1975 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MARCH 18,1975

Night Sitting

[ Page

755 ]

CONTENTS

Committee of Supply: Premier's estimates.

On vote 2.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 755

Mr. Curtis — 756

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 757

Mr. Curtis — 757

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 757

Mr. Gibson — 757

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 762

Mr. Gibson — 767

Mr. McClelland — 769

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 769

Mr. McClelland — 769

Mr. McGeer — 770

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 773

Mr. Phillips — 773

Mr. McGeer — 778

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Orders of the Day

House in Committee of Supply; Mr. G.H. Anderson in the

chair.

ESTIMATES: PREMIER'S OFFICE

(continued)

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, yesterday and

earlier today we were discussing the question of the loans of

some $200 million for B.C. Hydro, and there are problems with

respect to this loan which I believe need an airing and which

have not yet been discussed so far.

First, of course, is the change in the Premier's attitude

with respect to overseas money and the change in his attitude

toward the source of money. Back in April of 1974 the Premier returned from Hong Kong and the headline was: "Hong Kong Money

Curb Sought."

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): That was equity.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, we're now having distinctions — he

is shouting "equity" across the floor at me. In case he thinks

it is only that distinction, perhaps I should quote his own

words of last year where he said that this money is here to

protect the vast profits made by taking advantage of lowly paid

Hong Kong workers in that Crown colony. And later on he talked

about sweatshop labour.

In other words, he took a very moralistic stand with respect

to this money, and he has now changed his tune. To quote him

from yesterday, he said that we should not talk about the

morality about where you borrow money from. He then went on to

say who is going to establish these standards of morality, and

he finally ended up with the statement that a buck is a

buck.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Yes, but he said

"the borrowing."

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Borrowing, that's right.

There has been an awful lot of comment, particularly from the Attorney-General

and others, but the essential point is the same: we are taking moralistic judgments

about from where we buy our wine; we are making judgments, as were made last

year, about the nature of the money, the sweatshop-type money. To quote the

Premier, we are "protecting vast profits made by taking advantage of lowly paid

Hong Kong workers."

The point is this: the government has clearly changed its

approach toward the source of money; therefore there are a

number of legitimate questions. The argument of the Premier

raised questions as to the true source itself. If we are to

borrow money regardless of the morality behind it, I presume

that there is no objection to money which may come from Swiss

accounts or other accounts elsewhere which may, indeed, have

been made in black market operations or anything of that

nature. If we are to cease wondering where the money comes

from, we are into a very interesting area. We are sure the

Mafia and others have money to invest. I wonder if they realize

the new policies of the government.

The point I would like to raise at this time.... The

Premier has something to say?

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The point I would like to raise at this

time is something which is becoming of increasing concern in

North America and in Europe, relating to Arab loans. The Arab

league has an official blacklist of some 1,500 corporations,

and this blacklist is being employed to essentially

discriminate against the friends of Israel. They interpret the

friends of Israel in a very broad sense. Xerox, Ford, Monsanto,

Coca Cola — all are companies on the list of friends of Israel.

They are using their financial clout, in particular with

respect to banking and major loans, to make sure that banks

which have been known in the past to be friendly towards the

state of Israel or, indeed, to have Jewish principals, are

discriminated against — banks such as Rothschild, Warburg,

Lazard Frères and others in North America as well.

On this point, because it is an important one and I think it

really is the true question as to whether or not these loans

are proper or otherwise, I'd like to read from the latest

Time magazine of March 17, 1975, under the general

heading "Economy in business," subheading "Trade." The

title of the

article is "Battling the Blacklist."

It starts by talking of the Arab boycott of Israel as

rapidly becoming a political issue in the United States. The

leaders of the B'nai B'rith have testified that more than a

dozen shipping lines have been quietly cooperating with the

boycott by avoiding Israeli ports.

Another charge is that commercial banks that act as agents

for Arab countries have been requiring certificates of

compliance with the boycott before issuing letters of credit to

U.S. firms doing business.

Newsweek of March 10, in a major

article headlined,

"The Furor Over the Blacklist," which runs for two

pages, goes on to talk about banking and underwriting.

[ Page 756 ]

Under the subheading "Squeeze" they have the following

quotation:

"The new furor over Arab pressure tactics began several weeks ago, when a number of top-drawer

investment banking houses in Europe were squeezed out of

underwriting syndicates. Among those excluded were London's

S.G. Warburg, N.M. Rothschild, and Lazard Frères et Cie of

Paris, all of which have major Jewish family ownership. Lazard

Frères and Co., the sister firm in New York, has also been a

target of Arab pressures."

The

article continues, not all the

details of which are relevant so I'll not quote any more of

it.

The real question here is whether or not we have been

entering into deals upon which no information is given because

of the possibility of subsidiary boycotts or subsidiary

agreements. This problem exists. The government will give us no

information as to the loan itself. As it happens to be a major

subject of concern, obviously it's a subject for concern in

this province too.

Did we get the loan without any subsidiary agreements

concerning boycott? Were the loans offered on an

equal-opportunity basis, regardless of the religion or race of

the principals of the companies or banking consortiums

involved? These questions obviously come to mind in the light

of the blacklist and in light of the effectiveness of this

blacklist which has led many companies to find themselves in

violation of United States civil liberties legislation.

The Arabs, obviously, can deal with whom they wish. We would

not deny them that right; it's a right they have. But when, as

we find in the United States and as we find in Europe, they are

using their economic muscle to create situations whereby one

member of one company in the United States might discriminate

against another within the United States (or the same is true

in Canada), then we start getting into areas of public policy

where we do question the correctness of borrowing from Arab

nations and use of the petro-dollar.

The Premier is perfectly right that the money is there on the international

market. Our credit rating is good; they obviously want to lend to us. But when

we have discovered that this money is being used as a political weapon in the

Middle Eastern war and where it has been used to influence domestic policy within

countries, and company and government policy within countries, we wonder whether

or not the Premier could not provide us with a bit more information than he

has to date. We really don't know from where the money comes. We do know that

the Arab league includes all of the nations that I can conceivably list and

who might have loaned us the money. We wonder whether or not the list is being

applied effectively and whether we're getting ourselves in a position where

we're dependent, perhaps in the future, upon people who will use the list and

the blackmail policy against us.

I'd like to end on this particular note, Mr. Chairman, by

quoting an Arab official, who is referred to in this

article in

Newsweek .

"In Cairo, Arab boycott officials held their semi-annual

meeting and they said they would keep up the pressure. Their

27-year-old blacklist was once largely a joke, but it has

gained credibility now that it's backed by millions of

petro-dollars.

"'The volume of screaming will tell us how much the boycott

is hurting,' said one Arab official, 'and from what we are

hearing now, it must be very painful.'"

I don't know much more about the blacklist than what I've

read from the articles I've given you and one or two others as

well, but I do feel that under the circumstances, since it is

becoming a major issue, it would be incumbent upon the

government and the Minister of Finance to give us more

information about the deal that he has made.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): This afternoon,

when the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) and I were

discussing a matter which has been before the House and this

committee for a few days now, the Premier, in response to one

of the statements, indicated that he was very anxious — in fact

he appealed to the public to bring forward any further

documentation which might be available with regard to the

events involving the election of the now Minister of Human

Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) in the NDP government.

Well, the first document to arrive is a letter which was

given to us late this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, after the

Premier made his appeal.

I would like to read the letter — it isn't a long one — and

then at the conclusion I will ask, when the committee rises and

reports, that permission or leave be given by the House that

the material tendered to the committee be tabled with the House

in order that it may be open for viewing by all.

It is, as I say, not a long letter, addressed: Mr. Gary

Bannerman, CKNW, Hotel Georgia, Vancouver, B.C. It carries the

date March 7, 1975. The letter reads as follows:

"Dear Gary:

"I am not pleased that the cheque in your possession may

become a public matter. In fact, until you brought the matter

to my attention, I was unaware that it had left my files. I

understand why you can't reveal your source. However, I have

nothing to hide and I will hereby confirm the details of the

transaction.

"Norman Levi, in his capacity as a social worker, provided

counselling to me many years ago. I consider him to be a

friend. Immediately

[ Page 757 ]

after the August 30, 1972, provincial election, I sent him a

telegram offering my congratulations. It read to the effect: 'Congratulations.

outrageous bribe to follow.' This was sent totally in jest with no other implications.

"On September 1, 1972, I consulted with Mr. W.C. McCallum

who was working with my firm, Universal Divorce Financing Ltd.,

at the time, assisting with financial and accounting matters. I

advised Mr. McCallum that Mr. Levi was a friend, that I had

indicated a political contribution would be made and that I had

heard rumours to the effect that Mr. Levi would become a

cabinet Minister.

"Mr. McCallum advised that, as a cabinet Minister, Mr. Levi

might be useful in the future, and, since the promise had been

made, a cheque should be issued. A $200 cheque was drawn on the

account of Universal Divorce Financing Ltd. and mailed to Mr.

Levi. It was issued to him personally but intended solely as a

political contribution. The signatures on the cheque were those

of myself and Mr. McCallum, who is now in the employ of the

Province of Alberta in a senior capacity. When the cancelled

cheque returned, we were surprised that it had been endorsed

personally by Mr. Levi, indicating that it had been deposited

into a personal account rather than a political account.

Sincerely yours, J.E. Hargitt."

The signature is contained.

There is a notarized statement which appears on the copy

which has been given to me: "Signed and declared before me at

the City of Vancouver in the Province of British Columbia this

7th day of March, 1975," and the signature is apparently

that of "Horace L. Picard," notary public. Indeed, it is

the standard notarized stamp: "A notary public in and for the

Province of British Columbia."

What has been added to the copy of the letter, which I hope

I can table later, is a note at the bottom of the letter with

the initials which I believe to be those of Gary Bannerman, and

it reads in full: "Note — original bears seal of Horace L.

Picard, Notary Public." Faintly showing on the Xerox copy,

which I have, is what would appear to be the standard embossed

notary seal. I am sure that that would appear very clearly on

the original which, for a number of reasons, remains in Mr.

Bannerman's possession.

I am not pleased to bring this letter to the committee or to

this House, but, again, in spirited comment over the past few

days the Premier has said: "May we have whatever there is

available in reference to this matter?" — or words to that

effect. Bring it forward. That is what I hope to be able to do

when the committee rises and reports.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, will you please tell the House

what you are alleging by reading that letter? That is already

public knowledge and confirms what the Minister has said. I am

not clear on your motive in bringing the letter to the House.

Will you please inform the House how you interpret that

letter?

MR. CURTIS: I am going to table it without further comment

but, Mr. Chairman, through you, again to indicate that this

afternoon in this committee the Premier asked for any material

relating to this subject to be brought forward. That is what I

am doing tonight.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Would you tell the House what you

interpret in that letter that's brand new to the case?

MR. CURTIS: It's not for me to interpret.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): He's practising reading.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, that's fine; I'm glad to hear that.

Thank you very much.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I asked some questions earlier about a

loan. It's not a minor loan; it's $200 million. Even in terms

of Arab petro-dollars that's a sizeable amount of money. I want

to know, if possible, what the terms were with respect to any

subsidiary deals.

I want to know whether consortiums of other banks, despite

the racial or religious origin of their principles, bid for

British Columbia business. I want to know whether we in turn

are barred or have any understanding that we will not deal with

certain companies which are known to be friendly to Israel. I

would like some assurances that the loans involved were totally

without strings attached and that the efforts of the Arab

league and the boycott are in no way involved in this

particular deal.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Chairman,

I'm on a different point. I wouldn't want to move on to that

point if the Premier plans to answer this question, which I

think is an important one.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the Member please continue?

MR. GIBSON: The Premier doesn't seem ready to answer that

question now. We hope he is later.

I want to follow up the point that was being made

[ Page 758 ]

very well and properly by the First Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) just before the adjournment.

It has to do, basically, with the way the Premier has been

handling the negotiations with Ottawa on the subject of natural

gas.

During the time I'm talking, I hope I might be able to be a

little help to the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr.

Phillips), since the Premier wasn't able to tell him the

projected natural gas rates that the $230 million revenue

forecast was on. I think, Mr. Member, I may have worked out a

little bit on some numbers which you might find useful.

I want to start out by saying that the B.C. Petroleum Corp.

was a good idea — there's no question about that. I want to

say, too, that the maximum price for British Columbia natural

gas is not only a good idea but an absolutely essential idea.

It has to be brought about as quickly as possible, with the right timing, bearing in mind all of the interest in British

Columbia, including our interest in selling lumber to the

United States and other things of that kind which provide a

great deal more employment to this province than natural gas

does.

It's a question of timing, but the Premier's timing is

election timing — that's what he's up to in natural gas. It

doesn't have anything more or less to do with than that.

How do we get the revenue estimate that the Premier arrived

at of $230 million for the coming year from the B.C. Petroleum

Corp.? There's a melded gas price right now of about 82 cents a

thousand cubic feet. I hope that the Premier will check these

numbers; they're all taken from public documents. They may not

be exactly on, and where they're off he might be kind enough to

tell us. But our gas in British Columbia is melded roughly two

to one. Roughly two parts exported — that's when we're

producing the gas that we've contracted to export (something

like 800 million feet a day) — to one part domestic, which is

roughly 400 million feet a day.

For the purposes of this calculation, I'm going to suggest

we just use the rule of thumb of 400 billion cubic feet of gas

a year. We know that the average selling price of the gas is 82

cents a thousand. We know, at least according to federal

figures, that it's something like 25 cents a thousand

transmission cost to Westcoast Transmission, bringing the net

value of the gas down to 57 cents a thousand. We know that the

average cost of the gas from the producers is something like 22

cents a thousand, which would imply a net revenue of 35 cents a

thousand to the B.C. Petroleum Corp. at the moment at present

domestic prices, at present foreign prices.

We know as well — and I'll get on to this in greater detail later — that the

provincial government has agreed that the B.C. Petroleum Corp., a provincial

Crown body, will remit to the federal government the equivalent taxation — something

like 30 per cent or something like 10 cents a thousand cubic feet. That brings

what you might call the net to the province — to the B.C. Petroleum Corp. —

down to 25 cents a thousand. If you multiply that by 400 billion cubic feet,

you get in the current circumstances in the magnitude of $100 million a year.

The Premier has projected $230 million. How would he arrive

at that? That $230 million requires — and I have to work

backwards on this, Mr. Chairman — an additional net amount of

33 cents, additional to the 25 cents now. Working back on that

and giving the federal government their 30 per cent means, on

the net basis, you have to get an extra 47 cents. This is on

all the gas, not just the export gas.

Remember, we aren't going to get this over a full year; we're going to get

it over about three-quarters of a year. Let's say the Premier's successful in

making a deal that will probably start July 1. We'll get it out of nine months

of the coming fiscal year. That means we have to get up to 63 cents right there.

That is assuming that the price of domestic gas is bumped up

the same amount. The Premier hasn't said anything about bumping

up the price of domestic gas, but let us assume that. Then we

will arrive at the lowest figure we can possibly get at to

reach that revenue estimate. The lowest possible figure we can

get is an increase of 63 cents per thousand cubic feet. That is

why I say that it is an election issue.

The Premier is going to go to Ottawa and demand that amount.

If he doesn't get it, he is going to come back and have an

election. If he decides that he really wants to have an

election, no matter what economics say, he is going to go and

ask for $1.93 or $2. He is going to ask for something that he

thinks he can't get, if he wants to have an election.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Don't you think we should get the most?

You just said that.

MR. GIBSON: If he doesn't want to have an election, he is

going to settle for whatever he can get. That is what is going

to determine it, Mr. Premier. That is what is going to

determine it. I wish that what was going to determine it was

going to be the best economic issues of British Columbia. But I

am afraid that it is going to come down to "should there be an

election or not," in the Premier's mind this coming

spring. Now I would ask the Premier to tell us what he thinks

is the fair price for the coming year. He shakes his head, Mr.

Chairman.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'll tell you.

MR. GIBSON: The Premier is going to tell us what? I'm going

to suggest the reason he is not prepared to tell us that price

now is that he hasn't made up his mind yet whether or not he

wants an election.

[ Page 759 ]

MR. LEWIS: You're speculating. Wild speculation.

MR. GIBSON: I am speculating, says the Hon. Member for

Shuswap. Mr. Chairman, we have to speculate. We get so little

information that we have to speculate, so we make the best

guesses we can.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Sit down and then I'll tell you.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Premier, I will sit down in a minute. I just

want to lay that little foundation because that is not the real

question; that is just a kind of a little sideline. The real

question is the question of the bargaining position of British

Columbia and western Canada on this whole issue of natural

gas.

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Economic Development): Don't be

cynical, Gordon.

MR. GIBSON: "Don't by cynical," says the Hon.

Minister of Economic Development. How disappointed he must be

when he has the responsibility in that cabinet, right after the

Premier, for maintaining the economic place of British Columbia

in Confederation. How disappointed he must be that we have seen

our natural gas bargaining lever frittered away by the

Premier.

HON. MR. LAUK: I am disappointed in what the federal

government has frittered away.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Minister, I hope you will stand up and take

your place in these estimates, because you said you were going

to talk about these things adequately on the budget, and you

didn't. You didn't. It was a good speech but I was disappointed

in that part of it. It was a great performance, but the

substance wasn't there.

What should be the western bargaining position? Alberta is

trying to strengthen the western bargaining position right

now.

HON. MR. BARRETT: By an election. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBSON: Partly by election, Mr. Premier — which makes you

think a little bit, too, doesn't it? But partly by not giving

away their bargaining position the way you did. There is an oil

and gas marketing commission in Alberta, oil in particular,

which is like the B.C. Petroleum Corp. Let me read a little

description of it:

"The commission takes all the oil output from Crown-leased

lands, representing about 85 per cent of the province's average daily production

of about 1.5 million barrels of oil and byproducts, and sells it to domestic

and foreign purchasers."

Does that sound familiar? It's just like the B.C. Petroleum

Corp. — a good idea.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Did you vote for it in our House?

MR. GIBSON: I didn't get a chance to vote for it, Mr.

Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What did your colleagues do?

MR. GIBSON: Ah, but it is a good idea, Mr. Premier.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: That is the group I joined, Mr. Premier, and I

am proud to be a part of this group. It is a fine group, a

group of people I admire, not just in this House, but all

around the province.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That is their problem. They are the ones

who need a leader.

MR. GIBSON: This is said by a man who is proud to be

here.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): You've got to have

something to lead if you want to be a leader.

MR. GIBSON: Let us go on with what this commission does. It

collects all the proceeds from the sale of Alberta oil and each

month pays the producers the actual value of their output, less

the provincial share of the production — about 40 per cent of

the gross wellhead value of $6.50 a barrel which it transmits

to the provincial treasury.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Why would they go through this kind of tortuous,

roundabout route, Mr. Premier?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Because they don't understand socialism.

They have to go around the back door to do the same thing we

have done up front.

MR. GIBSON: They don't understand socialism, indeed, but

they do understand federalism a little better than you do...

HON. MR. BARRETT: No! No! No!

[ Page 760 ]

MR. GIBSON: ...because they haven't conceded the right of the

federal government to tax the Crown provincial, and that is

what you gave away. Let us get into this a little more

deeply.

The Alberta oil marketing commission is forbidding the

Alberta oil producers to report to the federal government how

much of the value of that oil goes into the provincial

treasury. Why? Because they say it is none of the federal

government's business. Because they say: "That is our oil! You

oil companies never owned it, not for one minute. You are

strictly our agents in its production. All you did was pump

that oil out of the ground on our behalf and you gave us our

share of the oil, and the federal government has no right to

tax that because it never left Crown-provincial hands." It

never had any chance to tax that because it never left

provincial hands.

However, what has happened in British Columbia? We haven't

taken that tack in British Columbia, Mr. Chairman. Oh, no! No,

in British Columbia we won a great victory. We know we won a

great victory because there's a press release of January 22

which tells us it's a great victory.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Right!

MR. GIBSON: "Time for release: immediate."

HON. MR. BARRETT: From my office.

MR. GIBSON: From your office, Mr. Premier. "Subject: natural

gas tax agreement. Major step forward for B.C."

You see, Mr. Chairman, even getting more hints than you get

on 20 questions, they still don't understand.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: There's a crest on it, Mr. Premier. It's a

pretty crest. But that doesn't make the content any

better because the fact of the matter....

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, attacking the Queen! Attacking the

Queen now!

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: Who's attacking the Queen? The person who is

using that stationery for this purpose. I think that's

unsettling. Send a note to Her Majesty apologizing.

What were these great victories? Here was point No. 1. "The

provincial government will make tax rebate payments directly to

the federal government." "The provincial government" — I want

to underline that — "will make tax rebate payments directly to

the federal government."

HON. MR. BARRETT: Make the oil companies open their

books.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, the Premier says it will make the

oil companies open their books. Mr. Premier, don't you

understand that under the Income Tax Act of Canada you've

always had that right?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh! And they told me that I couldn't read

their books.

MR. GIBSON: Don't you understand that? Don't you understand

that there's a

section in that Act that says that on the

request of the provincial Minister of Finance to the federal

Minister of National Revenue you can get access to those books?

Of course you have to have that to collect corporation tax.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Well, now, you had better read the Act, Mr.

Premier. All I'm saying is that you can get the

information.

HON. MR. BARRETT: But I can't give it to you.

MR. GIBSON: No, but you had access to those books. Do you

deny that? You had access all along to those books.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: Are you going to tell us that you're going to

give confidential information to this House now from companies?

Stand up and tell us that now.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: The Premier just told us this was justified so

he could have access to those corporations' books. But, Mr.

Chairman, he's always had access to those corporations' books.

It's a lot of nonsense. It's a lot of horseradish!

Horsefeathers! The Premier should be ashamed of himself, Mr.

Chairman.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I should have gone to St. Louis.

MR. GIBSON: Because the fact of the matter is that all he's

done is establish the principle that the Province of British

Columbia, the Crown provincial, is ready to remit taxes to the

Crown federal. And I say, Mr. Chairman, that is wrong! That is

a sellout of British Columbia's bargaining position and of the

bargaining position of the west that Premier Lougheed is trying

to uphold, that other western Premiers are trying to uphold —

those other two NDP western Premiers. And who sold it out? The

Province

[ Page 761 ]

of British Columbia sold it out! I'm embarrassed that the

Province of British Columbia did that.

You know why that's unfortunate, Mr. Chairman?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I can prove you've got bad goals. You want

to be leaders too.

MR. GIBSON: What's unfortunate about that, Mr. Chairman, is

that our powerful negotiating weapon, our most powerful weapon,

has been taken away from us. I agree with the Premier that

British Columbia should be prepared to share her natural

endowments with the rest of Canada. I think that's right — when

the rest of the deal is fair. And, Mr. Premier, you know the

rest of the deal isn't fair. You published the statements in

the back of your budget address. You published the statements

about the B.C. Ferries and the subsidies that aren't coming to

British Columbia. You know the details. You're the president of

BCR.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I can't believe it.

MR. GIBSON: You know about the subsidies over the years that

haven't come to British Columbia on the BCR — millions and

millions of dollars that the former Premier was never able to

get because he just believed in loggerheads with Ottawa.

HON. MR. BARRETT: How come you're still a Liberal?

AN HON. MEMBER: He could never get it.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I don't understand this.

MR. GIBSON: I'm a Liberal, Mr. Premier, because I believe in

fighting for British Columbia's rights with the federal

government, and winning — not giving away our position..

HON. MR. LAUK: Don't you think that's slightly

inconsistent?

MR. GIBSON: That's what I believe in.

So there's a question of subsidies. And then there's the

question of tariffs in this country of ours. You know about

tariffs, Mr. Premier. You know that the tariff structure in

this country is costing British Columbia on a direct basis at

least $300 million year. That's just the customs and excise

duties we pay; that doesn't count the higher prices we pay for

merchandise from central Canada, which is protected by that

tariff. Mr. Chairman, the Premier's applauding that

statement.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You bet.

MR. GIBSON: I'm proud of him for that. But then why doesn't

he do something about it, Mr. Chairman? Why did he give away

the largest single negotiating weapon we have, which is,

namely, the right and the freedom of the provincial government

of taxation on her natural resources from the federal

government?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GIBSON: Why did he give that away, Mr. Chairman, all in

the guise of saying: "We don't want those wicked companies to

launder and shrink the extra money they'd get in"? What does

he mean: "launder and shrink"? It's a pretty phrase, Mr.

Chairman. But you could see exactly what went in, Mr. Premier,

and exactly what has come out. You could Sanforize the whole

project.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, you've got to be kidding.

MR. GIBSON: That's right. Do you mean to tell me, Mr.

Premier, that our public service and our tax collection branch

isn't smart enough to watch just a few oil companies, and watch

what goes in and what comes out?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Standard Oil of British Columbia hasn't

paid income tax since 1965 to 1971, and every bureaucrat from

here to Ottawa couldn't stop them....

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, just to make sure that

Hansard records that, the Premier just said that

Standard Oil of British Columbia didn't pay corporate income

tax from 1965 to 1971 to British Columbia.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): You didn't

even know that either and you're up there speaking.

MR. GIBSON: I wanted to quote the Premier correctly, Mr.

Minister of Public Works.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I ask the Premier: if that's the case,

why hasn't the Premier brought in a corporate income tax

department for this province so that we can properly look after

that kind of thing? He's the Minister of Finance. What's the

matter with him? Is he defaulting in his duty, that he sees these

things going

on and does nothing about it? It's not good enough to stand there, Mr.

Premier, and point the shaking finger and say: "Isn't this disgraceful.

You're in charge now. You can't blame other people any more.

Interjections.

[ Page 762 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Your problem is that you found half of your dad's old envelopes — not the whole works, just half. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBSON: I'm still looking for the other half, Mr. Premier. When I find it, watch out.

Mr. Chairman, that's essentially the point I wanted to make: this

natural gas business may be the Premier's way of trying to build up to

an election. I think maybe he's pulling back a little bit right now.

He's trying to launder his own image a little bit around the

province, I notice, in saying kindly things about not making takeovers

or acquisitions of any kind. He's saying things of that kind so he may

be pulling back.

He's been building up to this kind of an election issue, and,

unfortunately, en route what happened is an important principle for

British Columbia was sold out: namely, that we have conceded the

principle that the federal government has the right to reach into the

British Columbia Petroleum Corp., which is a Crown corporation, and

say: "We will take that money away." I say that that is shocking, and

I'd like an account from our Premier as to why he has done that.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I have tried very faithfully with some

humour and compassion to follow your tortuous route, Mr. Member. I've

come to the conclusion that you're against Ottawa.

MR. GIBSON: No, I'm for British Columbia.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh! First of all, some of the allegations

you made were that the former Premier had been at loggerheads, to use

your exact gesture, with Ottawa over subsidies on the ferries.

AN HON. MEMBER: Unproductive loggerheads.

HON. MR. BARRETT: And we had the whole performance.

Unproductive loggerheads. That means: do not have unproductive

loggerheads; have productive loggerheads.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. BARRETT: That means, if we were a Liberal government in power in British Columbia, we would get what we want from Ottawa.

MR. GIBSON: No, it means you should get....

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, yes,

it does mean that. You mean to say that the Liberals would get

something that Social Credit didn't get, that the NDP didn't get, but

the Liberals would get because they have a magic formula with Ottawa —

namely, partisan politics?

MR. GIBSON: You should get it.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You're absolutely right, I should get it;

but they don't give it to me. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBSON: Well, you should do a better job then.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, what am I going to do about it if

they don't give it to me? We had a better chance when they were

in a minority position.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right.

HON. MR. BARRETT: We had a better chance then. That's when we

had the great conciliation. We had the Western Economic

Opportunities Conference. Do you remember that? I remember.

I'll never forget the gavel at the end of that love-in: "Bang," said the Prime Minister, through the gavel. "Thus ends

the first and only and last Western Economic Opportunities

Conference." Down closed the coffin and away they went. All the

bureaucrats took a planeload and a trainload back to Ottawa,

while we hitchhiked home, we western Premiers.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ahhhhh!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Because we got taken again — taken again!

Do you remember somebody slipped that line in the federal

throne speech saying: "We're going to have a western economic

conference"?

When was alienation discovered? After the 1972 election,

when the Liberal majority melted. When was western alienation

buried? After the 1974 election, when the Liberal majority

spawned itself back, ouija board and all, into Ottawa.

What happened? Quebec gets what it wants; the Maritimes get

a heavy-water plant with a heavy debt. They got that great big

ship with a hairline crack in it on shore, the only landlocked

museum designed for the sea. They bought a submarine with a

leak in it; they painted the Bonaventure. How much would they

pay to paint the Bonaventure? They flew the Arrow.

And then you've got the gall to come in here and say that we

shouldn't be at loggerheads with Ottawa. But on the other hand

we shouldn't give in to anything, which means love but not

hate, care but uncaring — typical kind of doubletalk. What are

you after, Mr. Member? You are so mixed up. You're after

nonsense.

Do you support the position that we should have subsidies

for our ferries?

MR. GIBSON: Yes.

[ Page 763 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: "Yes." Reason No. 1 why he should leave

the Liberal Party. (Laughter.)

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Let me finish the quiz. If you pass, you

can rectify your political history and quit the Liberals

tonight.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the speakers please address the

Chair?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask him: does he

believe that we should get a per-mile subsidy for the

construction of railroads like other jurisdictions? Yes or

no?

MR. GIBSON: Absolutely.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's No. 2.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): When are his

estimates going to be over? (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: Pretty soon. He's doing pretty good on the

quiz so far.

Do you think that British Columbia should have more MPs?

AN HON. MEMBER: Rep by pop.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes or no?

MR. GIBSON: But more Senators.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes or no on the MPs?

MR. GIBSON: I'll talk about that later.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes. That depends on whether or not he's a

candidate. (Laughter.) Question mark. He's got a limited number

of questions because he'll never make it as a judge.

(Laughter.) But so far he's not doing bad. What are you doing

in that party? You've got a handicap of heritage.

MR. GIBSON: It's the right place to be.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please address the Chair.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: He's embarrassed? I'm embarrassed for

him!

MR. GIBSON: And I for you, dear Brutus.

HON. MR. BARRETT: We're both too chubby to be Cassius. (Laughter.)

But I want to tell you, the Five o'clock Shadow has a tough

job wheeling with the night. (Laughter.)

Anyway, aside from the classics....

Art not without ambition, but without illness that should

attend it, Mr. Chairman. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: That's Calpurnian logic.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That was Calpurnian logic? I thought the

lady did a pretty good job for her husband, but he crashed in

the end. After all, it was one of Alex's relatives.

The point, Mr. Member, is that we have a valid dispute with

Ottawa. Ottawa has shown no interest at all in resolving these

basic claims made by the former government and by this

government. To stand up and say that it's my fault, when they

never responded to the former government and they don't respond

to me....

MR. GIBSON: You gave away the taxation.

HON. MR. BARRETT: We're coming to that. You raised the

subsidy so I have to deal with that.

You say that it's my fault because they didn't respond to

the former government. When they don't respond to me, that's my

fault.

MR. GIBSON: We expect more from you.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You expect more from me, that's right. I

travelled to Ottawa; the other guy (Hon. Mr. Bennett) gave up

and had the empty chair at the conferences. Maybe he knew

something I didn't know.

I go down there and I wonder what the point is because I get

the same results. He didn't show up; he had an empty chair down

there and everybody ridiculed him back here in this House. I

remember them: "Ya didn't go down there — what d'ya expect? Ya

don't go down talk to Ottawa, you're not gonna get nothin'."

So I went down with love. I said: "Here I am. I'm from B.C.!

I have a little overnight bag and two civil servants."

Immediately I made a mistake — they had 50 waiting in the

station to hold my bag! (Laughter.)

They've got more civil servants per acre there than

Saskatchewan has of wheat crops. They line them up in the

railroad station right down to the Chateau Laurier. The Chateau

Laurier has had civil servants locked in their rooms,

collecting bills for years! They just took the money. It's a

rival to Egypt's pharaohs in the Chateau Laurier. I'm sure if

they open the doors in the top three floors they'll find civil

servants and a couple of horses left over from Petawawa.

(Laughter.)

Anyway, to carry on with my experiences with

[ Page 764 ]

Ottawa, I go down there and I roll out the case. I say:

"Canadian! Bob Strachan just put up the Trans-Canada Highway

signs again. We're back in Confederation. We want to cooperate

with the rest of Canada. We love our friends!"

I even said "Bienvenu!" when I walked in the lobby.

(Laughter.) That's going pretty far! It took me two hours on

the plane to remember that one. "Bombvenew, Bombvenew" — I kept

on saying it. They said: "What's he talking about — a

bomb?"

Okay, so I go there sincerely. What happens to me? I learn

the Ottawa game. How does the game work? We do not have open

meetings in Ottawa; we have conferences. This is how it works,

in case some of you go down there.

You go into a room and you close the door and you bring your

two civil servants, and there are 50 Ottawa civil servants. You

spend two hours in there talking. Then you go out and you have

an agreement that none of the politicians say anything. You go

out for lunch, and you keep your part of the agreement and you

say nothing.

Then you come back and the radio reporter puts a microphone

right in your nostrils and says: "We've heard from a high

official source that you said so-and-so and such-and-such at

the meeting."

I say: "Where do you hear that?"

"Oh, from a high official source."

So I go back in a closed meeting and say: "Would the high

official source please stand up?" They don't introduce

themselves. (Laughter.) This is a fact!

So next day I go in and we have the closed meeting and we

discuss things and I come out again — same experience. This time

they're not quoting a high official source. They say: "Someone

high up in the government."

So I go back there and I say: "I want to apologize to High

Official Source. Would Someone High Up In The Government please

stand up?" All they do is laugh. They think I'm funny.

(Laughter.)

MR. GIBSON: So do we.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, and do you know what? You think I'm

funny; they think I'm funny; and I'm still looking for the high

official source.

Then we go out of the meeting, after we come to these

non-agreements, and I comb my hair. I do the whole thing. I'm

waiting for the press, along with the other Premiers. We're all

waiting, and the press all runs by. At the Finance Ministers'

conference they're zipping right by, and who are they talking

to? The man with the plastic comb — John himself. John Turner.

And he says "Well, So-and-so said this; So-and-so said that;

but I whupped him this way and I said that." By the time we're

through with 15 minutes of that finesse, we come staggering

around the comer and say: "Hi, I was at the conference."

They say, "Deadline's passed."

What do we get? A smooth, beautifully handled, Liberal media

manipulation. That's why I've asked that those conferences be

open. I don't blame it on the press. They are forced into

role-playing in that situation in Ottawa, and they suffer with

it because they have been forced to stay in line in that game.

Instead of refusing to take comments from high official

sources, instead of refusing just to take their remarks from

the Minister, the press of this country has not demanded that

they be present at these meetings. As a result, the press is

fed purely the federal government's position.

MR. GARDOM: Are you going to invite them to a B.C. Hydro

meeting?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, I'm going to invite them to a

conference out here and turn the lights on.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, you asked me what's going on.

I've given you my version. You don't like it, go back there and

find out.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, come on.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Do not ask a federal cabinet Minister....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Members address the

Chair, please?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, I ask you not to check with a

politician, but with a high official source. They'll tell you

the same thing. That's how the game is played. Anybody who has

worked in the Ottawa press gallery, who will consciously think

about that whole scenario, will recognize that what I am saying

is essentially the truth. That is exactly how it's handled. The

press is massaged, professionally, by that federal Liberal

government.

I have asked time and time again that the conferences be open — those federal-provincial

conferences dealing with energy matters that affect the lives of every single

Canadian that are closed. I will predict to you that come the conference on

April 8 and 9 we will be allowed to give our opening statements publicly, then

the meetings will be closed, then right after — at lunch hour — Don Macdonald

and the senior bureaucrats in Ottawa will hit the microphones and the television

and they'll say what went on in the meetings. The media will dutifully report

it, and the message will be the federal Liberal message. I've gone through it

time and time again in

[ Page

765 ]

Ottawa.

Would you tell me, please, what is the logical reason why

British Columbia cannot have a ferry subsidy? I'd like the

answer. Please tell me. Is it because of my manner, or my

predecessor's manner? Are you trying to tell me that a

government would make a policy decision on whether it likes

somebody or not — or do they make it on what's fair? If you're

saying that my attitude, or my predecessor's attitude, however

unpopular or popular in Ottawa, was the decisive factor in

making the policy, then, sir, you are making the worst

condemnation one could make against a national government.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): Hear,

hear!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Whomever the people select to fight for

them, or represent them, is the people's choice in that

jurisdiction. When it was W.A.C. Bennett as the Premier of this

province, did they make a decision because they didn't like

W.A.C. Bennett that they didn't get ferry subsidies or railroad

subsidies? And is it, sir, your inference that because they

don't like Dave Barrett...?

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No. The question is: what is right? It is

right that British Columbia should have a ferry subsidy, and we

don't get it? It is right that we should have a railroad

subsidy, and we don't get it? There is no logical explanation

against that other than politics, yet you still go on, under

that party.

Now your points on natural gas. (Laughter.)

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, you talked about the ferries. You

raised these other things. I'm telling you there is no justice

in the federal government's position. They cannot justify

denying these things to British Columbia. They can't. Have we

not asked? Sir, we have asked repeatedly. As a matter of fact,

I've even mailed to all opposition Members copies of what we've

requested. You haven't read it?

AN HON. MEMBER: We've read it.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You've read it. Then you know I asked.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: And I've made two trips down there as

well.

HON. MR. BARRETT: So, if it's on personality....

MR. GIBSON: No, it's not on personality.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, what is the reason then?

MR. GIBSON: Competence.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Competence?

MR. GIBSON: Competence in putting B.C.'s case.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh! Can I ask you to tell me what is

lacking in this argument? Tell me where I am incompetent.

My predecessor said that other provinces received ferry

subsidies. Can we have the same ferry subsidies? Was that

incompetent? I took the same argument to Ottawa. Was that

incompetent?

I can't believe that it's not a question of anything other

than politics. Absolutely, absolutely politics.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm quite convinced that what you mean by

competence is that neither of us were Liberals.

MR. GIBSON: Have to use B.C. muscle.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, okay. Now the gas thing. If you

recall, last September the federal Energy Minister announced a

new increase in gas and told us in writing — told the whole

world in writing — exactly what he expected British Columbia to

do. And we did it. You recall the words. I think the paragraph

started: "In the case of British Columbia the funds will wholly

accrue to the British Columbia Petroleum Corp." — in effect,

saying that we hope (in his words) that the petroleum

corporation would pass some of this on to producers to

stimulate exploration. We did: signed contracts; freely

negotiated; tough bargaining. Old gas — 22 cents; new gas — 33

cents on the dollar.

With no warning to us, no warning to Mr. Macdonald, Mr.

Turner brought in his new budget with the threat....

MR. GIBSON: No warning! It was brought out in May.

HON. MR. BARRETT: But we had expected that we would continue

with what Mr. Macdonald told us to do. Why would he tell us to

do one thing and Mr. Turner come in with a budget two months

later with the complete opposite? Are they not talking to each

other?

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you check on something

[ Page 766 ]

as important as that?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, I asked him that and they had no

logical answer for it. The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr.

Macdonald) asked them and there was no logical answer. They

were a little bit embarrassed — not ours, the other Macdonald;

they're all over the place.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, don't blame that on the haggis. They

are not bad fellows, the Macdonalds. Well, I don't want to

start refereeing the Macdonald-Campbell fight; I just don't

want to go through that again. That happened here one night,

and I'll never forget that.

Now look, you can't have the federal Minister telling us one

thing in September, the Finance Minister telling us something

else and expect us to believe that they knew what each other

was doing. If you want us to believe that, they are more

incompetent than what we'd like to believe.

Then we were faced also with a stated threat: "Crown

corporations may be taxed." Why was that threat given?

MR. GIBSON: To scare you.

HON. MR. BARRETT: To scare us? Did you hear that? Did you

hear that? The threat was given to scare us, to threaten the

province. Not my words — "to scare us" — those are the words of

a Liberal. Is that the way to run the country — to scare a

government?

AN HON. MEMBER: To build Confederation?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Is that the way to build Confederation —

to scare a government? Is that not going at loggerheads, from

Ottawa's point of view? He's a Liberal and he's telling us that

it was said to scare us. Is that what policy statements are

made for — to frighten poor little provinces? Is that what he

learned while he was there in the Prime Minister's office?

MR. GIBSON: And you knuckled under.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Boom! We're going to scare them. We'll tax

them. And that was a threat, a scare described by that Member,

admitted by a living, breathing Liberal in this House. To scare

us!

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Why did I accept it? Because they are callous and

have an overwhelming majority, and I took that threat to be what it was — a

threat. I did not want the position of the British Columbia Petroleum Corp.

eroded because of a difference in philosophy. The federal government has talked,

talked, talked about an agency to recover funds for the Canadian people out

of our resources but has done nothing. Only during wartime, when we are given

a demonstration of some leadership under a Liberal government, did we see Crown

corporations returning adequate funds to the people of this country based on

an investment through a Crown corporation. The Polymer Corp., which the former

Hon. John Nicholson, the former Lieutenant-Governor of this province, had a

part to play in, and an honourable part to play.... But what happened to Polymer?

What happened to our merchant fleet? What happened to those Crown corporation

dreams that were created by the Liberals to say: "We, the Canadian people, would

have a share"?

Everyone who made money.... They destroyed it because of

the influence of their corporate friends. One of the frauds of

the Liberal Party in this country has been to titillate the

Canadian people that they are progressive, while all the time

guaranteeing that they'll be conservative.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): You're even filibustering your

own estimates!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Go back to sleep now.

HON. MR. BARRETT: So, Mr. Member, we were given a choice.

Faced with a threat and faced with the fact that the position

taken by the federal government was not challenged by a single

oil company in Alberta, because they knew they couldn't win the

court case against the feds, we looked for something we could

salvage to protect us. Now you say that it was done politically

to manufacture an election. But you say on the one hand, to

open your speech, that you should get as much as you can for

British Columbia; but if you don't get it, you're going to call

an election.

MR. GIBSON: No, if you want an election, you're going to ask

for what you get.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, I have said that there's very

little likelihood that there will be an election in this

province this year...

MR. FRASER: All the more reason there will be one.

HON. MR. BARRETT: ...and I mean it. It's 90-10. That chance

doesn't rely on what happens in Ottawa. I expect that Ottawa

will give us a decent

[ Page 767 ]

price for natural gas. Their position after today's decision

in the United States becomes less and less defensible. But

considering their logic in the past in not giving us subsidies

for ferries and for railroads, they may not increase the price

of gas.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's inconsistent.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Inconsistent? I have maintained all along

that we need an increase in the price of gas, and I expect we

are going to get it.

The last point. When you say to me, "Why don't you tell us

how much money you are going to ask for?" — I will tell you

why. You Liberals are funny people. When I announced publicly

what I was going to do in Ottawa, the Ottawa politicians said:

"Oh, you shouldn't have done that, you should have waited until

you came down here and told us first." That is what I am

doing.

Now you are saying: "Oh no, don't do that, come and tell us

first." They said last time: "Don't do it that way, come and

tell us first." So I am going to do it that way. I am not going

to say what I am asking for until I get there, so they will be

the first to hear. Okay?

Now if you are going to twist it the other way — you went to

Ottawa without telling us first — I don't know what I am going

to do. I am going to flip a coin on the way down there. I don't

know how to satisfy you birds. But that is the route I am going

to follow.

We have Mr. Macdonald's word that there is going to be an

increase. The only reason we put off pressing the case was

because he said: "Yes, we agree, but leave it until the energy

conference in April." We accepted that. We accepted his

proposition in that regard, and we are expecting an

increase.

MR. GIBSON: I will be brief at this point. I have to

express, truly, an unabounded admiration for our Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What did I say that was wrong?

(Laughter.)

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, it is not what he said; it was how

he said it.

MR. GARDOM: That's what affects the Liberals.

MR. GIBSON: It was marvellous. The Premier is an orator. He

is a great orator.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No!

MR. GIBSON: He is amusing...

HON. MR. BARRETT: No.

MR. GIBSON: ...he is quick ...

HON. MR. BARRETT: No.

MR. GIBSON: ...but, Mr. Chairman, he didn't answer the

question I asked him.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You forgot to mention that I am also

modest. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, the question I asked him was why

he conceded the point that Ottawa has the right to tax British

Columbia Crown corporations. That is the question I asked him.

He didn't answer that one.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You said they were scaring us.

MR. GIBSON: Not for one minute!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: What would you do if they did scare

you?

HON. MR. BARRETT: They have been trying to do it for

years.

MR. GIBSON: The Premier and Minister of Finance had

something to say about the reference of the federal Minister

of Justice about the taxation of Crown corporations.

That is a bit of a red herring on this debate, Mr. Chairman,

because we are now talking about natural resource revenues; we

are not talking about the taxation of Crown corporations. I

don't believe that the Canadian constitution has any built-in

incentive for socialism. I don't believe that. That is what the

Premier would be implying with his generalized statement on

Crown corporations. I am talking about natural resource revenue

which the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr.

McGeer) told us earlier on tonight, under

section 109 of the

BNA Act, is guaranteed to the provinces. It is the taxation of

that revenue from the B.C. Petroleum Corp. by the Crown federal

that the Premier has given away.

He said: "Is it a question of attitude?" He said that the

former Premier used to go down to Ottawa, now he goes down to

Ottawa, and they were both asking the same things, but that it

was a question of attitude. It is not a question of attitude! I

don't think that. It is a question of competence.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, no.

MR. GIBSON: It is a question of: how do we all use British

Columbia and western muscle to get our due in this Canadian

compact called Confederation?

[ Page 768 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: It is a question of competence related to

ferry subsidies, really.

MR. GIBSON: A question of competence related to how you use

British Columbia's muscle to get what we deserve, because

unfortunately....

HON. MR. BARRETT: What about reason? Shouldn't reason play a

part?

AN HON. MEMBER: Sure it should.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Then what is the reason why we can't

have a...?

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, the Premier says: "What about

reason — shouldn't that play a part?" Yes, it should, of

course, Mr. Premier. And unfortunately, Mr. Premier, during the

last administration it was never used. The last Premier never

went down there, as you said. Reason has hardly been given a

try. I hope you started it.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I believe you are incorrect. As much as I

disagree with the former administration, they have on record

letters they sent Ottawa with reason. They should not be

faulted for that.

MR. GIBSON: I am just quoting the Premier's own words, Mr.

Chairman, about the empty chair.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: I will draw to the attention of the Premier the

fact that the Government of British Columbia year after year

refused — the Premier can turn to his Deputy right next door

and ask him if this isn't right — to partake in the

deliberations of the intergovernmental committee on

intergovernmental taxation, which is exactly the issue

here.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's changed now.

MR. GIBSON: Of course it is changed now. I say hurray for

that and I say good for you. But I say that this is part of the

reason.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Good for me, but it still hasn't got results.

MR. GIBSON: The proper argumentation hasn't been brought to

bear over the years, so reason has to be a part of it, but a

part of it also has to be....

You know the story of how you talk to a mule — first of all

you hit him over the head with a two-by-four to get his

attention. Mr. Premier, you have got to get the attention of

Ottawa a little better than it is now.

The Premier spent a good deal of his time telling us how

difficult it is to deal with Ottawa. As British Columbians we

didn't elect him to tell us that; we elected him to be

successful in dealing with Ottawa, not to tell us about his

problems.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I am fighting 'em.

MR. GIBSON: We want to sympathize with you; we want to be

behind you. But you have to use the muscle of British

Columbia.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Did you vote for me?

MR. GIBSON: I'm talking about British Columbians generally,

Mr. Premier. There were 39.5 per cent who voted for you.

Because Mr. Derril Warren ran a magnificent campaign, it

happens that you are sitting over there on the Treasury

benches. But don't take that as a mandate to go too far; and

don't feel too comfortable.

HON. MR. BARRETT: First you say don't go too far, but then

you say to go ahead and fight. You are very confused. Now you

suffer from the Liberal syndrome of the divine right to

rule.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, the Premier feels that we're

confused. He should understand that every party in this House

wishes him well in his dealing with Ottawa — every party in

this House without exception. We are all British Columbians and

for the interests of British Columbia. There's no confusion

there, Mr. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Even your leader?

MR. GIBSON: We all do, one and all.

Now I have to say something, Mr. Chairman, about when the

Premier said there was no warning on the budget statement. The

Premier was so surprised, he said, on November whatever-it-was

when this budget statement came down.

Mr. Premier, that budget statement came down sometime in

May; and there was an election held on that budget. And the

federal government said all through the election — it's a

matter of public record — that if we were re-elected, the budget

was going to come back the same. The Premier says that there

was no warning. Of course there was warning. You just weren't

prepared for it.

HON. MR. BARRETT: We have to deal with Macdonald. Do you

forget that agreement?

MR. GIBSON: Now the Premier says that we had to do this.

Ottawa was so tough that we had to do this. Mr. Chairman,

Alberta found ways of getting

[ Page 769 ]

around this. What Alberta did was to deal directly with the

companies without going through this intermediary of

Ottawa.

HON. MR. BARRETT: They gave more money to the oil companies.

We refused to do that.

MR. GIBSON: No, they didn't.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, yes, they did.

MR. GIBSON: The Premier says, Mr. Chairman, that they gave

more money to the oil companies. They didn't.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That was Turner's instruction — to give

more money to the oil companies.

MR. GIBSON: What they did, Mr. Chairman, was to give exactly

as much money to the oil companies as Ottawa was going to take

away, but they kept themselves at arm's length from Ottawa.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Ohhh!

MR. GIBSON: At arm's length.

AN HON. MEMBER: Turner said: "Give the oil companies more

money."

MR. GIBSON: They did not admit the proposition that Ottawa

had a right to tax the provincial natural resource revenues.

That's exactly what the Hon. First Member for Vancouver-Point

Grey (Mr. McGeer) was making a point of this afternoon, and

that is exactly what we should be talking about in this debate

tonight. Unfortunately, the Premier, with all his

entertainment, didn't address it.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Chairman, I just briefly

wish to make a point again with regard to the letter the Member

for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) read earlier today. I

think it is most clear that the Premier should review his

position now with regard to this whole matter, particularly

with this new evidence which has come forward — and it is new

evidence, Mr. Chairman. It admits by the person who gave the

original donation to the now Minister that the reason the

donation was given was because he felt — that person felt —

that the candidate would be useful to him in the future.

HON. MR. LAUK: What are you alleging?

MR. McCLELLAND: At that time, the person who made the donation needed

a friend in government. He was in the kind of business in which it was very

necessary that he have some friends in government.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Premier if he would

please answer once and for all....

HON. MR. LAUK: What are you alleging?

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the

Premier if he would answer the question that when the Minister

of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) told him that he was given a

$200 donation and that he took that donation, or whatever it

was...

HON. MR. BARRETT: Whatever it was.

MR. McCLELLAND: ...and put it in his personal bank account,

when that information was relayed to the Premier, did the

Premier at that time advise the Minister on the hope that the

radio hotliner would not make the issue public? Did the Premier

at that time advise the Minister not to make the allegations

public — in fact, to continue the conspiracy of silence that

had gone on for six days at that time?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, I don't know what you are up

to.

MR. McCLELLAND: I don't know what you're up to either.

HON. MR. BARRETT: But you are giving an

interpretation of a

letter that your seatmate refused to give. Now either you have

the guts to come out publicly and make specific allegations or

put a motion on the order paper or, frankly, stop throwing

sleazy mud!

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, it's time that the Premier had

the guts to call an inquiry into this whole matter.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: Call an inquiry. Make the Minister resign

and call an inquiry. That's your responsibility, Mr.

Premier.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. McCLELLAND: You'd never call a motion and you know

it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Either put up or shut up!

MR. McCLELLAND: You put up or shut up. We've just put

up.

[ Page 770 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh.

MR. McCLELLAND: Come on.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What are you alleging? What are you

alleging?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Come out and have the guts to say what you

are alleging.

MR. McCLELLAND: Come out and have the guts to call an

inquiry.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, nobody is alleging anything....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would hope that no Member is alleging any improper

conduct on the part of any Member of this House. I think we are all aware of

how these matters are handled, if necessary.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, I'd

like to deal with three matters this evening. The first one

does concern the same matter that was raised by the Member for

Langley (Mr. McClelland).

It seems to me that the government simply cannot pass as a

smear campaign the questions raised by the Member for Langley

and others in the official opposition.

I believe that any of us — and I'm one who has run in five

provincial general elections — certainly any Member, any

candidate, who is unwise enough to accept a campaign donation

made out to himself is guilty, to put it in the kindest terms,

of gross negligence.

For one thing, and I'm sure the Minister in question realizes this, by accepting

that donation in his personal account he is liable for income tax on it, regardless

of what he may do at some future time in saying that he passed the money on

to some other individuals not concerned directly with his provincial campaign.

The appropriate and proper thing for an individual who receives a campaign donation

to himself, personally, is to simply return it. I'm sure that virtually every

Member and every candidate in an election campaign does precisely that.

If someone sends you a campaign donation personally, you

return it — that's the proper thing to do.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Have you ever returned one?

MR. McGEER: Lots of them. What you do is you request that

the person who gives you that campaign donation makes it out,

if he pleases, to whomever your financial agent is. That's why

you have a financial agent to handle all of your campaign

donations.

I'm sorry to say this: it is gross impropriety for any

individual to accept a campaign donation in his own name. The

Minister knows that; the Premier knows that; the Treasury

benches know it; the backbenchers know it; the opposition knows

it. Every person who runs in a campaign knows it and the

general public knows it. You just do not accept campaign

donations in your own name. There is no proper excuse that can

be given for doing that.

That's the first point. The second point is that if you are

foolish enough to accept that and then wish to excuse that

acceptance on the grounds that you later intend to give that

campaign donation to others for purposes of your choosing,

which was the Minister's excuse, then the very minimum that you

must do is inform the person who originally made that donation

of what you are doing and why.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, Hon. Member, please. You are dealing

with the merits of the charge that has been made against a

Member, and I can't allow that.

MR. McGEER: No, Mr. Chairman, what I'm dealing with...

MR. CHAIRMAN: It would seem to me that you are alleging

improper conduct on the part of any Member.

MR. McGeer: ...is the ethics of government and the

Premier's responsibility to enforce ethics in government. Can't

you realize, Mr. Chairman, that it is the Premier's job to hire

and fire Ministers?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Will the Member be seated?

MR. McGEER: It is the Premier's job to establish standards,

and it's your job, Mr. Chairman, as chairman, to see that we

have appropriate debate on

[ Page 771 ]

this subject.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The Member knows full well that you

cannot allege any kind of improper conduct on the part of any

Member in this House without a substantive motion. I see no

substantive motion; we are in committee — this wouldn't be the

place for it.

Would you please continue with vote 2?

MR. McGEER: I am right on vote 2, Mr. Chairman.

MR. LEWIS: Holier than thou.

MR. McGEER: The Member down there says: "Holier than thou."

What I'm spelling out to you, Mr. Chairman, to the Premier and

to the government, is the very basic ethics of democracy.

The Premier has been applauding himself in the papers about

submitting to this Legislature

an Act to control campaign

spending. I know the amount of money is small, but it's one of

the grossest indiscretions that we've ever had presented to

this House. It's the Premier's job to enforce political ethics

in British Columbia. He's the leader of a party which is in

government, and it's his standards which apply. They become the

standards of the day. The Premier has shown today, by his

unwillingness to deal with this issue, that he himself is

lacking in these ethics which must be enforced if we're to have

standards of democracy in British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, I want to spell out exactly what the problem

is. The man who made this disclosure embarrassed the Minister

and embarrassed the government.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: Yes, they did. You only have to see the

Minister's performance and the Premier's performance to realize

this. What we need to know is how many more of these

indiscretions there were because unless the Premier demands now

that every last single one of these be declared retroactively,

we do not know how many others will be holding this club of embarrassment over the government.

Surely this is obvious to you, Mr. Chairman Surely it's

obvious to the Premier. He isn't the first one who has had to

face a problem of morals within his government. Unhappily, it

occurs frequently. The public has become hardened to that fact; they almost expect it.

The test of a government is how it deals with issues of this

kind, no matter how trivial they may seem. We don't know now

how many people might hold clubs over the government because

they are capable of embarrassing them in the future.

The Premier could clear it up very simply and I want to

spell out how: he says right now what his code of ethics is. He

insists that all Ministers of the Crown live up to that code of

ethics now. If there have been indiscretions in the past,

declare them and clear the slate. That way he knows, we know,

and the public knows that there is not one individual in

British Columbia who holds that club over the government.

That's the problem of accepting donations in your own name.

That is the problem.

Now I would like to move to another subject which the

Premier has so far not answered either — the subject of the $2

million purchase from Daon Development which he so proudly

announced a month ago. The question was asked twice during

question period; two different Ministers took it as notice.

The information could have been produced within an hour. I

asked that question again this afternoon. According to the

press reports, somebody walked off with a million bucks of the

public's money.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): They've made a lot of

millionaires over there.

MR. McGEER: The people in Daon Development said that they

were glad they took the risk. That was when the Land Commission

said that there wasn't any way that farm couldn't be declared

industrial property, Some risk. Those people at Daon

Development knew what they were doing. They knew they were

going to walk away with a pot full of the public's money.

We want that purchase agreement tabled. The Premier could

have produced it this afternoon. He could have laid it on the

table at 8:30 this evening.

Well, Mr. Premier, tell us the story. The story, as I

understand it, is that somebody walked off with a million bucks

of the public's money. If I am wrong, say so. Prove me wrong.

If I am right, it is a disgraceful scandal. We don't know

because the government hasn't tabled the purchase

agreement.

If it were an open government, Mr. Chairman, as the Premier has

consistently told the public it is, we wouldn't be forced to ask these

questions on the floor of the House. When a purchase is made, the

details would be made public. Those who deal and negotiate with the

government would understand from the beginning that the contract would

be made public and they wouldn't be tempted to try the kind of thing

that obviously went on in the Casa Loma case, and which appears to have

gone on in this case of the Wallace farm.

It's getting to be a habit. If you are a businessman and free

enterpriser and you understood that you could do business with the

government in this fashion, wouldn't you be tempted to rip off? Easy

[ Page 772 ]

money. All you have to do is be a friend of the

government.

MR. LEWIS: You're sick.

MR. McGEER: No, I'm not sick. The Member from Salmon Arm

says I am sick. Have you seen the agreement, Mr. Member? Do you

know the details?

MR. LEWIS: I've seen enough of you to know you are in the

House for only one hour a week.

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: Well, I never heard that Member asking any

questions about how the government conducts its business. I

don't think he even asks any questions during caucus. He's

asked for privileges — that has been that Member's stock.

There's a way of doing business, and everybody who sits in

this House should be prepared to accept that standard. No

special deal for any Members or any friends of Members, but one

standard of public business in this province — all the cards on

the table face up. That's what we haven't had.

Finally, I would like to turn to another question that we

asked the Premier before the dinner hour. While I've questioned

some of the minor dealings of the government such as $200

personally with the Minister and $1 million in the lands

purchase, in terms of quantity and what it means to future

generations of British Columbians, the issue of our rights as

citizens of this province to all of our resources — coal, oil,

natural gas, all our minerals — now and for all time resides in

the Premier's will to see that the terms of Confederation, made

100 years ago, are lived up to today.

We read to the Premier and to the House

section 109 of the

BNA Act. The Premier has indicated to us the urgency of getting

a price increase because we're losing perhaps $300,000 a day.

That does sound like a lot of money. I don't dispute that. But

the issue as it applies to all mineral resources for all time

absolutely dwarfs that short-term consideration. Untold

billions of dollars are involved in this issue. No one could

have foreseen, in the 1972 election when that Premier and his

government were returned, that they would be the ones given the

responsibility of seeing that these terms of Confederation were

fulfilled. The Arabs hadn't begun to re-evaluate energy

resources in the world at that time.

This has been political fate. This socialist government has

been given the responsibility. The decisions are being made

right now. They are of critical importance to the future. It is

essential that we have a Premier and a cabinet that understand

the magnitude of this issue. So far, the Premier and the

government have handled it about as badly as any Premier and any cabinet could. Without a fight they've given

away our historic rights. Now if some future government tries

to recover that on behalf of the citizens of British Columbia,

they'll be faced with a give-away precedent, done with great

public relations and fanfare, but nevertheless given away. We

in British Columbia have capitulated to the federal government

and lost what has been our greatest heritage and for what we

can see into the future will be our greatest heritage — namely,

our endowment of natural resources.

We're less than three weeks away from the showdown, and

probably this will be the last opportunity we will have to

raise the issue with the Premier. I plead with him now, and I

plead with the public of British Columbia, to realize the

stakes that are involved. If the Premier can find no

satisfactory political recourse — so far he hasn't — then he

must stand on principle, refuse any final agreement and rest

his case with the Supreme Court of Canada.

I'd like for the Premier to stand up this evening and say

that in the final analysis he is prepared to go to the supreme

court and, furthermore, that his government, instead of

engaging the kinds of political hacks that are characteristic

of the order-in-council appointments, will engage the finest

lawyers in Canada to plead our case before the supreme court.

Perhaps we should, as a province, engage in joint action with

the First Ministers of the other provinces in Canada in order

to secure a stronger case.

Regardless of the details of the method, people will

undoubtedly look back on this time in history and the role

given this government and say that the single most significant

thing they had to deal with was this particular issue. Their

success or failure will be judged on how well they commit

themselves.

I remember when the Minister of Transport and Communications

(Hon. Mr. Strachan) was opposition leader in this House. When

the question of offshore mineral rights was raised, he was very

vocal about the position of the former Social Credit

government. In retrospect, I think that government took a

pretty gutsy stand.

The former Social Credit government implied that all of the

offshore mineral resources belonged to British Columbia. I must

say that they didn't get a great deal of comfort from the

national government or from the Supreme Court of Canada. But

they took the strongest possible position on behalf of the

Province of British Columbia. It was decided in another way,

but one could never criticize that former government for not

taking a strong B.C. position.

By contrast, the position taken by the government in which

the Minister of Transport and Communications now sits is the

weakest possible position that could be taken by a province.

Contrast that: the former government taking the strongest

[ Page 773 ]

possible position when perhaps we didn't have a claim — we

tried — but now when we do have a certain claim, and what does

the government do? It takes the weakest possible position.

We have got the constitution on our side. So far, we are

refusing to use it. Historians will condemn the provincial

government of the day for failing to stand on its

constitutional rights.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The federal government tore it up when

they brought in that budget, and you know it. Get after your

Liberal friends in Ottawa.

MR. McGEER: Are you going to lie down and take that, Mr.

Minister, like your Premier? Or are you going to stand up and

have some backbone on behalf of British Columbia?

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: You don't have any backbone, and neither does

the Premier.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The federal government destroyed that

constitution when they brought in that budget, and you know

it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. McGEER: It's your responsibility then.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the Member please address the Chair?

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I would just remind the Minister

of Transport and Communications and the Premier that they are

the officials of the government. They are the ones who must

defend British Columbia if they think the Minister of Finance

(Hon. Mr. Turner) of the federal government has overstepped his

responsibility. I agree with that. It is their responsibility

to stand up for the constitution and to defend British

Columbia. If they are not prepared to do it, what they should

do is send down some opposition Members who are prepared to do

it. We are sending down the weakest representatives we can find

in this House and we are taking the weakest position that the

Province of British Columbia could possibly take. All I can

say, Mr. Chairman....

HON. MR. BARRETT: Your argument is a fraud. You voted

against the B.C. Petroleum Corp.

MR. McGEER: Yes, I voted against the petroleum corporation because I

said that what we should do is to take royalties. Under

section 109, there is

no question that we are entitled to royalties. It is right there spelled out

in black and white.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You've had Bill 31 for royalties. Now you

are twisting your own arguments.

MR. McGEER: I am going to come to Bill 31 later, Mr.

Chairman. I am going to deal with that. Don't try to wriggle

out of this by calling us inconsistent.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, don't give me that stuff.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I accuse the Premier of lacking

backbone in this issue.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Look at your voting record.

MR. McGEER: I say that if he is unprepared to defend British

Columbia's case politically himself, turn it over to a group of

able lawyers and let us take it before the supreme court.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Just a quick response. That Member spoke

violently against the B.C. Petroleum Corp., voted against the

petroleum corporation, and now appears to try to take the

position that he is a great defender of a corporation he tried

to have stillborn. You talk about royalties, and I say you are

submitting a fraudulent argument based on your own earlier

position. You, sir, are questioning my backbone. I question

your ability to remember your own statements which contradict

your speech tonight.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I had a few words to

say this afternoon about the estimates and revenue with regard

to the price of natural gas. I must say that I'm deeply

concerned that the Premier of this province, as Minister of

Finance, would hold up to political blackmail all of the

municipalities and cities of this province.

Not only is he holding the municipalities of this province

up to political blackmail but he is also holding up the

taxpayers within those municipalities.

During the reign of the socialist government in British

Columbia....

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, being in power — call it reign — call it

what you want.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Sunshine.

MRS. JORDAN: The socialist smog.

[ Page 774 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: During the socialist government in B.C., as a

percentage of the per capita gross of the provincial revenue,

the per capita grant has declined steadily from 4.7 per cent in

1973 to 4.4 per cent in 1974 to 3.2 per cent in 1975 and an

estimated 2.6 percent in 1976.

Here are all of the civic officials in the municipalities

getting ready to get their budgets so they can send out their

tax notices, and the Premier says to them: "Well, if we get our

deal with Ottawa you might possibly get some money out of the

revenue-sharing." But while the Premier is holding up for

political blackmail the municipalities of this province, he in

his heart is really hoping that he doesn't get what he wants

out of Ottawa.

That's the only attitude we can take because during his

estimates he has continually tried to play games with Ottawa —

condemning them, trying to get them against him by every means

possible. He is standing in this Legislature condemning them,

criticizing them, taunting them in the hope that when he goes

to Ottawa he will not get what is rightly due and just for the

taxpayers of British Columbia. It will be the taxpayers, the

municipalities and the municipal governments that will suffer.

That must be on the head of the Minister of Finance because

there is no way that they can plan; no way they can estimate

what their revenues will be.

The Premier has put a figure in his estimate of income based

on a promise that was made in Ottawa, evidently, to him. He

won't tell us in the Legislature what that figure is. He has no

figure in the Municipal Affairs budget so that the municipal

officials can have any idea whatsoever as to what they may

receive.

There is another interesting figure that I would like to

give to the House — another reason why the Premier should level

with the municipalities, and level with them now. In relation

to provincial revenues from individual and corporate income

taxes, capital succession and gift taxes — all grouped in the

budget speech — such revenues increased from $136 per capita in

1970-71 to $383 per capita in the 1975-76 fiscal year. Yet the

Premier is still holding these municipalities down at a lower

percentage than has been the record in the history of municipal

financing since 1970-71.

In relation to provincial total revenues from all sources,

such revenues increased from $537 per capita to $1,289 per

capita between the 1970-71 fiscal year and the 1975-76 fiscal

year — almost three times as much.

If the Premier and Minister of Finance in this province was really sincere

in doing what is just and honourable by the municipalities and by the taxpayers

in those municipalities, he would make a statement to them that they would be

guaranteed at least a minimum amount. If he is talking about $20 million he

should say: "Yes, I will guarantee you $20 million."

By not doing this, and by putting an "iffy" figure in front

of them, he makes them part and parcel of his political game

that he is playing with Ottawa. It's political blackmail. He

puts them in the position of having to support him, and I'm

sure they will. I'm sure that all the officials in the

municipalities are interested in having done what is just and

right by British Columbia when the Premier goes to Ottawa. I'm

sure that when he goes to Ottawa they will send with him their

best wishes for success. They have to, because he has put them

in the position, whether they like it or not, of deriving from

this trip he makes to Ottawa a large portion of what should be

their upcoming budget.

There's just one other subject, Mr. Chairman, that I'd like

to deal with for just a moment. We've had, in this Legislature,

a lot of talk about the Department of Housing, and it wasn't

too long ago that the Department of Housing, under the Minister

of Finance, spent a sum of $5.8 million for a group of

management personnel known as Dunhill Corp. I said at the time

the government purchased this corporation that we were wasting

$2 million of the taxpayers' money because that corporation was

not worth the $5.8 million that the government paid for it. At

that time we discussed certain share trading deals that were

going on just before the government purchased this corporation,

and the Attorney-General said that he would have an inquiry

into it.

Well, it'll soon be a year since the Attorney-General stood

in this Legislature and said that there would be an inquiry

into this matter, but to date, Mr. Chairman, the taxpayers and

the Members of this Legislature are none the wiser. The

unfortunate part of it is, Mr. Chairman, that since that

purchase Dunhill and the management team have not used the

expertise that we paid $2 million for, plus healthy management

contracts, to build any houses in British Columbia. They have

merely gone out and purchased housing which would have been

provided at any rate through private enterprise. This is after

wasting $2 million of the taxpayers' money.

Then we have such fiascos as Casa Loma, where the Minister

of Finance paid out $565,000 to the owners of Casa Loma. This

is $565,000 which, if the deal doesn't go through, we haven't

one hope of getting back, because it's common knowledge that

for every mortgage house in Canada, the Casa Loma people tried

to raise mortgage money on that particular project. Now they

needed $2.14 million, which they asked for the project

originally. The government pays them $1 million more so that

they made, approximately, after fixing it up, probably about

$800,000 profit. The money was given to the owners of Casa Loma

really without the proper security, Mr. Chairman, because

although the government has an agreement with the people of

Casa

[ Page 775 ]

Loma and it's secured by a mortgage, that is a second

mortgage. The first mortgage was on the property before the

government moved in.

Mr. Chairman, we've asked many questions about the Casa Loma

deal in this Legislature. We haven't got any answers from the

Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson). I think it is time

that the Minister of Finance, who is responsible for looking

after the finances of this province, started answering a few

questions himself. After all, Mr. Chairman, it is the

taxpayers' money. We want to know, and we've asked continually

in this House, when the first contract between Dunhill

Development and the directors of Casa Loma was made. We want to

know why some of the lien holders on the Casa Loma project were

paid off at 100 cents on the dollar while others had to settle

at 40 cents on the dollar. We want to know who did the survey

to determine the value of the Casa Loma project before the

government entered into an agreement with them to purchase this

project.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why should that be a secret?

MR. PHILLIPS: I don't know why it should be a secret, but

there are a lot of secret things evolving around the Department

of Finance, the Department of Human Resources and the

Department of Housing. This government that was going to be

such a great, open government seem to have lost their tongues

in many of these instances.

We want to know who did the appraisal to determine the price

that should be paid for the Casa Loma housing project. Who did

the appraisal? Why wasn't it tabled in this Legislature with

the rest of the agreement? There are many, many questions that

must be answered.

We want to know, and I've asked this question of the

Minister of Housing many times: does the agreement to finish

the project include finishing 32 motel units as living quarters

or finishing them as motel units? Does the agreement to finish

the project include double-glazing the windows and other

refinements that must be made? Does the contract price which he

has with the owners bring it up to Central Mortgage and Housing

standards? Indeed, Mr. Chairman, does the project meet Central

Mortgage and Housing standards? What recourse does the

government have to recapture this $565,000?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Member please relate his remarks to

the vote under consideration?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, it is the responsibility

of the Minister of Finance. Now I'm sure, unless things have

changed in government, that he doesn't allow the Minister of

Housing to write his own cheques. I'm sure that it still has to

go throughTreasury Board — or maybe not. Maybe he gives the Minister

of Housing $135 million with a blank chequebook and says: "Go

ahead." Otherwise, Mr. Chairman, this is within the

responsibility of the Minister of Finance. And I don't know how

the Minister of Finance can be so naive as to let this money

slip through his hands.

We have Dunhill and the Department of Housing running around this province

buying up land like it's going out of style, and we want to know what appraisals

are done on this land before it's purchased. Who determines what the value shall

be? In many instances there is no relation whatsoever between land purchased

and prices. We have an instance in Vanderhoof where the Department of Housing

— and I don't know whether it was through Dunhill Development Corp. or through

the Department of Housing — purchased 30 acres of land at Vanderhoof for the

sum of $1,759,000.

[Ms. Sanford in the chair.]

MR. GARDOM: How much is that per acre?

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm glad you asked, Mr. Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey. That works out in Vanderhoof to $33,000 —

just let me get my figures straight now — well over $33,000 per

acre.

MR. McCLELLAND: Is that in Burnaby?

MR. PHILLIPS: No, that's in Vanderhoof. Yes, it works out to

$35,300 per acre in Vanderhoof.

MR. McGEER: Is that fully serviced land?

MR. PHILLIPS: No, that land isn't fully serviced.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, it's not commercial land. It's raw land in

Vanderhoof.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, it's not waterfront property, not

lakefront property.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I'm sorry. It wasn't $1,759,000; it was $1,059,000.

MR. FRASER: You could own the whole town for that.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thirty acres. Do you know what that works out

to per lot? That works out to $7,060

[ Page 776 ]

per lot, if you take the average of five lots per acre.

You're going to be less than that because it's about 4.5 —

sometimes 4. In that area where there's lots of land I would

presume they would only get four lots per acre because there's

lots of land.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: This is in Vanderhoof — $7,060 per lot.

AN HON. MEMBER: In Vanderhoof?

MR. PHILLIPS: In Vanderhoof.

AN HON. MEMBER: Downtown? (Laughter.)

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, it's relatively close to downtown. It's

in the southeast sector.

Now, Madam Chairperson, this land isn't serviced by subway.

I don't think there's even bus service in Vanderhoof.

MR. McGEER: How far is it from the nearest paved road?

MR. CHABOT: Or tunnel?

MR. PHILLIPS: Let's add to that the cost of servicing. Do

you know what it's going to cost you for reasonably priced

government housing land in Vanderhoof? Well, we are looking at

close to $12,000 a lot. Now let's just compare that, for

instance, with land on Tilbury Island which was good

agricultural land...

AN HON. MEMBER: That's costly land.

MR. PHILLIPS: ...purchased by the Department of Economic

Development to put an economic development, an industrial park

in there. Now this is close to downtown Vancouver.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's expensive land.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll tell you, the Minister of Economic

Development (Hon. Mr. Lauk) stole that land compared to the

price of this land in Vanderhoof because he purchased 726 acres

of prime agricultural land for industrial purposes on Tilbury

Island for $4,300,000, only $5,923 an acre. Now that's on

Tilbury Island: $5,923 per acre for land.

MR. CHABOT: Must be a gold mine there.

MR. PHILLIPS: Dunhill Development or the Department of

Housing purchases land in Vanderhoof for $35,000 an acre on the

announcement, Madam Chairperson, put out by the...

MR. CHABOT: It all started with the Glenshiel.

MR. PHILLIPS: ...Department of Housing dated March 7,

1975, it says.... This land might not be developed for a while

so there will be interest on it. It says: "Landbank in

Vanderhoof for housing. The Department of Housing has purchased

30 acres of land in Vanderhoof for future housing development,

Omineca MLA Doug Kelly announced today."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'll tell you, he should be proud

because the city of Vanderhoof has taken the Department of

Housing for several hundred thousand dollars. I think if I were

an MLA and could get a deal like that in my constituency for

some landowners in my area, I'd stick out my chest and be proud

to announce it as well.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Now that question is going to have to come

later, if the Minister of Housing ever returns from his sojourn

into the boondocks. I think the Premier has sent him on a trip

to Japan.

MR. CHABOT: Who announced Casa Loma?

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, there are several questions that are

unanswered about the Department of Housing. Even in dear little

Chetwynd in my constituency, for development in there it is

only $6,144. That's a serviced lot. It has a lot of potential.

It's close to the site 1 of the Peace River dam; it's close to

the Sukunka coal project; it has great potential. That's a

fifth of what the Department of Housing paid for unserviced

land in Vanderhoof.

Interjections.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. Member, would you please relate your remarks to

the vote that is under consideration?

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I am talking about the spending of money

by the Department of Housing and, ultimately, the Minister of

Finance just has to be responsible.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: I'd like to remind the Member that the Department of

Housing does have its own estimates.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I realize that. But we may never get

there. The Minister of Finance is

[ Page 777 ]

responsible. If the Minister of Finance is going to allow

the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson) to go out in the

country and buy land, as I say, we want to know what criteria

there are for establishing the price.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. Member, that's an argument you could use for every

department. In other words, you are saying that you can discuss anything under

this vote.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, I wouldn't do that.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Would you please relate your remarks to the vote under

consideration?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, if you want to give the Minister of

Finance the opportunity to answer for this land in Vanderhoof...He must have signed the cheque, it must have gone through

the Department of Finance.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, the Premier, Madam Chairperson, says

carry on. But we are concerned here about taxpayers' dollars

and we are concerned about providing reasonably priced housing

through the Department of Finance for the people of this

province. Yes.

I am concerned about the gay abandon that the Department of

Housing and Dunhill seem to have with the cheque book. They

have a gay abandon going around the province signing cheques

and buying up land. And we'd like to know from the Minister of

Finance what criteria are used in establishing prices, because

there is such a wide variance. Why Madam Chairperson, even in

Prince Rupert serviced lots, through the Department of Housing,

are only going for $12,000.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Madam Chairperson, there are just too many

unanswered questions. The Minister has no money for the

municipalities. Is it because the Minister of Housing has taken

it all away?

What really concerns me is that all of the promises by the

Minister of Housing to provide cheap housing for the people of

British Columbia are not going to come to fruition because in

many instances they paid too much for the land. Yes, I wish the

Minister of Housing would come back so we could ask him some

unanswered questions.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: I could go on — I could talk about some land that they

purchased in Surrey.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You can go on and talk about whatever you

want.

MR. PHILLIPS: Madam Chairperson, the Minister of Finance

says that I can go on and talk about whatever I want, but the

people of the province aren't going to get any answers.

HON. MR. BARRETT: As long as you're talking, we can't give

any answers.

MR. PHILLIPS: No. If I resume my seat, Mr. Minister of

Finance, will you give some answers?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, I'll refer you to where you can get

the answers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I can tell you where you can go.

MR. CHABOT: Oh, oh! Open government.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Premier wants to get trivial and jovial,

frivolous, when we're talking about the taxpayers' dollars. But

no matter how often he tries in this Legislature, we're not

going to get used to him taking that attitude toward spending

the taxpayers' dollars. I want to tell you — there is concern

out there. We live in our little ivory shelter here, while

we're here, and think that nobody cares, but out there there is

unemployment and there is concern about rising taxes. There is

concern about inflation.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't like this government.

MR. CHABOT: How'd you guess?

HON. MR, BARRETT: I just feel that.

MR. PHILLIPS: There is concern about the cavalier attitude

of the Minister of Finance toward....

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, your time is coming to an end. The green

light is on.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, oh...my time is coming to an end. Madam

Chairperson, do you mean that literally or physically?

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Right — literally. (Laughter.)

[ Page 778 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: I would certainly hope, Madam Chairperson, that you're

not threatening me. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

[Mr. G.H. Anderson in the chair.]

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll be happy to resume my seat and let the Premier explain

to us where all the money is coming from that seems to filter out through Dunhill

with that gay abandon, that disregard for the hard-pressed taxpayers of this

province, because there has to come a day of reckoning....

MR. CHAIRMAN: You're into your final two minutes, Mr.

Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Whether the Premier answers now or whether he

continues to keep the books of the province closed and sealed

in secrecy.... If he wants to keep the books closed and sealed

in secrecy — financial accounts of this province — some day they

will have to be opened. I think that day is coming very shortly

when we must have the answers. We must have the answers because

when there is unemployment, and when businesses are reeling

from increased taxation...

MR. CHAIRMAN: You time is up, Mr. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: ...those people want the answers now.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, earlier this evening I raised

three issues with the Premier. We got a very brief answer on

one of the issues — the final one. On the first two, we heard

nothing.

I want to come back to the first of the three issues and ask

if the Premier would deal with that one. It concerns the

vulnerability of a Minister or any Member of the Legislature

who accepts any donation personally, and how we deal with a

situation like that.

In the 1972 election, prior to voting day, there were some

businessmen who got rather panicky. The old government wasn't

just peeling around the edges; the foundations were crumbling.

One businessman offered $25,000 as a political donation to the

NDP. They were very proud of rejecting that donation prior to

voting day because they didn't want to be obligated.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: They didn't give you anything. You refused it.

After the election.... Twenty-five grand — you know better

than me. After the election....

HON. MR. BARRETT: Which businessman? Name names.

MR. McGEER: You name them. I'm not going to reveal your

campaign donors. That would be indiscreet. You know them better

than I do.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You said we turned him down.

MR. McGEER: Certainly, that was before the election. I'm

merely drawing a few contrasts.

Mr. Chairman, after the election, one of the people involved

in the liquor business deposited a little refreshment on the

porch of the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald). That was

after the election, Mr. Chairman, and he returned it. Yes, sir,

Mr. Chairman, he didn't accept any gifts. He returned it.

AN HON. MEMBER: He said if it was a bribe it wasn't

enough.

MR. McGEER: I know these things, Mr. Chairman, because the

NDP brag about them. Yes, sir, they brag about them.

HON. MR. BARRETT: And his daughter ate the apple.

MR. McGEER: But, Mr. Chairman, there was one we didn't learn

about until the other day. That was the one they didn't turn

down.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: Well, it was worth more than a case of

booze.

But, Mr. Chairman, the problem with all donations, whether

they are given before or after an election is the same. That

problem is whether they carry with them a future obligation,

whether there is an expectation of a favour returned with

interest. That's why the people who are scrupulous about the

way they manage their campaign donations make certain that they

do not know the identity of those who donate to the election

campaign even before the election is held.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Oh, come on.

MR. McGEER: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. Don't give me that "Oh,

come on." That's the ethics of political donations. You send it

to your finance chairman who is obliged not to disclose the

identity of the donor.

[ Page 779 ]

That's the way it is handled.

We didn't have that, Mr. Chairman. No, sir.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: Not at arm's length? Not even before the

election was held. By golly, that man who donated made sure

that the person in question not only knew who the donor was but

the amount, after the election.

Mr. Chairman, wouldn't that bother you? A donor comes along...

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. McGEER: ...with a gift for your campaign after the

election. He doesn't call up to seek out who your finance

chairman is. No, sir. He writes a cheque to you personally. He

wants you to know that he's giving the money and he wants you

to know how much. I don't care whether it is $5, $10 or

$25,000, or a case of booze.

AN HON. MEMBER: Or an apple!

MR. McGEER: There is a reason, Mr. Chairman, and in every

one of those...

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, Hon. Members.

MR. McGEER: ...circumstances the donor is unethical, Mr.

Chairman. If he really wants to help politics he gives his

money anonymously and before an election. Let there be no doubt

about the motives of the man who made that donation. Let there

be no doubt about the motives of anyone who offers a gift to

someone running in an election or elected. Let there be no

doubt about the motives or ethics of such a person who makes

his identity known and who makes known the amount of money he

wishes to give.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Members!

MR. McGEER: That man expects favours in return.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Vancouver–Point Grey has

the floor. Would the other Members please stop

interrupting?

MR. McGEER: Now, Mr. Chairman, it's up to us, it's up to the Premier

to set a standard on behalf of all elected people now and in the future, not

on the basis of an election expenses Act, which is supposed to be a politically

sanctimonious document, but on the basis of the motives of people who donate.

If they are interested in democracy, if they are people who are unselfish about

politics, they know that the appropriate thing to do is to give anonymously

and with discretion. People who have proper motives do precisely this. If those

who give lack those motives, then the ethics should be supplied by the candidates

or the elected Member.

Mr. Chairman, that has been lacking. The proof has been

offered and there has been an admission on the part of the

Minister of the Crown.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Now tell us about the kickbacks.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You are in Public Works. You should know about kickbacks.

You'd better tell us.

MR. McGEER: We'd be interested in that, Mr. Chairman.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Right on.

MR. McGEER: I've asked some questions...

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): They're

asking a few in Ottawa, too.

MR. McGEER: ...about Daon Developments. We want answers. If

you supply the answers, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr.

Chairman, the questions cease. But when you don't supply the

answers, you should understand that we and the public are

entitled to conclude that you are hiding something and that you

are only confirming our worst suspicions.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What is your allegation?

MR. McGEER: My allegation is that the ethics of your

government are lacking and that you had better spell out pretty

quickly what you consider to be the appropriate standard for

politics in British Columbia.

I've said quite clearly what the ethics should be. Anybody

who donates before or after an election and who makes

personally known to you that he is giving money, and the amount

of money he is giving, is guilty himself of improper motives.

If that person has improper motives, then it is up to the

individual who has been offered the money to reject it

outright. Those are the ethics. They weren't followed.

Now, Mr. Chairman, we do not want people

[ Page 780 ]

holding clubs over a government. We don't want any suspicion

of that. The only way that that can be removed is for the

Premier and the government to spell out precisely what their

standards are and to understand that the Ministers of the Crown

live up to those standards as of now and, if they have

committed indiscretions with regard to those standards in the

past, they confess them publicly. That way the slate is

clear.

What we have at this moment is not just a Minister but a

government that sits under a cloud. If you are not prepared to

make the demands of him, how many others, Mr. Chairman, are

guilty of those same acts of indiscretion?

The failure of the Premier to take a stand is only an

indication that this has been standard practice. It hasn't

violated the ethics of the NDP. It hasn't violated their ethics

at all. Or has it, Mr. Chairman? We have not heard from the

Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) or anyone else what they

consider to be proper behaviour.

The amount of money is small, but the principle is very, very large. That's

why we want to hear from the Premier now on what kind of standards he is going

to demand in the future and what he has demanded in the past.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports progress

and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There was also a request by a Member to file

some papers in the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the House grant leave for the filing of

the letter that was in committee?

Leave granted.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:56 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1975, 2001, 2013: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada