Oil, 1972 — $157 million. You support those big companies over

there. You do, every one of you over there. In 1972 — $157

million, and then $228 million in 1973. Imperial Oil in B.C. —

an increase of 45 per cent in one year. Taxes? Mr. Member, the

oil companies don't pay any income taxes. I wrote Mr. Stanbury

and I'll get to that letter too because the Member is

interested. I also wrote to the oil companies and I will read

you some of their replies, too.

[ Page 793 ]

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Sacrifice? It's coming. Just be patient.

Be patient. It's coming.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, they even got tax deductions on the

ads that they had attacking the government. I say to the oil

companies: "You've got to have the best PR companies going to

help the NDP. You keep on buying ads like that and you will

re-elect us right across this province." Standard Oil, Social

Credit, Liberals — you're all the same.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You bet your life. I'm for Standard Oil

keeping on pumping that gas in the polls.

Gulf Oil of Canada, 1972 — $64 million; in 1973 — $ 100

million — an increase of 58 per cent.

Texaco of Canada — $42 million — these are increases in

profit — 31 per cent.

Imperial Oil of Canada.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, Mr. Chairman, how sweet it is for us

to hear those great defenders of the major oil companies cry

tonight.

They don't like to hear this bad news.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Why, it says nothing here about Bill

Clancy.

What is the income tax picture of these companies? Why the

huge windfall profits? Doesn't the public have a right to know?

I asked the Minister, the federal Minister, when I was at the

conference: will you have a public inquiry on these oil prices?

I got support from the Minister of Finance from the Province of

Ontario and from other provinces as well.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, Mr. Chairman, they are all crying

because they all can't be judges. Don't worry. After the

election, if the federal Liberals are still in, you will have a

chance. But I want to tell you if there is anything lingering

in your mind, jump now partners. It may be the Tories' turn at

the trough and you guys will be out in the cold.

But for us there will always be room for a few token socialists. They always

find room for a token quota of socialists on these appointments, so we make

out all right. For the rest of you guys, you had better hustle now because your

time is coming close to an end.

MR. BENNETT: You sure do in B.C.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Now the Socreds can insult everyone, cause

they ain't going nowhere. I said that we'd hire one if we could

find one with any competence.

And the poor Leader of the Opposition! You know, Mr.

Chairman, I want to say this about that. They must not pick on

the Leader of the Opposition. When you consider the rag-tag,

bobtail group he inherited, peace be with him! That most

undisciplined group of chauvinistic separatists who were going

upside-down, sideways, backwards and forwards; he didn't know

what he got.

He's trying to figure out how his daddy handled that group

all these years. It was simple. Just take the hammer and thump

them, man. (Laughter.)

Mr. Chairman, this is a telegram I received on January 28,

1974, from the Prime Minister, and I want to quote:

DEAR MR. PREMIER:

"AT OUR CONFERENCE ON ENERGY WHICH CLOSED ON JANUARY 23, WE

AGREED THAT THE FREEZE ON CRUDE OIL PRICES SHOULD CONTINUE

UNTIL MARCH 31, AND THAT FROM APRIL 1 ONWARDS THERE SHOULD BE A

SINGLE BASE PRICE FOR CRUDE OIL IN CANADA.

Et cetera, et

cetera, et cetera.

AN HON. MEMBER: Read it all.

HON. MR. BARRETT:

WE ALSO AGREED THAT CLOSE CONSULTATION WOULD BE REQUIRED DURING

THE COMING WEEKS.

Let's read it all. (Laughter.)

WE AGREED THAT CLOSE CO-OPERATION WOULD BE REQUIRED DURING THE

COMING WEEKS IN ORDER TO WORK OUT ALL THE DETAILS OF THE ARRANGEMENTS WHICH

WOULD HAVE TO COME INTO PLACE ON APRIL 1 TO GIVE ASSENT TO THE ONE-PRICE CONCEPT.

We all agreed on that. You wanted me to read it.

ON THE QUESTION OF CONSULTATION, I GATHER OUR RESPECTIVE OFFICIALS

HAVE ALREADY DISCUSSED TENTATIVE ARRANGEMENTS FOR OFFICIALS FROM ALL GOVERNMENTS

TO MEET TOGETHER ON AT LEAST TWO OCCASIONS PRIOR TO THE MEETING OF THE MINISTERS

OF ENERGY AND FINANCE. I BELIEVE IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT THE FIRST OF THESE MEETINGS

OF OFFICIALS TAKE PLACE AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE DATE, AND I HOPE THAT IT WILL

BE POSSIBLE TO

[ Page 794 ]

HOLD THE MEETING OF THE MINISTERS OF ENERGY AND FINANCE DURING

THE WEEK OF FEBRUARY 25 AT THE LATEST.

That's gone, brothers and sisters.

MY COLLEAGUES, HON. DONALD MACDONALD AND HON. JOHN TURNER, WILL

BE IN TOUCH SHORTLY WITH PROVINCIAL MINISTERS IN THIS REGARD.

We're still waiting.

IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THIS MEETING OF MINISTERS COULD RESULT IN

AN AGREEMENT ON FUTURE ARRANGEMENTS, OR THAT SUCH AGREEMENT MIGHT BE REACHED

AT A SECOND MEETING A WEEK OR TWO LATER.

IT MAY ALSO BECOME APPARENT, HOWEVER, ON COMPLETION OF THE FIRST

MEETING OF MINISTERS THAT THE AGREEMENT ON THE ARRANGEMENT OF THE PERIOD AFTER

MARCH 31 COULD ONLY BE CONCLUDED AT A MEETING OF FIRST MINISTERS. I WOULD SUGGEST,

THEREFORE, THAT WE KEEP FREE THE TWO DAYS OF THURSDAY AND FRIDAY, MARCH 14 AND

15, IN CASE THE HOLDING OF A CONFERENCE OF FIRST MINISTERS AT THAT TIME SHOULD

BE NECESSARY.

I've got both dates open. I booked them when I received this

telegram. I told the other Ministers: "Don't leave town. Even

if the forest companies buy your tickets — don't leave town."

(Laughter.)

I GATHER THAT ALL ARE AGREED THAT THE MEETING OF MINISTERS SHOULD

BE CLOSED TO THE PRESS.

I never agreed to that, but that's typical of the Prime

Minister. He talks to two or three Premiers, and comes back and

says: "I gather we are all agreed." That's how I found the

agenda was changed that next morning. I talked to Premier

Bourassa and he agreed with Trudeau. I wonder why.

INSOFAR AS THE POSSIBLE CONFERENCE OF FIRST MINISTERS IS CONCERNED,

I WOULD BE PREPARED TO HAVE IT EITHER OPEN OR CLOSED, AND I WOULD APPRECIATE

RECEIVING YOUR VIEWS ON THIS.

YOURS SINCERELY,

HON. P.E. TRUDEAU, PRIME MINISTER.

Telex to the Prime Minister, January 28, right after I

received it:

MY DEAR PRIME MINISTER:

"THANK YOU FOR YOUR TELEX SETTING OUT YOUR PROPOSED MEETINGS

ON ENERGY. THE DATES YOU PROPOSE ARE GENERALLY ACCEPTABLE TO ME, BUT A CONFERENCE

OF WESTERN PREMIERS IS PLANNED FOR FEBRUARY 27 AND 28, SO I TRUST THE MEETING

OF MINISTERS OF ENERGY AND FINANCE SCHEDULED THE WEEK OF FEBRUARY 25 CAN BE

SCHEDULED SO AS NOT TO CONFLICT. THE MARCH DATES ARE ALSO ACCEPTABLE.

I AM AGREEABLE TO THE MEETING OF FIRST MINISTERS BEING OPEN TO

THE PRESS, BUT IF THERE ARE STRONG OBJECTIONS ON THE PART OF SOME FIRST MINISTERS,

I WOULD NOT PRESS MINE.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: All right, I'll table that.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Okay, bring it back if you don't want to

read it. Do you want to read it, or don't you? I don't care.

It's all right, Hansard — I'll make copies to mail to

all the Liberal membership in British Columbia. Mr. Chairman,

February 21 — this was after I sent the wire on the 28th:

DEAR MR. PRIME MINISTER:

THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS ON THE TENTATIVE

SCHEDULE FOR MEETINGS

ON ENERGY MATTERS OUTLINED IN MY TELEX OF JANUARY 28. SINCE SENDING MY TELEX

I HAVE RECEIVED PREMIER LOUGHEED'S MESSAGE OF JANUARY 29. YOU RECEIVED A COPY

FROM THE PREMIER.

I HAVE GIVEN CAREFUL THOUGHT TO THIS SITUATION AND HAVE COME

TO THE CONCLUSION THAT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES IT IS BOTH NECESSARY AND DESIRABLE

THAT PREMIER LOUGHEED AND I SHOULD HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSIONS IN ORDER TO CLARIFY

OUR POSITION. I HAVE ACCORDINGLY PROPOSED TO HIM THAT HE AND I SHOULD MEET VERY

EARLY IN MARCH IN AN EFFORT, IN WHICH ALL FIRST MINISTERS ARE INTERESTED, TO

ARRIVE AT AN UNDERSTANDING THAT SHOULD BE DONE WITH A TEMPORARY RESTRAINT.

IT IS MY INTENTION TO KEEP YOU INFORMED OF THE DEVELOPMENTS ARISING

WITH MY PROPOSED MEETING WITH PREMIER BLAKENEY AND PREMIER LOUGHEED.

IN LIGHT OF THE NEW SITUATION, OUR MINISTERS AND OFFICIALS WILL

PROBABLY NOT NEED TO MEET TO PLAN FOR THE TIME BEING ON MULTILATERAL MEETINGS,

AS ENVISAGED IN THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF THE JANUARY 28 MESSAGE.

I SHOULD THINK, HOWEVER, THAT FIRST MINISTERS WILL WANT TO GET

TOGETHER PRIVATELY, IN ANY EVENT, BEFORE THE END OF MARCH.

Get together with who?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Whom.

[ Page

795 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: There is no federal policy; there is no

energy policy. It changes day to day. I wished my very good

friend, the Conservative Premier from Alberta, bon voyage and

bon chance, but I said: "Watch out, brother. The last time you

had private meetings, the decision was made before you even got

out of the room." This is no way to run a national government

or an energy policy, Mr. Member, and I agree with you

completely on your observations on that conference.

First of all, come to a meeting, then don't come. We have a

policy; we haven't got a policy. All they've got in mind, as

far as I'm concerned, is some way out past June 28, so they can

have a federal election and put off the energy policy decision

until after the federal election.

MR. WALLACE: Has he asked for a freeze until June 30?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I have no objection to the freeze. He has

not asked me. I made a note of this question.

MR. WALLACE: Has he asked you?

HON. MR. BARRETT: No. We have not received a formal request

for an opinion of the Government of British Columbia on whether

or not the freeze should continue.

Now that you have asked me, I will give you my answer. It

is: yes, we think the freeze should continue. And when you see

the Prime Minister....

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): He doesn't talk to

him.

HON. MR. BARRETT: If you get a chance, pass him a

message.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: He only talks to you.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, he comes out on that great big jet

and spends $6,000 on fuel to come out for a Liberal

fund-raising meeting — $6,000 fuel for that jet to come out for

one night. Mind you, the Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder)

was happy. He got to see him in a parade the next day.

(Laughter.) It was a kiddies parade, as I understand it —

that's why the Member was there. (Laughter.)

Now the question of the 11A discretionary power — and I

hope, Mr. Member, I have enough time to answer all the

questions you asked — 11A is the discretionary power of the

National Energy Board. We had asked on numerous occasions that

they use

section 11A, and it was denied us. We had to make our

own moves then with the petroleum corporation.

Now, Mr. Member, you also mentioned the Waffle report and public ownership.

I think it is important to share some philosophy and some views.

First of all, I want to repudiate the statement made by the

Attorney-General of the Province of Alberta, Mr. Merv Leach,

who said it was okay for governments to void contracts.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's what a Conservative

Attorney-General said. Now, I want you all to sleep well

tonight. Remember, it was a Conservative who said it, not a

socialist, so don't have any nightmares. He went on to say that

the Queen can do no wrong. Forgive him — he's a Tory, one of

those radical, dangerous fellows who somehow think that the

people have a right to their own government to determine what

the laws should be. Forgive him, for he does not know what....

What is it, Harv?

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's right. (Laughter.) And the War

Measures Act — you boys all voted for it.

MR. FRASER: You're filibustering your own estimates!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, Mr. Chairman! They ask me questions, I

give them answers they don't like, and they cry! I can't

understand it. First of all, they say "answer questions," and when you answer, they say "don't answer them."

Schizophrenia! (Laughter.)

Columbia Cellulose. Now, Mr. Member, what is the situation?

There is only perfection in the abstract. We agree on that.

Once you place

an Act there it is no longer perfection, because

human error and human faults come into play. I think we can

agree with that as a philosophical base. I don't believe in an

absolute socialism, just as you don't believe in an absolute

free enterprise.

But when you stand back and start talking philosophically

and you want me to respond philosophically, Mr. Member, the

first thing that comes to my attention, through you, Mr.

Chairman, is the sympathy I feel for the illogic that you must

bear being a Member supporting free enterprise.

You make the most rational, sensible appeals for a public

ownership of the private hospital field. That's socialism, Mr.

Chairman. And how do you define where socialism should be

applied, and where it shouldn't be applied? I suggest to you,

Mr. Member, that there are practical decisions on public

ownership and free enterprise that all governments must make.

We've made some, and what have they been based on?

[ Page 796 ]

MR. WALLACE: The health field.

HON. MR. BARRETT: We've made some in the health field, but

we've made some in the economic field.

MR. WALLACE: You can't pick and choose to be ill.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, you can't pick and choose to be ill.

Neither can a company pick and choose to be ill. Neither can a

community pick and choose to be ill. But when the community is

ill because of economic malaise, then it is the responsibility

of the rest of the community to come to the rescue. We did that

at Ocean Falls, and you voted for it, Mr. Member.

The community of Prince Rupert was ill. It was suffering

from corporate boardroom thick-headedness — absenteeism. They

were thinking of closing that pulp mill in Prince Rupert.

MR. SMITH: Then along came the knight in shining armour.

HON. MR. BARRETT: We made a decision to purchase that pulp

mill. It's been very successful. It was right socially and it's

right economically — a great, lucky combination.

Now, Mr. Member, our philosophy has been all along, as

democratic socialists, to make each decision based on the need

of the region and the people in that region. You have

understood....

MR. WALLACE: You signed the manifesto.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I signed the manifesto and I said at the

time I wanted it discussed. When was the last time the Tories

discussed Edmund Burke? (Laughter.) You know, Adam Smith. The

socialists have had George Bernard Shaw; we've had others.

You've had great ones too...yes, they have.

The Tories have brought forth great thinkers...in the 16th

and 17th centuries. (Laughter.) But at least they had a

history. That bunch over there is a hysteric. (Laughter.)

Can't you see Solon Lowe going down as one of the great

pioneers of intellectual thought or Blackmore? Do you remember

Blackmore that great believer in freedom? And then there was...

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: ...then there was William Aberhart. Oh,

don't forget flat-earth John. (Laughter.) He was another

philosopher that was a mark of that party. But you've had a

philosophy....

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, Mr. Member, that's up the down

staircase. (Laughter.) We have a philosophy.

MR. PHILLIPS: I've never seen such a defence in my life.

HON. MR. BARRETT: We have a philosophy and the philosophy is

that the public good must come first.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: And, Mr. Member, we have modeled that

philosophy to the best of our ability. In terms of the elderly,

we've made a major shift in housing, and there's an increase

from $4.5 million to $10 million. So, Mr. Member, there is a

contradiction in terms of your abstract theories in the

application of your vote. We're glad you've got that

contradiction, because you have a sense of understanding in

terms of making these decisions.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: But, Mr. Member, this is the kind of

debate that I think is valid in this House. You've presented

your point of view; I've presented mine. The testing ground is

among the people. It's a step up from the mindless kind of

clichs and euphemisms we've had in this province

for years. I'm glad you came to the conference, I hope you come

to further conferences and I hope you contribute in the same

positive, critical manner that you've done all along.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports progress

and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. MacDonald; files answers to questions 124, 123 and

Hon. Mr. Macdonald files the first annual report of the B.C.

Energy Commission for the year ending December 31, 1973.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:54 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright 1974, 2001, 2013: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada