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)

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 19, 1975

Afternoon Sitting

CONTENTS

Public Trustee Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 3). Hon. Mr.

Macdonald.

Introduction and first reading — 781

Investment Contracts Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 4). Hon.

Mr. Macdonald.

Introduction and first reading — 781

Administration Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 5). Hon. Mr.

Macdonald.

Introduction and first reading — 781

Securities Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 20). Hon. Mr.

Macdonald.

Introduction and first reading — 781

Vancouver Charter Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 40). Ms.

Brown.

Introduction and first reading — 781

Oral Questions

Court decision on charges against B.C. Lions. Mr.

Bennett — 781

Fraud in Casa Loma project. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 782

Use of coal to produce methane. Mr. Phillips — 782

Political picture in the dining room. Mr. Lewis — 783

Statement of export gas price. Mr. McGeer — 783

Committee on coal-use options. Mr. Smith — 783

Application forms for student employment programme.

Hon. Mr. King answers — 783

Pre-rental of space from Scotia Bank.

Hon. Mr. Hartley answers — 783

Tax deductions for closed schools. Mr. Gardom — 784

Correspondence on Vancouver building bylaws. Mrs.

Jordan — 784

Elimination of existing oil refineries. Mr. McClelland

— 784

Committee of Supply: Premier's estimates.

On vote 2.

Mr. Bennett — 785

Mr. Gardom — 787

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 791

Mr. L.A. Williams — 795

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 797

Mr. L.A. Williams — 800

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 800

Mr. Bennett — 800

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 803

Mr. Bennett — 804

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 804

Mr. McGeer — 806

Division on motion that the committee rise and report

progress. — 806

Mr. McGeer — 806

Mr. Phillips — 809

Mr. McClelland — 814

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 815

Mr. McGeer — 815

Mr. McClelland — 816

[ Page 781 ]

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 19, 1975

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

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

gallery today a group of 52 students from the Earl Marriott

School in the South Surrey–White Rock area. They are

accompanied by their teachers, Trish Paterson and Chris Fic. I

hope the Members will make them welcome.

Mr. D.F. Lockstead (Mackenzie): Mr. Speaker, I ask

the House to join with me in welcoming from the Sunshine Coast

Regional District, Mr. Tim Frizzel, accompanied by his son

Andrew.

Mrs. P.J. Jordan (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, I'm

sure you'll be glad to know that in the gallery we have three

members from the John Howard Society of North Okanagan, Mr.

Bill Hesketch, Dr. Hugh Campbell-Brown and a gentleman who I

can't identify from here. We welcome you, and I would ask you

all to welcome them.

Hon. D. Barrett (Premier): I would like to welcome my

former co-worker from the John Howard Society, along with the

Port Moody Secondary High School and their teacher, Mr.

Whitlam. I would ask the House to welcome these students who

are visiting us today.

As well, Mr. Speaker, we have with us another group of

visiting government agents from all parts of the province.

Today's group includes Mr. Bob Macgregor from Duncan, Mr.

Darryl Koskimaki from Fort Nelson, Mr. Norman Schulz from Fort

St. John, Mr. Henry Ten Veen from Ganges, Mr. Gil Mundell from

Golden, Mr. Seiji Matsuo from Grand Forks, Mrs. Bernice Houlden

from Houston, Mr. Brian MacKenzie from Invermere and Mr. Jim

Olsen from Queen Charlotte city.

As you all know, the government agents perform a very

valuable role in terms of making information available about

legislation and government services throughout the province

and, as I mentioned earlier....

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

them in here.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Well, they're going to take the

message from out of here, Mr. Member. (Laughter.)

I ask the House to welcome them.

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

visiting in the gallery today is a group of senior citizens from my

home constituency of South Okanagan and Kelowna, and I wish the House

to bid them welcome also.

Introduction of bills.

PUBLIC TRUSTEE

AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Macdonald, Bill 3, Public Trustee

Amendment Act, 1975, introduced, read a first time and ordered

to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the

next sitting of the House after today.

INVESTMENT CONTRACTS

AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Macdonald, Bill 4, Investment

Contracts Amendment Act, 1975, introduced, read a first time

and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

ADMINISTRATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Macdonald, Bill 5, Administration

Amendment Act, 1975, introduced, read a first time and ordered

to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the

next sitting of the House after today.

SECURITIES AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Macdonald, Bill 20, Securities

Amendment Act, 1975, introduced, read a first time and ordered

to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the

next sitting of the House after today.

VANCOUVER CHARTER

AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

On a motion by Ms. Brown, Bill 40, Vancouver Charter

Amendment Act, 1975, introduced, read a first time and ordered

to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the

next sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions.

COURT DECISION ON

CHARGES AGAINST B.C. LIONS

Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, to the Hon. Attorney-General: in

view of the public interest surrounding the charges against two former

B.C.

[ Page 782 ]

Lions football players which have been dismissed in Campbell River

provincial court on a legal technicality, could the Minister advise the

House if his department has made an investigation of the evidence?

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

the court investigates the evidence; I don't investigate the

evidence. The matter is not one that's appealable, because the

decision of the learned judge in that case was

discretionary.

Mr. Bennett: Supplementary. Could the Minister then

advise the House if, apart from the legal technicalities, his

department believes there was sufficient evidence to proceed

with the case? There are other cases of other areas of bringing

a case back to court after a legal technicality has been dealt

with.

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, there'd be no

further proceedings in view of the judge's decision in the

Campbell River case. The judge, in effect, held that we were

too heavy — that is the Crown, acting through the Crown

prosecutors — against the accused in our procedure. Now frankly,

and I can say so respectfully to the bench, I don't agree that

we were, but that was the decision of the learned judge and as

a result of that he denied an amendment to the charge. So

that's where the matter rests. It's a charge of common assault

and causing a disturbance in a public place, which has been

disposed of in accordance with our judicial system.

Mr. Bennett: Just a further supplementary: could the

Minister advise the House if all discretionary decisions by

provincial court judges involving legal technicalities are

treated in the same manner?

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: The answer is yes.

FRAUD IN CASA LOMA PROJECT

Mr. D.A. Anderson (Victoria): To the

Attorney-General: has the Attorney-General received a second

request from one of the sub-contractors involved in the Casa

Loma project, one N.B. Electric, suggesting that certain

fraudulent actions may have taken place during the building of

the project, and offering to provide the Attorney-General with

further information if he's willing to launch an

investigation?

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: I'll take that as notice and

check it out.

USE OF COAL TO PRODUCE METHANE

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

question to the Minister of Mines regarding the coal study that he

announced this morning. Would the Minister advise me if the study will

include the use of coal to make methane gas to relieve the shortfall of

natural gas which is anticipated due to the policies of this government?

Hon. L.T. Nimsick (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources):

Their guide rules are pretty broad, so I don't think it would stop them

from investigating all aspects of the coal industry.

Mr. Phillips: Supplementary. Does this mean that

while the study is going on there will be a moratorium on

issuing coal licences in the province until the study is

completed?

Hon. Mr. Nimsick: There has been a moratorium on

issuing new coal licences since I came to office. We haven't

issued any new ones. There were sufficient issued under the

previous government and I didn't think it was necessary to

issue any more.

Mr. Phillips: One further supplementary question. To

what extent will this committee be permitted to investigate the

known coal areas in the province with regard to hiring

additional staff such as geologists, engineers and so forth?

Will they be funded to do drilling and prove up known coal

reserves, or is it just a study of what coal they presently

know exists?

Hon. Mr. Nimsick: That's right.

Mr. Phillips: What's right?

Hon. Mr. Nimsick: The federal government is doing a

study on the other aspect as far as the coal resources go

throughout the country. This committee will not be hiring

geologists and drilling and everything; it's just to study the

coal situation as it is and the advisability of exploiting

those coal resources.

Mr. Phillips: Then you'll be working with the study

group within the federal government.

Hon. Mr. Nimsick: No, I have a task force that's

going to do the work. I'm not going to be doing the work.

Mr. Phillips: No, no. But I mean the task force will

be working with the federal government.

Hon. Mr. Nimsick: Not necessarily, but I imagine they

will get a lot of information input from the federal

people.

[ Page 783 ]

POLITICAL PICTURE

IN THE DINING ROOM

Mr. D.E. Lewis (Shuswap): Mr. Speaker, I would like

to address a question to the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr.

Hartley). When I was elected to this Legislature I understood

that the dining room in the Legislature was to remain neutral

and not political.

Yesterday I noticed a picture on the wall that had a

striking resemblance to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Bennett). I say this is unfair politics and that, if it is him,

it should be removed. I would like you to consider this.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Hon. Public Works

Minister is not in charge of the dining room. (Laughter.) If

the Hon. Member wishes any questions to do with the Speaker's

office, please direct a letter to me, in accordance with

May , and I will answer to you. (Laughter.)

STATEMENT OF EXPORT GAS PRICE

Mr. P.L. McGeer (Vancouver–Point Grey): A question to

the Premier. Did the Premier say yesterday, either in the

corridor or in the House, as quoted in The Daily

Colonist , that he feels confident that a price of $1.35 per cent of

export gas to Ottawa would

come out of the First Minister's conference that he is

attending next month?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: No, never gave any price....

Mr. McGeer: You never said that?

COMMITTEE ON COAL-USE OPTIONS

Mr. D.E. Smith (North Peace River): A further

question to the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources

concerning coal-use operations. He spoke about a committee, and

I'd like to know how the committee will be funded and what additional

staff will be

required to carry out the intent of the study.

Hon. Mr. Nimsick: It will be an internal committee

made up of people from the different departments. It won't need

any extra funding.

Mr. Smith: One supplemental. Will there be no

additional staff required by the committee?

Hon. Mr. Nimsick: No.

APPLICATION FORMS FOR

STUDENT EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMME

Hon. W.S. King (Minister of Labour): Yesterday the Member for

Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) asked a question regarding the circulation of

application forms to farmers in the province so that they could avail

themselves under the student summer employment programme. I have the

following information for the Member.

For the farm segment of the programme, envelopes were

prepared and mailing lists were supplied by the B.C. Federation

of Agriculture. Discussions with the provincial Department of

Agriculture indicated that their lists covered 99 per cent of

all farmers in the province. There were 10,000 applications

mailed which were stuffed in envelopes by students from the Dean

Heights school for the mentally retarded. To ensure that even

the 1 per cent not on the Federation of Agriculture mailing

list was covered, our field representatives throughout the

province received 12 to 15 application forms each. The field

representatives made these application forms available to the

district agriculturalists upon request. Staff discussions with

the district agriculturalists in Quesnel and Williams Lake

indicated that they still have a majority of their forms on

hand.

Additionally, small-business application forms for small

businesses were mailed to banks in the greater Vancouver area

and bused to some 23 field representatives throughout the other

areas of the province. By noon on Tuesday, March 18, every bank

in Quesnel and Williams Lake had received application forms. So

I would suggest that the Member's contact, perhaps, was not

current with the banks in Quesnel. Additionally, the programme

has been extended one week to March 28 to ensure that everyone

is able to participate in the programme.

PRE-RENTAL OF SPACE

FROM SCOTIA BANK

Hon. Mr. Hartley: I would like to respond to be

question asked yesterday by the Member for Columbia River (Mr.

Chabot). I didn't say down the river either. The question is:

did the Department of Public Works, on behalf of the Department

of Highways, rent or lease two floors of the new Scotia Bank

building in Prince George several months before this was

required? Now, basically, the answer is no.

Mr. J.R. Chabot (Columbia River): Basically?

Hon. Mr. Hartley: Yes, basically, the answer is no.

We did not rent any space before it was required; we rented

space and immediately set to prepare this space so that it

could best serve five departments of government. Today 70 per

cent of that space is occupied by the Department of Highways,

10 per cent by the Public Service Commission, 10 per cent by

the Department of

[ Page 784 ]

Labour, 5.5 per cent by the Transport Commission and 3.5 per

cent by the Department of Human Resources.

Mr. Chabot: To the Minister of Public Works. How soon

before the building started to be occupied was rent or lease

being paid by your department?

Hon. Mr. Hartley: On the signing of the lease,

immediate steps were taken to prepare this space and a total of

some $80,000 was spent in redesigning and preparing the

building. The work started immediately. As soon as that was

completed, occupancy was taken by the various stages.

TAX DEDUCTIONS FOR CLOSED SCHOOLS

Mr. Gardom: To the Minister of Labour, Mr. Speaker.

Children, by law, are required to go to school, and property

owners, by law, are required to pay school taxes. I would ask

the Hon. Minister, if the schools are not, by law, going to be

kept open and operating, whether he will indicate to the House

whether or not he's in favour of taxpayers deducting from their

taxes an amount that would be proportionate to the time that

the schools are closed?

Hon. Mr. King: I don't know whether that's a statement of

Liberal policy or a question regarding policy of the government

in this House. If it's a question on government policy, I don't

think that's an appropriate question for the question

period.

Mr. Speaker: It is, in any event, argumentative,

hypothetical and not appropriate for question period.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Interjections.

Mrs. Jordan: Okay, let's get on with it.

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

CORRESPONDENCE ON

VANCOUVER BUILDING BYLAWS

Mrs. Jordan: To the Minister of Public Works with

respect to the proposed provincial government building in

downtown Vancouver. Have building permits been taken out in

accordance with City of Vancouver bylaws?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please!

Mrs. Jordan: Would the Minister of Public Works wake

up? (Laughter.)

Hon. Mr. Hartley: How can I wake up? I haven't been

asleep.

Mrs. Jordan: I just addressed a question to you.

Answer the question.

A supplementary. Would the Minister confirm that he has

correspondence with Mayor Phillips of Vancouver, particularly

on March 4, 1975, in which the Minister states: "We fully

appreciate the position taken by your chief building inspector," et cetera? I quote on: "It is our opinion, however,

that the advice which we have received is sufficiently

convincing that we can relieve him of the responsibility to

decide in this matter."

Interjections.

Mrs. Jordan: I'm asking the Minister if he will

confirm that he had this correspondence with the mayor of

Vancouver on March 4, 1975.

Hon. Mr. Hartley: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask

the Member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) to table the letter

so that we can examine it. As you know, there have been several

pieces of correspondence that have been tampered with. I would

like to examine it before I respond.

Mrs. Jordan: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is it the

policy of the Department of Public Works to override municipal

building bylaws and requirements when they do not conform with

his department's position?

Hon. Mr. Hartley: When I've had the opportunity to

examine the document, I'd be pleased to respond.

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

Minister of Public Works. Quite apart from any specific

instance, is it the policy of his department to override or

otherwise ignore municipal regulations when they are not in

harmony with the Department's attitude on a particular proposed

provincial government building?

Hon. Mr. Hartley: The answer is no.

ELIMINATION OF

EXISTING OIL REFINERIES

Mr. R.H. McClelland (Langley): Mr. Speaker, I'd like

to ask a question of the Minister of Economic Development. The

government is planning, apparently, to develop an oil refinery

in the province,

[ Page 785 ]

and is establishing feasibility studies. Does the government

plan to eliminate the existing refineries in the province and

combine all the capacity in one huge refinery in a site yet to

be selected?

Hon. G.V. Lauk (Minister of Economic Development):

Before answering that question, it's just amazing — amazing — how

little that Member knows about oil refineries. Eliminating

oil refineries — what a ridiculous suggestion! The answer is

no.

Orders of the day.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Liden in the

chair.

ESTIMATES: PREMIER'S OFFICE

(continued)

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

Mr. W.R. Bennett (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.

Chairman, earlier we discussed the authority of the Finance

Minister (Hon. Mr. Barrett) as a fiscal agent, and the

responsibility and the knowledge and the judgment that are

required in his capacity in placing bond issues at the most

expeditious time on behalf of Crown corporations, perhaps for

the province, and the extra financial cost that could accrue by

not placing an issue at the appropriate time.

If that requires judgment and special skill on behalf of the

Minister of Finance, certainly there's a more difficult area in

which he's called upon to perform, and that is in dealing with

the purchase of stocks, the dealing in the stock market and

those areas of power that have been granted under the Revenue

Act.

If we're concerned about the government's position, Mr. Chairman,

when it comes to placing loans at too high an interest rate, certainly

we should be concerned about the government's activities within the

stock market. It was pointed out last session in this House that when

the government and the Minister are taking over a company in total, the

confidentiality that must apply, the fact that no leaks should be

allowed to happen, the fact that nobody who hasn't given an oath of

secrecy should be involved in the planning of the takeover of a company

because of the nature of what it would do to the value of the

shares.... Somebody could make profits, untoward profits. But in that

area of those companies that have been totally taken over, which are

dangerous and for which specific rules should apply when the Minister

ventures into the purchase of companies like Plateau and Kootenay, when

the government takes over companies like Dunhill in total.... We would

hope that the investigation that the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr.

Macdonald) initiated last year will be reported upon in this

Legislature to do with the takeovers of Columbia Cellulose and the

unusual trading patterns.

There's a more serious area we have to consider and that is

where the government dealing in the stock market involves only

single shares or multiple shares, but not a total company

takeover.

This is the area in which the government can affect through

buying or selling, or through information it may give out,

information that may affect the stock adversely and make it go

down or make it go up.... The Minister of Finance, and indeed

the whole government, should be cognizant of the fragility of

the market and the responsibility they have in dealing with the

public's money in this area.

I've mentioned that there are companies where the government

has taken over total companies. There are also areas where the

government has made partial purchases of shares, or may be

continuing to do so. There is B.C. Tel and there are other

areas where we have had shares bought on the open market.

However, one area that I'm concerned about is in the area of

Can-Cel; it's not a Crown corporation but a company in which

the government owns the majority of the shares. It's one in

which the fluctuation of that share value may be affected by

statements coming from either the Minister of Lands, Forests

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

Finance or of government actions that will encourage the people

to buy, or encourage them to sell, discourage them from buying

in the future of the company, or make them make a decision to

sell their shares or to buy additional shares.

I think we should be specially concerned about statements

that the government has made, and particularly the Minister of

Lands, Forests and Water Resources, as quoted in The

Province last August. The Minister stated that the

provincial government could use money from dividends or from

the sale of some of the company's shares — referring to

Canadian Cellulose — to help finance new development at Ocean

Falls. Here we have the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources making statements that will indicate to the public

that the government is considering the selling of some or part

of all of its shares in Canadian Cellulose. A statement such as

this would indicate to the public that perhaps the government

is not confident that the value of the shares will go up, that

perhaps a lot of shares will be hitting the market and that

perhaps they'd better sell too. The price of the shares might

go down. At best it might be considered an intemperate

statement, but at worst it could be an effort to devalue the

shares so the government could purchase in the market. Here we

have the Minister saying, when asked if the provincial

government might sell some of its 79 per cent position in

Can-Cel to the public to provide

[ Page 786 ]

financing: "It's one of the possibilities." And he did not

elaborate.

This story was widely circulated, not only in The

Province but picked up from there and elaborated upon in

different financial publications that would influence the

people purchasing on the stock market. Last year we were

concerned, and expressed our concern during the Minister of

Finance's estimates, that rules and regulations should be

established as to the government's position when it's dealing

in the stock market, that every attempt should be made to

prevent leaks from happening, to prevent the possibility of

insider knowledge and insider trading, and to prevent the type

of statements that had happened in the past of Ministerial

statements or the Premier's statements that may have affected

the price of stock on the stock market — made profits from

some, created losses for others — but in fact were intemperate

on behalf of the government of B.C.

Yet here we have in August last year apparently no new

clear-cut guidelines as to how Ministers should act or speak on

behalf of trading or future trading possibilities of the

government in shares — statements that may, in effect, depress

the market and, I believe, did depress the market and left the

impression with the public that the government intended to sell

a good part of its shares in Can-Cel. The government has never

denied that, nor has it ever announced that it has a further

interest in increasing its shares in Can-Cel from the 79 per

cent interest.

Then we come to the unusual situation we have today. My

office was advised by Mr. Irwin Miller of Montreal, Quebec,

that he had lodged a complaint with the Ontario Securities

Commission with respect to large-scale operations in the market

by the British Columbia government for the purchase of further

shares involving Can-Cel. He indicated in his complaint, and

further confirmed with Mr. Ross of the Ontario Securities

Commission, that in January of this year the British Columbia

government did in fact purchase 119,600 shares of Can-Cel. This

information hasn't been given to this Legislature. It has not

been given to the public of B.C. It goes contrary to the

earlier indication of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources that he was considering perhaps selling to finance

further development at Ocean Falls.

Mr. Ross of the Ontario Securities Commission also confirmed that,

since that time, the British Columbia government has purchased

additional shares. He was not prepared to discuss the amount. But here

we have a major stock transaction and what apparently is an ongoing

transaction. The people of the province have not been advised of the

government's intention to purchase, either on a large-block basis or a

continuing basis. In fact, if you go back to the statement of the

Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources, under whose direction,

perhaps, the future of these companies lies.... Perhaps now that we are

in a new era of government involvement in big industry, these rules

that we asked for last year concerning government statements,

Ministerial statements, government actions, to protect

confidentiality.... Apparently we weren't listened to, and they haven't

happened. Here we have a case, because there were no rules, because the

Minister made that statement in August, because the government hasn't

denied that, because the government hasn't announced its intention to

either purchase this large block of 119,600, or announce that it is

continuing to purchase in the market, where we have a complaint from an

individual in Montreal with the Ontario Securities Commission.

Mr. Miller's complaint is, in effect, as follows: that in the

December 11, 1974, issue of the Dow-Jones there were indications that

the government might be reducing its interest in Can-Cel. The

article

in the Dow-Jones was based on the Minister's statements as reported in

the media in August and never denied by the government. Never denied by

the government. Never denied by the Minister. Never denied by the

Finance Minister. We find again that Ministerial indiscretion has

affected the price of stocks in the stock market. We see that from the

period of the Minister's announcement in August when the shares were

trading at $4.80, they started to slide. They slid to $4.60, to $4.50,

to $4.10, to $3.75. They stayed at $3.75, $3.80, $3.85 until, funnily

enough, the government was accumulating in January.

Here we have a stock market that was depressed because of a

Ministerial statement, with no correction from the government,

no correction from the Minister of Finance, no attempt to

stabilize the market or bring understanding to the market.

Indeed, the government seized the opportunity of a market which

may have been depressed by the Minister's statement, moved in

without announcement, without taking the public into their

confidence, and, of course, purchased 119,600 shares and left

orders for the continuing purchase of shares.

Once the government has made a commitment to buy, I think

the public should fully understand the intent of the government

at all times — its intentions to purchase and future intentions

for those companies. I think Ministers must, because of the

incidents in the case of the Col-Cel takeover, the Dunhill

takeover, and the controversy surrounding those shares, realize

once again the responsibility that rests with them to be

guarded in their statements, because statements of this nature

affect the fragility of the stock market.

People who sell on the basis of information such as this

aren't giant corporations; they're individuals, Canadian

citizens, perhaps even British Columbians. When a number of

shares of this magnitude have been traded, it's a strong

indication that many people have

[ Page 787 ]

not received the full value of their shares. Yet the value

has been depressed and the price dropped directly after and

directly in the relationship to the Minister of Lands, Forests

and Water Resources' statement.

Now we have a Canadian citizen who's upset because he

believes that not only was it an insider trade but, when it

comes with government, we had conflicting statements of the

government's intention and, indeed, what the government actions

were. If this transaction and his complaint involved around

this was done by a private company — one of the big large

companies the Premier is fond of condemning in the private

sector — they would be in serious difficulties with the

Securities Commission. In fact, because of this, he has lodged

a complaint with the Ontario Securities Commission, a complaint

that's being confirmed by Mr. Ross of the Ontario Securities

Commission.

As you can see, there's a very strong possibility that the

minority shareholders have not been kept aware of the further

acquisition or the desire for the further acquisition of the

majority shareholder in this case, a corporation known by the

Province of British Columbia; and further, that they have been

misled by the Minister involved with the future of this company — the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. We have

the value of the shares continually dropping from the date that

Minister made that statement to The Province .

As I say, at best it was intemperate. Certainly it wasn't in

keeping with his responsibilities as a Minister, realizing

that the weight of his statement, because of his office and

because of his involvement in this firm on a cash basis, would

affect, because of the fragility of the market, the value of

these stocks and ultimately cause a loss to the minority

shareholders — private citizens who do not have any knowledge

of the intent of this government other than the statements of

the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. Perhaps he

was intemperate, perhaps it was irresponsible of him — and

that's the best that can be said.

It certainly has to be the duty of the Minister of Finance,

who is responsible for the provision of money for the purchase

of total acquisitions and government share purchases, to

correct statements and to inform the public correctly. We find

out that the government is not selling; indeed, it is buying in

a very major way, buying in a way that would indicate that this

statement in no way indicated the government's intention. In

fact, it's clearly the opposite point of view. It has depressed

the market; it has caused a loss to these citizens.

It brings to mind the very real questions we brought up in this

Legislature last year. The Premier, just the other day, was saying:

"Yes, we have to develop guidelines about how gifts are accepted. We

have to establish rules as to how certain campaign moneys are handled."

But here the problem was identified a year ago, a problem which didn't

exist until this province gave itself the additional authority through

the Revenue Act to speculate in the market. Now we have the very thing

we pointed out; one of the possibilities that could happen if the

government wasn't strict and had rules, rules that would bind all

cabinet Ministers to be temperate, cautious and accurate in their

statements. If the government had provided the rules for the amount of

confidentiality and the manner in which they were going to further

acquire companies....

While I don't agree with the government's philosophy of

takeover and public ownership, I believe that while they are

government and have that philosophy, the rules should be

clear-cut. The rules should prevent the type of abuse of

Ministerial statements that can affect the stock market so that

anyone, in particular the government, can benefit from insider

knowledge and affect the stock market by statements.

Over and above

that, there would be the further possibility

— not this case, but others such as total takeovers — where there

are public stock issues and where it may be affected by a slip

or an indiscretion, of unusual trading patterns, such as were

apparent in the Columbia Cellulose original takeover and,

indeed, in other stock purchases this government has made.

I wonder if the Premier and Minister of Finance could

comment on this shocking situation and whether this government

is indeed taking steps to correct this statement, if he does

believe that this government or the Minister is subject to

rebuke, and that Mr. Irwin Miller of Montreal has cause for

complaint.

In light of this further fact of the government not

adequately realizing its position in the market, and its

position as the government and the position it gave itself when

it gave itself the right to speculate and play in the stock

market — to the detriment of the individual citizens of this

province — perhaps now, a year later, we are going to get some

rules, some manner in which the public will have confidence

they are not being manipulated. Perhaps we will get some rules

where the public can be confident that there are no leaks,

where the public can be confident that windfall profits aren't

made by insider knowledge, where the public can be confident

that, indeed, the government is acting in the best interests of

the citizens and not in its own desire to fulfill its own

desire to acquire the shares at a cheaper price because the

depressed the market because of Ministerial statements.

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

questions to the Hon. Premier in his capacity of holding the

purse-strings of the province — and pretty

[ Page 788 ]

tenuous strings they are at the present time.

It was most interesting to hear him read his budget address

to the House, but more so for what he neglected to talk about.

One, of course, must ask whether or not what the Premier said

in the House during his budget address constitutes the budget

address, or whether what one reads in the paper constitutes the

budget address, or what is printed in the budget address itself

constitutes the budget address.

When he was talking in the House we find that he didn't

refer at all to a very interesting and revealing statement

dealing with the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia. And we

see it was completely neglected when he was standing in front

of the television cameras with his sincere suit on and his nice

new tie.

Hon. D. Barrett (Premier): That wasn't a new tie.

Mr. Gardom: He didn't read this statement from the

budget address:

"Legislation approved by this Legislature last year

provides

that the corporation will have access to the consolidated

revenue fund of the province in order to assist its

operations."

The Hon. Premier neglected with the greatest of chance and

oversight to bring that very revealing and indicative statement

to the attention of the people of this province. Certainly he

went out of his way not to emphasize the obvious — that ICBC

must be in red ink right smack up to its armpits.

The Hon. Members will recall that last year I explained at

length the plight of some very seriously injured individuals

who fell between two stools, the Insurance Corp. of British

Columbia and the Traffic Victims Indemnity Fund — neither of

whom accepted responsibility to take care of the claims of some

very seriously injured people. Each of them were larding off

onto the other the responsibility to accept and pay for such

claims.

Well, following a great deal of prompting and debate —

unfortunately, acrimonious debate, on the part of some of the

government Members — eventually the government introduced an

amendment to the provincial statute which implanted the full

responsibility of payment into the camp of the Insurance Corp.

of British Columbia.

I am going to have to ask the Premier today: is this

corporation having difficulty in meeting its financial

obligations? Since the debate last fall, and since this

amendment became part of the law of the province, I'm informed

that once again stall tactics are being practised by ICBC

which, in view of the circumstances and in view of the fact

that it's the only game in town and certainly in view of the

fact this is supposed to be a social legislation, are totally

irresponsible and disgraceful.

I mentioned to this House the case of the paraplegic who was

injured in August of 1972. Still no recovery in March of 1975.

I mentioned to the House the case of the quadriplegic injured

in 1973. Still no recovery in 1975.

I am informed that the representatives of these seriously

injured people have been after ICBC for payment without any

results ever since the legislation was passed — just stall,

stall, stall. They have written to ICBC in November, December

and January. I understand they have placed all sorts of

telephone calls, and in one, the representatives of these

people was finally told by ICBC that yes, they did accept the

claim, but they regretted that no action had been taken for

payment "because no authority to pay as yet has been

received."

Now, in plain language, Mr. Premier, that must mean that

there is not any money available or not any money labeled or

authorized for payment, and no money has been made available

for these seriously injured people. I want to know just why,

and so do these people. They are just claims of some people who

have been injured piteously, of people who in some instances

hold judgments, of people who have now received from this

government, from this Legislature, a statutory, imperative

right to recover. But justice to them and equity to them are

still denied, and it's grossly unfair.

I want to ask the Premier why ICBC isn't paying these

claims. Is it bust? Is it bankrupt? Is it that there's a

shortfall there? What's the trouble with it? Why doesn't the

Premier have a heart?

I remember him making a great big show in this House the

night the Prime Minister of Canada got married. He asked one

question of the former Attorney-General all through the night:

to write a letter for a seriously injured person. Here we've

got quadriplegics and paraplegics who are not being paid by

ICBC because they say they haven't got the money. Don't you

start to fog it off on to your Minister, because you, my

friend, control the consolidated revenue fund. You brought in

the gas tax, and you know that ICBC cannot pay its way.

Why don't you go ahead and do the right thing? That's what

you should be doing. Why don't you, please, Mr. Premier, inform

the House today how much money is going to flow into ICBC from

the gas pumps? How much transfusion money are you going to

shoot into that insurance corporation?

We all remember the debates last year and the great deal of

abuse that was received on this side of the House when it was

estimated that ICBC was going into the red. In order to come up

with that estimation, estimates were made with the available

material that was given to us — which was a paucity of

material. But by using the government material, by adding up

all of the estimated premiums and interest income and revenues

of ICBC, a figure came about.

[ Page 789 ]

By adding up its estimated claims expense on the basis of

its current exposure and deducting that and the capital

expenditures, one found, Mr. Premier, there was only $17

million left to pay for salaries and administrative

expense.

Then we went to the Manitoba experience. By utilizing the

Manitoba experience of 12.4 per cent of gross income for

salaries and administrative expense, it was estimated that ICBC

would have a loss of $10 million.

Now the problem was approached from a second position. Once

again it had to be approached this way because the government

refused to give the public of this province all of the

information. We added up all of the revenues of the insurance

corporation, added up the estimated expense for claims, the

capital expenditures and deducted as well. Once again, by using

estimated salary costs, with overhead being one-half of that,

we arrived at a loss of $20 million, which proved to be mighty

close at that point in time.

No subsidies! Can you remember the howling and the talking

in this House when it was suggested over here that there were

going to be subsidies to ICBC? We were accused of being cynics

and vicious and arrogant, and you name it. But what happened in

the next couple of days? Down the pipes they came — subsidies. I

think it was announced up in the interior at Kamloops, unless

I'm mistaken.

But the $20 million deficit that was forecast last year was

based on an estimated salary income of about 60 per cent of

what it's proven to be, because the Hon. Minister of Transport

(Hon. Mr. Strachan) filed in the House a few days ago — and

we're not sure if that figure is correct, because he doesn't

know himself, and he says he's going to look into it again — a

figure that showed there was an estimated salary payroll of

about $2 million.

Once again, by using exactly the same kind of a formula, we

find from the $17 million that is available to take care of

salary and administrative expense — which comes to $52 million — a $35 million shortfall of ICBC. One could say that it's

losing about $2 million to $3 million per month exclusive of

what it may receive by way of transfused funds from the gas

tank or transfused funds from premium income, because now, as

the Hon. Premier well knows, all of the government agencies and

operations have got to be insured by ICBC,

whereas in the past

a lot of them were self-insured. It's a pretty easy thing for

the Premier and the Minister of Transport to get together and

make up their minds what the cost of a premium is going to

be.

I ask the Hon. Premier again: why are these people not being paid?

You should just get on the telephone today to ICBC and demand payment

today. Make no bones about it. Their claims have been received and the

ICBC people are putting their hands up in the air and saying: "We

haven't got the authority. We haven't got the money." It's a rotten

situation.

The public in this province also want to know from the

Premier just how much ICBC is in the red, how much money it is

going to have to have come from the consolidated revenue fund

to meet its obligations. Is it or is it not meeting its

obligations today? It doesn't seem to be in the instances which

I've given to you.

Furthermore, I think this House would very much like to have

from the Hon. Premier his solemn undertaking that the annual

financial report of ICBC is going to be filed in this House

long before the estimates of the Minister of Transport and

Communications come up.

One of the most unattractive characteristics of this

government has been its consummate arrogance of silence. I

think this is best exemplified by the unswayable, unalterable

and inflexible attitude of the Premier in ignoring the right — not the

privilege but the right — of the general public to be

given full, complete, honest, impartial, factual accounts of

the business of the province, specifically the financial

information. But that has been denied, it is being denied and

it's going to continue to be denied by this government and by

the Premier. The sunshine government? As my colleague says,

once they were in — down came the blinds.

The representatives of the people of the province on this

side of the House have continuously solicited information from

the government about financial affairs of the province, which

is their entitlement. I say it's their legal entitlement, it's

their moral entitlement and it's their ethical entitlement to

full, proper and honest accounts so the public are able to

assess the performance of the government, of their programmes

and their policies, of their civil servants and of their

elected representatives. Let the public be able to make their

own assessment as to whether or not they're receiving true

value for their dollar.

I'm not talking about whether there's a need to maintain

secrecy because of public morality or national security. I'm

talking of the refusal of this government to provide

information which should be right smack out into the open. You

have gone into the private sector. The Leader of the Opposition

(Mr. Bennett) spoke about it a few moments ago. By virtue of

your advent into the private sector, you have a greater

responsibility to furnish full and proper accounts, which you

are not doing. You've slid the other way, make no mistake of it

at all, and every day you're sliding the other way.

For what purpose? Are you trying to protect the back of the

bureaucrat or feather the political nest of some of the weak

cabinet Ministers that you may have? But I tell you, it's a

gross misuse of public information because your job is not to

propagate the welfare of the civil service nor the welfare or

the continuity in office of your party.

[ Page 790 ]

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Don't attack the civil

servants.

Mr. Gardom: You're darn right I'm attacking to that

extent. I think they have a responsibility. If you won't tell

or give the people the facts, they should. The job is to

perform for and in the better interests of the people, and that

is not being done here. The people have the right to have full

information about the Crown corporations.

You know that old expression in law: "Justice must not only

be done but appear to be done." Government, similarly, must not

only govern but appear to govern. And you've absolutely no

right, Mr. Premier, not to fully instruct your Ministers — fully and

unequivocally instruct your Ministers — to fess up

and lay the financial conditions of their portfolios straight

on the table, of Hydro, ICBC, B.C. Rail, the Daon deal and the

Casa Loma deal. It's just like pulling teeth to get any

information out of this government. All you're doing is playing

monopoly with the people's money in the dark, and make no

mistake of that fact.

Well, okay, here's an example. You give me one good reason — one

good reason, Mr. Premier — why the public should not know

who lent the money to B.C. Hydro. One single reason. The public

of B.C. are committed to pay it back, not you. By far the

majority of B.C. citizens are law-abiding, conscientious,

fair-minded people. We all agree with that, and they want to

have fairness in dealing. They want to deal with friends. They

may want to deal with people who have those same kind of

characteristics and they may not want to deal with people who

don't. How can they know without you telling them?

I for one would not want Mafia money coming into this

province behind a Crown corporation on borrowed money. I'm not

suggesting it is. Don't start to throw up your arms and say:

"Aha, he said Mafia money!" I know, I'm anticipating it.

(Laughter.) I'm just anticipating. But we want to know where it

came from. The public are entitled to know. Why should it be

Dave's deal in the dark? Why? Why should it be hush-hush? Why

should the public not be entitled to a full and proper

account?

Why indeed, Mr. Premier, are you continuing to carry on and

propagate the divisionistic practices that have hamstrung

municipalities in this province ever since it was a pup? Decade

after decade, year after year, day after day, the

municipalities and the cities of this province have had to come

cap in hand to each and every provincial government we've ever

had, literally begging for handouts. Your philosophy and the

philosophy of prior governments have been very wrong from the

outset. The concept that these municipalities should be

regarded as creatures of the provincial government is archaic,

stupid and wrong.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Some of them are playing

politics.

Mr. Gardom: Some of them are playing politics?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Yes.

Mr. Gardom: Oh. Well, in a democracy, Mr. Chairman, I

think you play a little politics now and then, too. Yes, you

certainly do that.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Order!

Mr. Gardom: But the fact that you're not accepting as

a philosophy and a policy of your government that the

municipalities are not creatures of the government but partners

of the government is outmoded and stupid and wrong. It's just

as outmoded and stupid and wrong as Chinese ladies binding

their feet. B.C. municipalities are still shackled by that

archaic concept which you are still practising.

You know, there are very, very forthright and blunt

criticisms by the Plunkett report a few years ago, and those

criticisms are just as valid today as the day they were

written.

Municipalities are being economically overburdened and

financially starved by this government. They cannot make a go

of it without being granted a fair, continuing and

formulatively predictable share of provincial revenues — not by

tying them to the fluctuations, the rise and fall of any one

taxable sector. That is not enough, be it gas, belch or

prevailing political flatulation. Tying their share to overall

provincial revenue — that is what the municipal share should be

applied to. As the overall provincial revenues increase, the

municipal share should increase; as they decrease, so it should

decrease.

Anything less amounts to a combination of fiscal meddling

and political handouts much along the line of that NDP maypole

you had in your budget address and the economic exercise which

I have referred to in my talk. That maypole symbolizes NDP

economic policies: skipping around in circles, entwining,

running out of breath, falling down, and claiming

accomplishment. The cities and the municipalities deserve and

are entitled to something better than that.

You have really scurried away from your commitment that school taxes

would be taken off the back of the property owner. You have now refused

to accept responsibility for that position. We can well remember the

dewy-eyed promises that were made during the election — how wrong and

how cruel it was that the property owners should bear the full brunt of

education. Oh, it was just woe, woe, woe —

[ Page 791 ]

terrible, terrible, terrible. "Vote for Dave to save," you pleaded. That is what you did. Unction was just

flowing like melted butter.

You know, you used to say "I care." You were wringing your

wallet away there, Mr. Premier, saying "I care." Somewhere in

the back of the room a little voice piped up and said: "I care

too." And he said: "Services for people paid for by taxes on

people; services for land paid for by taxes on land." You said:

"Well, that is a nice phrase. But I want you to get one thing

straight, my friend, I am going to do the caring. My friend,

that is my bag; not yours." And since you have got in, you have

become careless, Mr. Premier. Make no mistake of that.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I think you are being critical of

us.

Mr. Gardom: You are continuing to thrust the

educational load solely on the back of the property owner,

which is outdated and outmoded. You are not typing municipal

revenues to provincial revenues, which is outdated and

outmoded. You are not linking the per capita grant to

provincial revenue, which is outdated, outmoded and grossly

unfair.

You are not paying proper municipal assessments for your

provincial operations within the boundaries of municipalities

and cities. I gave you a figure last year and that figure is

just as sound as it was last year. It was a half a million

dollars last year which the provincial government ripped off

the City of Vancouver by failing to pay normal, accepted

business and property taxes. Make no mistake about that fact.

That figure today is probably up to three-quarters of a million

dollars.

You are not doing another thing: you are not setting aside

and earmarking what I would like to call "crisis money,"

making funds available for the out-of-the-ordinary projects,

the time for which, unfortunately, is critically approaching — or even

worse, has arrived, certainly in the cities, and you

know it. It is a fact of life in this country that seven to

eight people out of every 10 are going to be situated in the

cities by the year 2000 B.C.

Look at Vancouver, third largest city in Canada. It has

serious, critical traffic problems. It has had more transit

studies and more transit plans, I suppose, than Smith has cough

drops, but without any money, any crisis money being set aside

and building up to care for it, without any preventive-medicine

money being set aside.

Mr. H.A. Curtis (Saanich and the Islands): That's

where the gas tax should go.

Mr. Gardom: As my friend over here suggests, that is

where the gas tax should be going. I think that is a practical

suggestion — a very good suggestion.

But the closest Vancouver will ever come to having an

underground, I suppose, is your government continuously going

underground once they have asked for any kind of an intelligent

response to this kind of a question.

There are very serious fire problems in our city today.

Without any question of a doubt, one could find the very worst

of catastrophes happening. These highrise buildings are proving

to be excellent furnaces and perhaps perfect incinerators. It

is a situation that is extremely serious.

The Hon. Premier asks if it is his fault. I will tell you

why it is your fault — directly, no; indirectly, yes — but the

blame has got to come to the top. "The buck stops here,"

as Harry S. Truman said. That is where the buck is stopping.

These people are short of dough. They need M-O-N-E-Y. That is

what the cities and the municipalities need. There is not

adequate fire-fighting equipment to take care of a really

highrise building fire in the Province of B.C. today. How high

do the ladders go? Do they reach the top of these

25-story-and-over buildings? They probably don't. For goodness'

sake, the cities and the municipalities don't have the

necessary dollars to produce these kinds of savings to produce

these kinds of protections for the people of their

municipalities and cities, and they have got to come to the

only source they have, the senior government. Can they go ahead

and put on another specific assessment against the property

owner today? We hear it suggested that taxes are going up 25

per cent as it is. There should be some crisis money available

for something such as this. It's all very well....

We have to have, certainly, a set of effective building

bylaws for the new structures which would have self-closing

doors or automatic sprinkler systems and smoke vents for each

floor, with fire doors and fire barriers and pressurized

stairwells and elevator shafts and smoke detectors, and all of

those things. But what about the buildings that are already

constructed that are unsafe? Is it too much to ask that the

cities and the municipalities should have 100 per cent

effective fire-fighting equipment so the fire chiefs would be

able to say: "Okay, I can get to the top of that building with

my men with my ladders from the outside"? You put that

question to the fire chiefs in this province, Mr. Premier, and

I'll tell you what your answer will be, unfortunately:

"No."

It's a dangerous situation. You've got the opportunities,

the wherewithal, the resources; you don't need any imagination.

Leave the imagination up to the cities and municipalities. They

can tell you what they want to have done, but you have the

resources. By virtue of the fact of having the resources you

have the responsibility, and you are abdicating that

responsibility.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: The Minister of Finance

[ Page 792 ]

will try to answer for the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr.

Macdonald), the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr.

Lorimer), the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi), the

Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Lauk) and also the

Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr.

Strachan).

Mr. Gardom: You set the policy.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Well, Mr. Member, do you want me to

answer all those questions related to those departments in my

estimates? Now I don't know the details of whether or not ICBC

is paying those cases. You'd think that it was....

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Member, it's the first time you

have brought it to my attention — the first time. Okay, now

that you've brought it to my attention, you want an immediate

answer. Do you want me to go to the phone? Well, let's get

those estimates through.

Mr. Gardom: Well, you're in charge of the

consolidated revenue fund. You can do it.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I listen quietly — with a few

interruptions. Six; you have five left. (Laughter.)

Mr. Gardom: I'll wait for a good one.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Four! (Laughter.)

I don't know the details of these cases. If there is an

injustice, I want to know about it too. Now I am going to find

out. I have made a note of it, and I'll try and find out as

quickly as I can. I don't believe there should be any

bureaucratic excuse or reason or anything else impeding

justice. It's not a question of money.

Mr. Gardom: That's what they say.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: No, it's not a question of money,

and I'd like to see in writing who's saying that.

Mr. Gardom: That's what they say.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Well, I don't know who says what. You're a

lawyer, Mr. Member; you know that that's not hard evidence. Sometimes

you lapse into being a politician with soft evidence. You know, you had

a bad night last night. You stayed up all night writing that speech and

the most you could come up with in criticizing the government was that

there were not ladders in Vancouver high enough to reach the top of the

apartment buildings. Now, for goodness' sake, after 30 months...

Mr. Gardom: Humbug!

Hon. Mr. Barrett: ...of this government, that's the

only thing he could come up with to criticize in the estimates.

I feel sorry for the opposition. They are so hard up for issues

that it's down to the colour of fire trucks and the size of the

ladders.

Now we'll deal with some of the other things that you didn't

touch on and the things you did touch on.

Mr. Gardom: Accountability.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Municipalities. Well, we paid for

all of their court costs. You didn't mention that. That was a

change.

Mr. Gibson: You take the fines, too.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Well, there it is. You remind me of

the fellow who was in the hotel room in Ireland recently. He

woke up in the middle of the night and there was a gun at his

head. Is that your story? Were you the guy?

There was a gun at his head right in the middle of Ireland

and he could hear the click of the pistol, and he was asked a

quick question: "What are you, a Protestant or a Catholic?" The

guy thought in a hurry; he knew his life was in the balance and

he came back with a snappy answer. He said: "I'm a Jew." The

voice behind the gun said: "Well, what do you know! And I'm the

only Arab in Ireland." (Laughter.)

The moral of the story is that it doesn't really matter what

you say, they'll never be satisfied over there. They're against

the government. A lot of people are surprised with that

statement and I want to apologize on their behalf, because when

they are against the government, this is what they are against....

An Hon. Member: Oh!

Hon. Mr. Barrett: When he talked about compassion he

didn't mention Mincome.

Mr. Gardom: That was one of our policies. You took it

all. (Laughter.) You just swiped it. I'm glad you did. You

learned.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mincome was a Liberal policy.

[ Page 793 ]

Mr. Gardom: You remember the amendment?

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: That's three! (Laughter.)

That's like the Liberal promise in 1919 for medicare. Forty

years they went on it with the theory: "Why ruin a good

promise by doing something about it?" That's Liberal

philosophy. We went to Ottawa after we brought Mincome in in

this province and we said: "Lower the age to 60." And do you

know what the federal Liberals told us? "No." And you're still

a Liberal? They told us no, and we unilaterally did what no

other jurisdiction in North America has done: we have lowered

the age under this programme down to 60. Don't you praise

that?

Mr. Gardom: Your predecessor used to do better than that.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Well, Mr. Member, you know, I get

confused when I hear you speak because you'd think the whole

world was coming to rack and ruin — ending up with a lack of

ladders in Vancouver, which is my fault! I'm going to lose a

whole night's sleep over that accusation.

Mr. Gardom: I hope you do.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I'm going to find out what's going

on. Why would they allow them to build those high buildings

without planning ahead? What's wrong with the city

administration to allow that to happen? No planning ahead in

the city, and you're attacking them for that. And now, because

there hasn't been the planning, you want me to rush in and

solve their lack of planning. Now, Mr. Member, I don't mind

taking a lot of problems on my shoulders, but not

everything.

Now, the next thing, we reduce the welfare percentage to the

cities. We've taken off the cost of the assessment department — Bill

82. We've been able to provide financing for sewers, for

municipalities and cities throughout this province. We've done

a lot for the municipalities.

You know, you just can't get up and say that we haven't done

enough because we haven't got high enough ladders on fire

trucks — that they purchased, not us. When they put in the

order for the purchase, did they consider what kind of

buildings they were having to service? Do they do any planning?

Don't blame us by saying we didn't give them money. Did they

ever ask us for higher fire truck ladders? No, Mr. Member.

We're going to come to the more....

That's an interruption, even though it's silent, so you've

got two left. (Laughter.) Gestures are interruptions.

An Hon. Member: Double or nothing.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Now, what about day care?

Pharmacare? What about all the services that we're providing

the people? They're terrific! They're wonderful!

Mr. Gardom: Who's knocking those?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Well, nobody's knocking them, but

how about a little word of praise once in a while?

Mr. Gardom: That's not an interruption.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: How about a little word of praise

once in a while?

Mr. Gardom: I do that all the time.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You know, you get up and you make

out as if we haven't done anything for the people of this

province, and that's not so. We've done a lot of good

things.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Thirty months. We had a mess to

clean up. In 30 months we've done a terrific amount of good for

a lot of people. I get letters every day from former Liberals

and former Socreds saying: "Thank goodness you're around, and

we hope you get some support from the opposition." That's what

they say to me. The people are fair out there. They write in,

and I say I have hope for the Liberal Party. I've written off

the Socreds, but the Liberals I had hope for. But then, after

today's speech....

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Fickle! I'm surprised you're still

around; it's past your afternoon nap time, Mr. Leader of the

Opposition (Mr. Bennett). You've almost spent an hour in the

House today. It's a bit of a record. Write it down.

Mr. Bennett: I'm here more than you are....

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Now, the next question is the

municipalities. We've made a proposal for revenue-sharing with

the municipalities. I don't understand why you're opposed to

that because you used to talk about resource-sharing with the

municipalities. Now we've done it, you don't like it.

Mr. G.F. Gibson (North Vancouver-Capilano): No

guarantee.

[ Page 794 ]

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Now, I think you're getting

political.

An Hon. Member: Hodge-podge.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I don't want to make that

accusation, Mr. Chairman, because I've been here a long

time.

Mr. D.M. Phillips (South Peace River): Too long.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Fifteen years. And I don't like to

accuse anybody of being political in here. But once in a while

I get to thinking, maybe there's politics behind those

criticisms.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh! Shame!

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I apologize. Not yet have they

reached that point, but it's close to it when you say that our

approach to the municipalities isn't fair. You people over

there have been saying all along: "Share the resource

revenues." Now we have a proposal to share the revenues and

you're attacking it.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Why, Mr. Member, do you think the

price of natural gas is going to go down? After I heard the

Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) speak, I went and

researched his statement on the bill which he voted against,

setting up the petroleum corporation — which your colleagues

voted against, which your seat-mate voted against. And he said

that we were being greedy in that bill, asking for more money.

And then, last night, you birds have the nerve to say we're not

asking for enough. Now that's one thing about the Liberals: they're quick to switch their ground when they're in trouble.

I only wish it produced as much gas as it does hot air. Your

position has changed completely in a year-and-a-half's time

because some of you are playing politics.

We're going to ask for a raise in the price of that natural

gas, and we're going to get it. And we're going to share that

with the municipalities. We would have shared it with the

federal government but they didn't want that. They wanted us to

stuff more money into the pockets of the oil companies. That we

refused to do. And we're going to get a higher price for our

natural gas, just as that price yesterday was warranted out of

Alberta, vindicating the position that this government had

taken all along. As a matter of fact, the NEB agreed to it.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Well, the NEB agreed to that price,

only after a court decision in another jurisdiction said what

the price should be. An American court, telling the Canadian

National Energy Board that they were not charging enough for

your gas — how embarrassing!

An Hon. Member: Nonsense!

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Nonsense? It certainly is nonsense.

It's consummate nonsense.

An Hon. Member: Stick to your facts.

[Ms. Sanford in the chair.]

Hon. Mr. Barrett: The fact that we should sell our

gas at $1 per cent, while next door, Alberta, the NEB has

agreed with the Idaho court that gas could go up to $1.63 to

$1.91. Check my facts. Is that wrong? Are they selling the gas

at a different price than what the Idaho court ordered they

could get? Am I wrong?

An Hon. Member: NEB decision.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: NEB decision. The NEB decision was

forced on it by an American court. How humiliating for

Canadians. How humiliating, when we had been saying all along

that natural gas was selling at a giveaway price to the

Americans. The federal Liberal government said: "No, no, no."

The American court said: "Yes, it is." They forced the NEB to

back off. An American court doing more protection of a Canadian

resource than our own federal government. You ought to be

embarrassed as a Liberal.

Mr. Gibson: Nonsense!

Hon. Mr. Barrett: It's nonsense to be embarrassed as

a Liberal? No matter what you say about the Liberals, they

never get embarrassed. They're around forever. They are the

amoeba party of Canada. They bob and shape and twist and turn

and encompass. Who was it who described them as not a political

party but an alliance for power?

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I don't think it was Fotheringham

originally. I think it was some social scientist — the

consultants that are in the Prime Minister's office. All the

money.... I never hear you complain about that. You talk over

there, but I never hear you mention a single thing about the

Prime Minister's office and what the federal Liberal Party

spends on consultants and waste back there.

[ Page 795 ]

An Hon. Member: Get back to B.C.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Member, I am. I'm answering

your question about the municipalities. Just raise the price of

that gas and we'll be able to give more money to the

municipalities. There's nothing wrong with that.

Mr. Gibson: A guarantee. That's all it takes.

Hon. Mr.

Barrett: I now give a guarantee to every

municipality in this province that if the federal Liberal

government gives a raise in gas...

Mr. Fraser: If! If!

Mr. Gibson: Give them your own guarantee.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: ...to the same price or more, than

what Alberta gets they will get a third. Now what's wrong with

that? Would any federal government say that British Columbia

has to sell it gas cheaper to the United States than what

Alberta does?

If any federal government says that, what they're really

admitting is this: British Columbia has a publicly-owned

corporation which allows the people to make the profit. Alberta

has private gas companies which allow the private gas companies

to make the profit. Ergo, the federal Liberals will be saying

that if you're private and international, you can have huge

profits and walk away from Canada, but if you're public and

you're going to share with the people, you can't have huge

profits. That's what it simply is, Mr. Member. I don't believe

any government — Liberals included — would dare face the

Canadian people and refuse to give us an increase.

So we've solved your problem on the municipalities.

Mr. Gibson: You haven't solved their problem,

though.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: The money is going to come.

Mr. Gibson: They want a guarantee from you.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I give you that guarantee. I

guarantee that they'll get one-third of the net increase above

$1 for natural gas.

Interjections.

Mr. Gardom: Why did you switch? Why did you switch

your position?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I'd rather fight than switch.

Mr. Gardom: When you stood over here you used to say

exactly the same thing: tie the municipal revenues into the

provincial revenues.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Member, you have one

interjection left. You've been a flop in five; make one good

one.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Five flops in a row and not one

good.

Mr. R.H. McClelland (Langley): Do you guarantee $60

million?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Member, I will guarantee

one-third and you figure it out. If that gas went up to what it

should be, just how much money would it be?

As far as the Socreds go, for them to be yapping over there

about guarantees — they gave the gas away: 33 cents per mcf.

They gave it away, and that's their solution. Give it away to

someone else rather than sharing.

Mr. Member, I'm disappointed in your speech today.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: And I don't want to be political

because you weren't political. But you've got nothing to

criticize. You're the only one who has tried to go on the

issues. The rest has been on innuendo and a little bit sleazy

and smeary. You weren't at that level. And that's where they

were at in the last three days. Simply because they haven't got

issues, they'd rather deal in personalities.

Mr. L.A. Williams (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Now

that we've enjoyed the afternoon performance of non-partisan,

non-political effort in this House, I would like to raise some

of the same issues with the Premier. I'm not going to deal with

innuendo or anything sleazy, but I'm interested in this whole

matter of whether or not the municipalities in this province

should have their future and their future revenue sources from

the provincial government tied to any profits which we may

realize on natural gas.

I think the government is making a mistake in this approach

to municipal finance. There's only one thing that is not a

mistake about it and that is that there is now, for the first

time, a clear recognition from this government — a recognition

which we didn't have from the former government — that the

municipalities of this province are in desperate need of

financial assistance and a new formula by which

[ Page 796 ]

they will participate in the revenue sources which come from

all the people of this province. The revenue sources which this

provincial government has come from the people of this

province, and they aren't to have any preferential right to the

use of those revenues. Those same people live in the villages,

towns, municipalities and cities of this province, and those

local governments are entitled to have their proper share of

revenue as well.

For the Minister to suggest that the way for relief to the

municipalities is to give them a share of profits out of a

diminishing resource, a non-renewable resource, is to build

into the formula for provincial/local government sharing the

same kind of inequities that the former administration built

into the formula that exists today. They never would tie the

revenues of the municipalities in a fair way to the total

revenue potential of the Province of British Columbia.

What is required — and the Hon. Minister of Finance knows

it, because when he was on this side of the House and say

things with wisdom and clarity he used to suggest the same

thing — is that they should be....

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I never said that when I was over

there. How can you say that?

Mr. L.A. Williams: Well, we never had to deal with

your estimates when you were over there.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You were always estimating our

chances.

Mr. L.A. Williams: That's right. Gosh, we made some

mistakes then, too.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Yes, you made another one

today.

Mr. L.A. Williams: I think it is a fundamental error

that is being committed, and it is involving the

municipalities, unfortunately, in a political atmosphere in

which they should not be involved on a subject of this

nature.

Now there is another reason I am opposed to having natural

gas revenues made available to the municipalities. That is that

those revenues, because they do come from a diminishing

resource, are going to be needed for other purposes in this

province in the years to come.

We all recognize that the increase in energy value has

largely stemmed from the late realization by the Middle East

countries that they were giving away their diminishing resource

too cheaply. What we have had in this world is a rising energy

cost because the Arabs have awakened to the fact that they were

giving away their most precious resource too cheaply.

The Premier agrees with that.

But they also recognize that what they must do is to take

the return from that resource and, as quickly as they can,

reinvest those returns in industrial enterprise which will

ensure that when the oil resources are depleted — and they are

finite — they will have something else to take their place in

order to sustain the economy of those nations. This is what we

must do as well.

Not only must we provide against the day when we will have

to seek other energy sources because the gas will be gone. As I

said in my earlier speech, it may be 25 years, it may be 35

years. But that's not very far away. The Premier agreed with me

that we should be considering at this particular time not what

our requirements are in 1975, but what they will be in the

decades to come for the citizens of this province as they come

to take their place.

But let me give you one example. The Premier and I had a

discussion yesterday afternoon in this House with regard to the

borrowing requirements of British Columbia Hydro. In order to

fulfill that Crown corporation's needs just over the next five

years — and the Premier knows that the records should show this — the total borrowings for capital purposes of B.C. Hydro in

the period ending 1979 are $3,385 million. That's the kind of

money that corporation needs in order to do just the jobs that

we foresee for them today: the completion of the Columbia, the

completion of the Peace, Site 1, Pend-d'Oreille, Kootenay Canal

and then additional transportation, rail services, and so one,

in which that corporation is involved. It isn't all for the

purpose of hydro-electric generation.

The Crown corporation forecasts that of those dollars it can

produce from its own operations about $600 million. That leaves

the corporation, and the Minister of Finance as its chief

fiscal agent, with the task of having to borrow $2,708 million

over the next five years in order to keep that Crown

corporation growing.

Now the interesting part about this particular figure is

that those borrowings exceed by $350 million the total debt of

B.C. Hydro today. I'm not suggesting that this province will

not be able to sustain that borrowing level. All I'm saying is

that this is only one indication of the demand that this

province will be making for money.

If you look in the prospectus that was filed last September,

as the Premier has indicated as late as yesterday, the moneys

we generated inside this province are going to be given

priority for schools, hospitals and purposes of that nature. I

agree with that.

But when we are approaching the day when we, too, realizing

the value of our natural gas resource, are increasing its price

of $1.35, $1.60, $1.91, whatever the government is able to

arrange in its

[ Page 797 ]

future negotiations with national government — because that

is where we are now; we are locked into that situation where

they are going to control our price, if they don't already do

it today.... But with the revenues we get as we realize the

potential of our energy source, in the same way as the Middle

East countries have recognized the value of their resources, we

should be doing the same thing as those countries are doing —

husbanding those moneys for purposes such as the future

expansion of British Columbia Hydro, the other Crown

corporations and those other areas of legitimate provincial

responsibility which will be needed to replace this resource

when it is gone.

Growth dollars are what I am talking about — dollars to

sustain our economy, to provide purposeful employment for our

citizens who in turn, through their energies, will provide the

tax dollars which will flow into the provincial coffers to meet

the requirements of the Ministry of Education and do all the

other things that we want to do, including Mincome (which we

applaud), Pharmacare (which we applaud), day care, (which we

applaud).

If we take this natural resource money and say we are going

to give a third of it to the municipalities so that they can

use it in their ongoing operating expenses, then we lose that

opportunity to invest in the growth of the future, and

therefore lose a part of the opportunity of being able to

continue that kind of aid to the municipalities in 25 or 30

years from now.

I suggest that the Premier should seriously reconsider his

programme. There is no question that it has got tremendous

political appeal. I don't blame the Premier for taking that

opportunity. He is saying to the municipalities: "We are going

to give you a better deal out of a share of our revenues you

never had before." The trouble is that it is misty; it can

disappear like the mist in the morning. When the resource

revenues go, some other revenue source will have to be provided

for those municipalities. Why not fund them properly in

relation to total provincial revenues, then take your gains on

your natural resource revenue and set them aside for

appropriate future development of this province?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Your argument has a lot of validity

to it, but it is not as clear cut as I'd wish it or you'd wish

it.

Mr. L.A. Williams: Well, maybe we can work it out

together. What is the debate for?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Debate is excellent in terms of defining

differences of opinion and decisions that have to be made. Your

argument would have more merit, in my opinion, if we were not in the

situation that has really jeopardized that question of maximum return

from a natural resource, not only in banking in terms of dollars but

also banking in terms of conservation. It was wrong: you argued against

it; your colleague from Point Grey has made statements against it. We

argued it, but the former administration signed a 15-year contract to

export up to 809 million cubic feet of gas a day to the United States.

In the middle of the debate last year, October, 1973, I

asked the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey, in the middle of his

comments when he talked about conservation, if he suggest we

break the contract. He said no, renegotiate.

The Americans want that natural gas. The Socreds signed a

contract. There is only one option; it is not a question of

renegotiating. The question is that the Americans want more gas

now and they are not going to renegotiate now. That is why

there was the Idaho court decision. That was the basis of the

Idaho court decision to pay more. They will pay even more for

peaking gas if you can deliver it. There is no opportunity to

renegotiate the amount now. Thank goodness we are able to

interpret the wording as "up to 809 million cubit feet a day."

That is a matter of dispute between their lawyers and our

lawyers.

Let us both agree that the former administration made some

tragic blunders in resource areas, the Columbia River for one,

the 15-year contract on the sale of natural gas for

another.

Now, that's not purely a political statement. There are

economists right across this country, both in the National

Energy Board and outside of government service, who agree that

those long-term export contracts on natural gas should never

have been signed. The NEB itself says that five years is the

maximum.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Thirteen.

Look, I know it's non-renewable. We've got, on the best

estimates, around 20 to 25 years of gas supply left at the

current rate of production. Some people speculate

optimistically that we have discovered one-third of our

potential; others say that we're well over into three-quarters

of our potential. Okay, let's take your figure of 25 years.

Your suggestion that we take the profits, which I really

strongly feel we should maximize on the basis of price.... The

Member for Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) said, in attacking the

corporation, that we were being greedy, but I think he's seen

the validity of the argument in the intervening 16 months.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Yes, you were.

Interjection.

[ Page 798 ]

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I don't want to quote you from

Hansard , but if I have to, I will. You said here:

I don't think greed is any help if it comes from a

government.... Governments that are greedy are just as much to be

condemned as private corporations or individual citizens. When the

Premier stands up and talks about the $100 million we should be getting

for our resource, that's a reflection of greed.

Those are your words, Mr. Member, from October 23, 1973,

page 877, in Hansard .

Now it's changed. Last night we had a speech saying that I

was selling out, not asking for enough, when a little over a

year and a half ago he attacked me for being greedy. I don't

want to be responsible for his irresponsibility.

I appreciate the theoretical point raised by that Member.

There is the potential of saying, okay, we will capitalize on

this sale because it is a capitalizing sale — it's a

non-renewable sale. We will capitalize on this sale by setting

up a trust fund.

Mr. L.A. Williams: You're selling inventory.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: We're selling inventory. You

bet.

Mr. L.A. Williams: Your dad would understand it.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Yes, my dad understood. I

understood, too. Gas doesn't go rotten; what my dad dealt with

was perishable.

Mr. L.A. Williams: He had to sell quick.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You bet. He was a darn good one,

too.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I never swiped my dad's bananas. He

always gave away a lot free to people.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: What are you calling me? A banana

bootlegger? (Laughter.) I've been called a lot of things in my

life but....

Look, here is a policy decision that we have to make. Do we say,

with the range of decisions in front of us in terms of capital cost,

which I think you've predicted with some accuracy — certainly in

ballpark figures — we'll take this inventory sale and put it into this

other capital construction and diminish the possibility of developing

other enterprises and other sources of activity by locking ourselves

into that one commitment? Or do we do some rational, thoughtful

borrowing that we can well handle in this jurisdiction compared to...?

Only Alberta is in a better position than we are, when you consider

that Ontario is $1 billion in debt in one year on operating budgets

alone. They're going into debt in operations; we're not. Even with the

attacks of the overrun in that Minister's department and other

expenditures, we still have a surplus. We are still working within the

operating funds generated in this province.

The other option was to cut taxes. I don't agree with that

in theory at a time of recession. I think that's a mistake. I

think there are times when it's necessary for the government to

strengthen the economy by making direct moves in capital

ventures. That's why we're making the commitment to provide

jobs in Hydro. It's not as if we're taking the total inventory

of the sale of natural gas and pushing that away into

operating. It's new revenue, it's exciting revenue, and we will

certainly use some of it for operating. But the figures that

are available, if we maximize that cost, also allows the

corporation to consider major investment of its own in terms of

using those sales for further capitalizing.

One area of doing it is exploration to maximize the gas even

further. I don't think that's necessary philosophically. Some

people might disagree with me. I don't think it's necessary; I

think there's room for the private sector to do that. But the

corporation is certainly looking at the possibility of an oil

refinery. That's public knowledge. When we capitalize the cost

of that oil refinery — if a refinery is decided upon and if a

location is agreed upon — we will be in the very, very

fortunate position, Mr. Member, of doing exactly what you're

suggesting we do. The corporation itself may be in a position

to do a major part of the capital financing or a minor part, or

at least saying to outside investors that we are in a financial

position to share joint venture or back up. That's good. It's

good, hard-nosed business — nothing to do with socialism,

nothing to do with free enterprise. Good, hard-nosed

business.

The question about the refinery has to be resolved. It's a

difficult time that we're in. All questions of ecology, all

questions of a location, all questions of economic feasibility

must be resolved before the decision is made.

Mr. McClelland: Why are you buying land in

Surrey?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Member, we are buying land in

Surrey and we are buying land elsewhere because....

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Well, Mr. Member, there is a

possibility that may be a good site, or elsewhere might be a

good site. We've made no decision yet.

[ Page 799 ]

An Hon. Member: Yes, then sell the land back to the

people.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Member, just sit still and be

quiet for a few minutes and calm yourself.

Now when you talk about recapitulating on the amount, we are

taking one-third of an increase over a fixed price. Remember,

we'll still be making the amount of money, from 33 cents up to

$1, reducing ourselves our cost — there is another 10 cents, as

I understand it, for processing.

Now what does it do when the corporation then moves out? — perhaps

into an oil refinery, perhaps into a steel mill, two

major important industrial ingredients in this province. If

we're going to keep up in terms with the pressures that we have — people flowing in here, job demands by our young population,

all inescapable decisions somewhere down the road; we can't put

everybody in some kind of a secure nest and isolate ourselves

from the rest of the world — we've got to be competitive. We've

got to broaden our base. We don't have to go for massive

growth, but rational, economic planning.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Well, we're all involved as a group

and the question was related to what the Member says.

An oil refinery and a steel mill are two important

ingredients, in my opinion, and the decisions could have been

made years ago but were not.

All right. Where is that capital going to come from? Exactly

the source you're talking about. And what does that do? That

regenerates economic activity and does something else: it

provides for the municipalities of location even more permanent

income through taxation for that municipality. That's the point

that seems to escape people's reckoning.

I know it doesn't escape you, but when you have the

government directly involved in making those major economic

decisions — relocation, viability, social as well as economic

need of the region — once the investment is made, you've

enhanced the taxation base for that municipality.

What has happened, unfortunately, in this province is that we have

had the syndrome of company-town development with the corporations

being protected as a taxation base. We eliminated that with Bill 71,

with much anguish, and now we move on to the next step. So you can't

make a logical case by saying that when we say one-third of the

increase on the non-renewable stuff that will, perhaps, give the

municipalities a false sense of security. We've got 25 years to look at

it, and we've got the option — whoever is government, whether it's us

or you. God help us then. But we have time to make the decision about

stabilizing our own economic base beyond the extraction of raw

materials.

For 100 years we've been a province of raw resource

development with very limited secondary industry, very limited

tertiary industry. We talked about it over there. Now we mean

to do it while we are over here.

So, Mr. Member, we haven't lost sight of what you are

saying, but you can't confine yourself to one narrow direction.

We have an opportunity to do something absolutely exciting,

imaginative and sensible in municipal financing, and you say it

has political overtones. But what act of government doesn't

have political overtones? What act of government doesn't mean

that a political party through an election won enough seats to

make a decision? The problem in this country has been the

government has been elected and has refused to make

decisions.

Now the severest criticism against our government has been

that we are doing too many things too fast. But I notice that

everywhere I go in this province, and I go all over, I never

read in the local papers any statement by any Member of the

opposition about what we should cut out or what we should

change. "You've gone too fast," people say, but they

never say what we shouldn't have done because they wouldn't

dare cut out the things we've done.

Then the last resort, Mr. Member, is that they wail away at

socialism. When logic comes to be a barrier to them peddling

anything, then they say it's socialism. I actually go into some

Social Credit constituencies and hear this argument: "We like

Pharmacare, Dave. We like ICBC, Dave. We like day care, Dave.

We like Mincome, Dave. But we can't stand socialism." That's

the kind of illogic that that group peddles.

Really, you can't have it both ways. We've done a lot of

things. We've made mistakes. So help me, goodness, some of the

people over here are mortal. Some of us are. (Laughter.) But

some of them over there have handicaps, and I forgive them for

those handicaps.

An Hon. Member: That was unfair.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I'd forgive the whole group — wherever they

are. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: So there, Mr. Member, is a decision

that we've made: 33 per cent of the net increase above the

dollar. We have to look at the other options in the economy.

The other investments you are discussing are valid, but we've

got to look beyond Hydro and we have to secure those economic

moves that we make.

So that's the whole range. We have a word called "faith" in

the potential of this province. We're not

[ Page 800 ]

looking backwards to the sale of resources as the only way

of financing, but once we are committed to it by inheritance,

let's maximize it. That's the decision of my colleagues and the

backbenchers and myself. I think it is a good decision.

Mr. L.A. Williams: The Premier and I, I think, are in

substantial agreement with regard to this matter. Now I didn't

mean to suggest at all that the money should be husbanded to be

used for B.C. Hydro. I only gave an example of how much they

wanted to borrow as one example of what we face in the future

if we're to go forward on all fronts.

Now my one point would be this. I don't think that your

suggestion of a steel mill or a refinery is really not

imaginative enough, but it's the kind of thing that will happen

if we are going to have controlled, responsible growth in the

province. My suggestion is that if your one-third share of

increased revenues to municipalities — and I think $1.50 would

amount to $20 million a year.... My suggestion is that by

doing it the way you suggest — and I agree — by maximizing the

value you can get from the investment of $20 million in one of

these ways, any of the exciting range of ideas there are, you

will have long-range benefits far greater than to take $20

million and put it into the hands of municipalities to help

them pay for their garbage collection, their police, their

sewers, and so on.

You do today have revenue sources which would permit you to

say to the municipalities: "We will enter into an arrangement

with you where you get $20 million available to you without

identifying the source." You take that $20 million and you use

it as a punch, year after year, to go out into the province and

to assist those areas and the municipalities in those areas to

stand more and more on their feet by reason of action which

you, in turn, generate.

It's like having a family with 10 kids. You could take 10

bucks and give $1 to each of them and say: "Kids, go!" Or you

can take that $10 and do something for the family as a unit

which may, in the long run, give far more value for the total

family group. That's my only point. I just think that we are

tending to fritter the money away in operating-expense methods

when we can use it for capital purposes which, in turn, will

generate more money which can be used for operation.

I think the Premier and I otherwise are in substantial

agreement on the approach to the use of these moneys.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Member, we are in substantial

agreement. The only thing wrong with your analogy is that you

are absolute. You're saying that you give 10 kids one buck each

and that's it. But we're not doing that. You notice that we are

being very cautious. You are not listening to my words.

Okay, here we are. We're at a dollar now and they don't

share in that. Right? Anything above a dollar we're saying

one-third. So we're saying we'll get $30 for the 10 kids. We're

going to give each one of the 10 kids $1 and we're going to

have $20 left over to invest in their future by the industrial

development that I've talked about.

Now your argument would be valid if I said I was going to

give them $3 apiece and dissipate the $30. We're not going to

do that. We're giving $1 apiece. We'll have $20 left over to

start building those industries that they were starved from

having before. When we build those, up goes their tax base, and

that becomes a source of revenue. That's the only

difference.

Your argument would be valid if we were giving the whole

works for operating, but we are not.

Mr. Bennett: Earlier this afternoon I presented a

very serious case to the Premier and Minister of Finance, and I

was hoping that by now I could have had an answer. Last year we

presented a very serious situation of possibilities that could

exist with the government now having the additional power to

invest in the stock market, and the fact that the government,

through Ministerial statements, can affect the value of the

stocks on the stock market. Because of the powers taken under

the Revenue Act.... The same discretion that surrounds the

budget and the presentation of the budget on budget day, and

the fact that because items contained in the budget affect the

value of stocks, the budget is traditionally brought down after

the stock market is closed.

Although there was some question it might not happen, that

was the tradition again this year. There's a very good reason

for the tradition: government actions both in budget and in

statements of Ministers can affect the price of the value of

stocks in the stock market. People who get information in

advance or people who may be directed or misdirected in advance

have an opportunity of profits that are not available to all of

the people and the citizens of both the province and of

Canada.

It has been traditional that Ministers of Finance will

respect the position and the power they wield. That is why the

budget is brought down after the stock market is closed. Last

year we pointed out, because of the power taken under the

Revenue Act where the government further is now a buyer and a

seller on the stock market and that we now had a government

committed to purchase or buy or take over companies, that this

same type of discretion must apply both to Ministerial

statements as it affects their departments, and especially

where they have departments that affect companies which they

may own and particularly as it may affect companies in which

they are buying or selling stock. It is serious.

[ Page 801 ]

The implications are serious.

It requires a government policy both of commitment.... It

requires that the government and those surrounding these

purchases will deal with the oath of secrecy and will be

concerned with the responsibility and the damage that can be

done by their office or the profits that could be made. It

isn't measured in dollars; it's measured in the fact of

accepting the responsibility of the office, as I have said.

A few years ago in Great Britain a Finance Minister resigned

because he inadvertently let slip that the price of tobacco was

going to change a few cents. It wasn't that someone could make

great profits on tobacco; it was the fact that this type of

secrecy should and must exist binding Finance Ministers.

Now that we have a new situation in the Province of British

Columbia where the government and the Minister of Finance and

some Ministerial departments have the opportunity to purchase

and sell stocks on the stock market and where the very

statements they make can affect the value of those stocks, it's

very important that this government has a set of rules and a

set of conditions along the guidelines that govern the

presentation of the budget and the Minister of Finance in the

presentation of that budget.

I pointed out that this year, because apparently no such

rule exists or because the rule wasn't enforced, but because of

statements apparently made by the Minister of Lands, Forests

and Water Resources, as reported in The Province of

August 29 — statements in which he implied, and the

article

implied, that the government may be considering selling shares

in the Can-Cel operation, may people could interpret this in

different ways; but the

interpretation may be that the

government, because they were selling, the stock would go down,

and that, indeed, was from that statement as reported in The

Province . It was further stated in the December 11 issue of

the Dow-Jones that there were indications that the Government

of British Columbia might be reducing its interest in Can-Cel.

No attempt at correction was made that I can find to correct

the implication or the impression that the government indeed

may reduce its interest.

The value of the stocks from that August fell from $4.80 to

$3.80 to $3.85 — a different range. In January the stock all of

a sudden jumped to $4.85. We find that an unannounced

purchaser, in fact a purchaser whom many people felt, by the

statements of the Minister, was selling the stock or may be

selling the stock, indeed was the purchaser in January of

119,600 shares, and that the government, on checking, has

bought additional shares since then.

This information hasn't been related to the people of

British Columbia and they haven't been advised that the

government is purchasing. There has been no announcement to

counteract the earlier impression.

Because of this, some people — someone in Ontario where some

of the shares were traded — has lodged a complaint with the

Ontario Securities Commission. He is concerned that he has lost

money by being encouraged to sell or given the impression he

should sell because the government, which owns 79 per cent of

the stock, may be selling.

My office was advised on Friday that this man, Mr. Irwin

Miller of Montreal, had lodged a complaint with the Ontario

Securities Commission with respect to large-scale operations in

the market by the British Columbia government for the purposes

of share purchases involving Can-Cel. Upon checking his

statement to our office, Mr. Ross of the Ontario Securities

Commission confirmed on March 17 that in January of this year

the British Columbia government did in fact purchase 119,600

shares. Mr. Ross of the Ontario Securities Commission further

confirmed that since that time the British Columbia government

has purchased additional shares. He has to be discretionary in

his statements. He could give no further information.

Interjection.

Mr. Bennett: Yes, these are where we spoke to Mr.

Ross.

Interjection.

Mr. Bennett: We were asking for a policy. I am going

to go on further. Mr. Miller's complaint is as follows: that in

the December 11 issue of the Dow-Jones there were indications

that the government might be reducing its interest in Can-Cel.

These were based on the Minister's earlier statements. He said:

"The prospect of share selling by the British Columbia

government could have a depressing effect on the market."

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Would you care to save yourself

some embarrassment by sitting down and letting me answer? Or do

you wish to...?

Mr. Bennett: I asked earlier for a statement. I would

like to go further. You were signing letters and apparently not

listening.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I hate to prove your research

inadequate again. I hoped you wouldn't raise it but, now that

you have, I'll prove to you again that you have not checked out

what you are talking about.

Mr. Bennett: The complaint is made by Mr. Irwin Miller and

the complaint is verified by Mr. Ross.

[ Page 802 ]

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You say that it is verified by Mr.

Ross. He doesn't say that he agrees with the complaint, does

he?

Mr. Bennett: The Ontario Securities Commission did

not advise us.

The point I am making is this, Mr. Premier, if you would

listen and if you had been listening earlier: the same

condition exists that we considered last year, and the same

condition may exist. This government, or any government that

has given itself the authority to deal in the stock market, and

any government where government Ministers control the future of

a company in which they own a majority interest, and where

those shares trade on the stock market.... When that condition

exists, those Ministers must be guarded in their statements.

Those Ministers must be discretionary in their statements. If

they do not understand the ethics of the situation, then surely

there must be a firm government policy outlined to them and to

the Legislature and to the people of British Columbia as to

what procedure the government is going to take and how the

government will guard against the fact that these types of

statements may affect the prices of shares on the stock

market.

We have said that the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources (Mr. R.A. Williams) controls the profitability of the

whole lumber market. He can assess stumpage and he can reassess

stumpage. He can affect the profitability as a Minister,

because we have a stumpage rate in use in the interior that can

affect the profitability of individual companies on an

individual basis. The government also owns 79 per cent of

Can-Cel.

The Minister must be guarded and show discretion, such as any

Minister should — such as, I know, the Premier and Minister of Finance

would. Those are the precautions he takes in the presentation of his

budget. I know that the Premier and Minister of Finance in the two

years I have been here, and when we have had an opportunity, has made

it available for the opposition with confidentiality and secrecy so

that nobody will get a leak of the budget and that at no time will it

be leaked. There is a lot of secrecy and a lot of discretion. The point

we brought up last year, Mr. Premier, is the same point we bring up

now: that the Ministers involved with the power to affect the price of

shares in which they control the future, the profitability, where they

may be a buyer or a seller, whether it is one share, 10 shares, 1,000

shares or 100,000 shares, must be prepared to be cautious and

discretionary with their statements. They must not leave any public

impression that they are either buying or selling. That isn't correct.

If such an impression gets out by a reporter or a report in which what

they have said may have been misinterpreted, it is their obligation and

their duty to clear up such a misunderstanding, as it would be

misleading to the average citizen who is not in the position to

interpret any government's intent, except by the statements reported to

him by the press.

The average citizen, who may or may not purchase or sell

stocks in Canada, hasn't the opportunity to question the

Minister directly to clear up those misunderstandings. He must

go by what he reads in the press. Therefore it is the

responsibility of those Ministers, if they were misquoted, to

clear up any misunderstanding that may have happened that may

affect the price. This is something that apparently happened,

and it was reported in more than one journal.

What we're saying is this: it's the type of thing, where the

same type of discretion that you use yourself, Mr. Premier, as

the Minister of Finance, should apply to your Ministers. We say

now that it's happened. We're not here supporting Mr. Miller's

claim; we're saying that because such discretion wasn't part of

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

Williams) statement, because the Minister didn't clear up any

misunderstanding about that statement — and, indeed, the

actions in the purchase of these shares is completely contrary

to the impression he created.... Mr. Premier, I feel that if

you were involved in the purchases, you should have made sure

the public didn't misunderstand the statement that was left out

there that was reported in these financial journals. This case

is only an indication that the public could be upset.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You're back-pedaling.

Mr. Bennett: If you'd listen you'll see exactly what

we said, Mr. Premier.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You're back-pedaling like mad.

Mr. Bennett: I'm not back-pedaling at all, because it

has been a serious indiscretion on behalf of the Minister of

Lands and Forests.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Now you're running for cover.

Mr. Bennett: He has left the impression out there

that the government was selling. No attempt that that wasn't

the intent or to clear up that impression. No attempt by the

Minister of Finance, who must have been aware of any purchases

that were going to be forthcoming, that he would, in fact,

clear up this misunderstanding with the public. Instead, it has

come to this: the very thing we pointed out that could possibly

happen.

Now the Premier may think that it means nothing

[ Page 803 ]

to him because the complainant is a man from Montreal and he

doesn't vote in British Columbia. He may say that the

opportunity to make or lose money may not have been great. But

it's the principle of the position of the Minister to show

discretion when his statements can control the attitude that

the public may show towards the purchase of the stock that may

affect the price.

I say, Madam Chairman, through you to the Premier, I would

like to find out, as in my earlier question: has the Ontario

Securities Commission before today been in touch with the

Department of Finance? Have any other complaints from

individual citizens been made to any other securities

commission? Will the Minister of Finance and the Premier this

year bring in a set of rules that will govern the purchase of

stock or the takeover of companies, such as we asked for last

year? Does the Premier feel that his Minister of Lands, Forests

and Water Resources has committed an indiscretion? Will the

Premier be prepared to deal severely with cases that will cause

this type of misunderstanding in the public marketplace in the

future?

These are the questions I asked earlier — questions that the

people are entitled to know.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: If I may refer myself to the last

question: does the Premier intend to ensure that these

misunderstandings don't go abroad to protect the public? I had

hoped, quite frankly, that after you had asked the first series

of questions — which I didn't respond to — you would leave the

matter there. It's like playing tennis with someone who keeps

on coming back with a greater handicap and a greater handicap,

and you whip 'em every time.

This week we have seen time after time after time where they

have not done a single bit of research. Now I didn't answer the

question the first time because I thought they'd been whipped

enough this week.

You are referring to a single complaint from a Mr. Miller to

the Toronto Stock Exchange. That is the case that you raise

here, Mr. Member. Before you started back-pedaling about the

case, you alleged earlier in your questions that the Toronto

Stock Exchange was doing something perhaps other than having

acknowledged that the complaint was filed. Then when I yelled

across the floor at you to be careful, that's when you started

doing the reverse.

Mr. Bennett: Read the Blues!

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Will you please, sir, not lose your

temper yet? You're a little bit due for it soon, but not yet — because

temper is one way of overcoming the lack of facts.

You said that you spoke to Mr. Ross. Did you speak to Mr.

Ross? Did your office phone Toronto Stock Exchange or did they phone the Ontario Securities

Commission about this complaint before you said anything on the

floor of this House.

You did.

Mr. Bennett: Yes, the office phoned.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Did they say that there was

validity to the complaint?

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You don't come into this House, Mr.

Member, and leave the impression that you've done a little bit

of research without going all the way and saying exactly what

the position is of the Ontario Securities Commission and the

Toronto Stock Exchange. Do you know what their position is? Do

you?

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Oh! So there may have been nothing

wrong.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Let me say for the public and for

the information of the Leader of the Opposition that the

Ontario Securities Commission and the Toronto Stock Exchange

have said: "We are aware of and have approved any and all

activities of Can-Cel that we've been involved in."

An Hon. Member: Oh, oh!

Mr. Bennett: You didn't understand the question.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Oh, Mr. Member, did I understand

the question! You were trying to leave the impression...

Mr. Bennett: Not at all.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: ...with this House that somehow a

statement allegedly made by that Minister affected the stock

market. You based it on Mr. Miller's complaint without asking

the position of the Ontario Securities Commission or the

Toronto Stock Exchange. You've been caught with your serge

trousers down again. (Laughter.) Again! Again!

Now, Mr. Member, if you have checked it out....

Mr. Bennett: We have checked it out.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You would have found out. I assume

that you spoke to Mr. Ross. The fact is

[ Page 804 ]

that I say — unless you're calling me a fibber, and you'll

have to prove that one — that the Ontario Securities Commission

and the Toronto Stock Exchange are aware of and have approved

of any activity of Can-Cel that we've been involved with. And

that after Mr. Miller's complaint! We're sensitive, too. We're

aware of the complaint; we're aware of the misinterpretation

that might be placed on it, so we took immediate action. You

never checked that out.

You never asked us if we took any action with the Ontario

Securities Commission. You never asked us if we took any action

with the Toronto Stock Exchange. You just got up and blabbed

without checking anything, and you're wrong again. There it

is.

I have no knowledge of the Toronto Stock Exchange or the

Ontario Securities Commission ever being NDP. If they are,

something's wrong with our policies. (Laughter.) But, I'll tell

you....

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Oh, Montreal Stock Exchange? Mr.

Kierans is a left-wing Liberal. He ain't quite made it yet, but

we have hopes. (Laughter.)

The Toronto Stock Exchange — deep blue. Deep blue is the

colour. The Ontario Securities Commission — deeper blue.

Don't you think that we know what's going on, too? You walk

in here like a.... Well, I won't say.

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

Careful, careful!

Hon. Mr. Barrett: No wonder McClelland is No. 2 and

coming on hard. (Laughter.) No wonder he's coming on hard. Even

he gets up in the House and says: "Well, I quoted from a

mistake." You walk right into the maelstrom and don't even know

what's hit you.

The Ontario Securities Commission and the Toronto Stock

Exchange are aware of and have approved any and all activity in

Can-Cel shares that we've been involved in since....

Oh, a candy supplied for me for strength, succour and

concern of my health by the Minister of Transport (Hon. Mr.

Strachan), who is a kindly soul...

Mr. Phillips: I'd have somebody else taste it, if I

were you.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: ...and is keeping me from wasting

away, which is an imminent danger.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: How embarrassing again....

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: What are you, a chauvinist? The

Chair does not recognize sexism; we recognize authority.

(Laughter.)

So Mr. — Madam — Mr. Madam Ms. Chairperson (laughter), the

facts are that that poor fellow is wrong again. Report card,

Monday — flunked; report card, Tuesday — flunked; report card,

Wednesday — flunked. I think you should take a long weekend and

head for Kelowna now before it's too late. (Laughter.)

Mr. Bennett: Madam Chairman, the Premier, again,

would like to distort the obligation of the Minister in the

very point we identified. We're talking about a question of the

ethical conduct of government in making announcements that will

affect the price of the stock. Whether it goes up or down, it

must clearly involve the intent of the government. The

Ministers must be guarded in their statements and show

discretion.

It's a question we brought up last year if you'll....

Perhaps you can't hear through the back of your head, Mr.

Premier, and that's why you always put the worst possible

interpretation on any question seeking information in this

Legislature and in this committee.

Interjections.

Mr. Bennett: If the Minister of Finance and Premier

will listen, let us remember.... I tried to draw an analogy to

make it very clear to the Premier that the same type of

discretion that involves the way he presents his budget, and the fact

that he brings his

budget in with discretion and that the confidentiality that

surround that budget demands that it be brought in after the

stock exchange is closed. I know that he has difficulty

understanding that because this year the budget was scheduled to be

brought down before the

exchange was closed. It was only a lot of last-minute scurrying

by perhaps some people outside the elected benches that brought

home to the Premier and Minister of Finance...

Mr. Phillips: He doesn't even know enough.

Mr. Bennett: ...what is demanded of him as a

Minister of Finance in the confidentiality of the budget, and

in the discretionary nature of his office, and the fact that

it's easy to walk around and deal like a sledgehammer. But the

marketplace is fragile. Elected representatives who have the

opportunity to serve in the executive capacity of government

and who have the power through Ministerial statement to

[ Page 805 ]

affect the price of stocks on the stock market can't be

allowed the type of foot-in-the-mouth statements that

characterize this government. The type of off-the-cuff

flamboyance and the Shecky Green routine have nothing to do

with the everyday administration of government, recognizing the

responsibility for caution. At times, silence is best. When you

have the responsibility of government, if you leave an

impression that will affect the prive of the market, you have

the responsibility to correct that impression if it is

false.

In this case, the impression that was created by the

Minister's interview, an impression that was reported further

in other magazines, was that the government may be selling

shares in Can-Cel. It affected the price of the stock. It was

incumbent upon that Minister, and if not by him — if he didn't

recognize what he'd done — th