1974 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, MARCH 11, 1974

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

969 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions BCR boxcar shortage. Hon.

Mr. Barrett — 969

Boxcar production from Squamish plant. Mr. L.A. Williams — 970

ICBC drivers' certificates. Mr. Schroeder — 970

ICBC negotiations with auto body shops. Mr. Curtis — 970

Power of body shop agreement. Mr. Morrison — 971

Elimination of compulsory arbitration of teacher

salaries.

Mr. L.A. Williams — 971

NDP membership in South Peace riding. Mr. Phillips — 971

Possible takeover of Langley personal-care homes.

Mr. McClelland — 971

Financial institutions as-ICBC selling agents. Hon. Mr. Strachan —

Health coverage for out-of-province students. Mrs. Jordan — 972

Employment of women in forest operations. Mr. Curtis — 972

Civil servants' expenses to power commission hearings.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 972

Committee of Supply: Department of Finance estimates Mr. Phillips —

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 973

Mr. Phillips — 974

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 974

Mr. Fraser — 975

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 975

Mrs. Jordan — 975

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 975

Mrs. Webster — 976

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 976

Mr. Schroeder — 977

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 977

Mr. Schroeder — 977

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 977

Mr. Morrison — 977

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 977

Mr. Curtis — 978

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 978

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 978

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 979

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 979

Mr. McClelland — 979

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 980

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 980

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 980

Mr. Phillips — 980

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 981

Mr. Chabot — 981

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 981

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 982

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 982

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 982

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 982

Mr. Morrison — 982

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 983

Mr. L.A. Williams — 983

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 983

Mr. L.A. Williams — 984

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 984

Mr. Phillips — 986

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 987

Mr. Phillips — 988

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 987

Mr. L.A. Williams — 991

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 992

Mr. Phillips — 993

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 993

Mr. Morrison — 994

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 994

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 994

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 995

Division on Mr. Chairman's ruling — 998

Committee of Supply: Department of Finance estimates Mr. Rolston —

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 999

Mr. L.A. Williams — 999

Mr.Chabot — 1000

Mr. Curtis — 1001

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1002

Mrs. Jordan — 1002

Mr. Phillips — 1003

Mr. L.A. Williams — 1004

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1004

Mr. L.A. Williams — 1005

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1005

Mr. Gibson — 1005

Division on vote 51 — 1008

Mr. L.A. Williams — 1008

Mr. Chabot — 1008

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1008

Mr. Chabot — 1008

Mrs. Jordan — 1008

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1008

Mr. Curtis — 1009

Mr. Morrison — 1009

Mr. Gardom — 1009

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1009

Mr. McClelland — 1009

Mr. L.A. Williams — 1009

Mr. Gardom — 1009

Mr. Gibson — 1010

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1010

Mr. Fraser — 1010

Mr. McClelland — 1010

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1010

Mr. Gibson — 1010

Mr. L.A. Williams — 1010

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 1010

MONDAY, MARCH 11, 1974

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Speaker, I would like to

introduce to the House this afternoon Fred and Muriel Chapman,

two long-time, well-respected citizens from the City of

Courtenay. I wish the House will make them welcome.

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): Mr.

Speaker, we have with us today Ms. Been Austin, a very close

and dear friend of mine. Ms. Austin is a sometime journalist

and is visiting us from Fort St. James. I would ask the House

to welcome her, please.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, it

is a pleasure to draw to the attention of the House the

presence today in the gallery of Mayor Peter Lester of Prince

Rupert. Mr. Lester has served as mayor for 16 years and is

also, this year, chairman of his regional district. I would ask

the House to join me in welcoming him.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, we have

in the gallery opposite 38 students from Gladstone High School

in Vancouver — the yeastiest high school in the big City of

Vancouver. They have their teachers with them, Mr. Campbell and

Mr. Hunter. I ask that they be welcomed.

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, we have

in the gallery today Alderman Mike Jessen, housing committee

chairman for the City of Nelson. I would like the House to join

me in welcoming him.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Mr. Speaker, I also

would like to add my voice of welcome to Mayor Peter Lester of

Prince Rupert, and also mention that accompanying the mayor of

Prince Rupert is an alderman from the Queen Charlotte Islands,

Alderman Nick Gross, also the director of the regional district

from the Queen Charlotte Islands, Bruno Lewinski. I would like

the House to welcome all three of these people.

MR. J.H. GORST (Esquimalt): Mr. Speaker, I would like the

House to join with me to welcome today to the gallery a group

of senior students in political science from the University of

British Columbia, accompanied by their professor, Professor

Blake. I hope the day's observations will encourage them to

continue on with their chosen field.

Introduction of bills.

Oral questions.

BCR BOXCAR SHORTAGE

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, if I may reply to a

question raised by the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser)

concerning the boxcar shortage and my meeting with Mr. Marchand

this morning. Let me assure the Member that the federal

Minister, Mr. Marchand, is deeply concerned about this problem

as witnessed by his quick response to my statement and his

visit to Victoria.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did he bring any boxcars with him?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, he didn't come by boxcar, Mr.

Member. (Laughter.)

The Minister has expressed concern over the boxcar shortage

and has ordered an immediate, on-the-spot inquiry with a report

back to my office by Wednesday of this week. I want to publicly

thank the Minister for his concern, his quick action and I want

to assure the House, as I assured the Minister, that there is

every desire on this government's part to continue the

co-operation initiated between the BCR and the CNR in terms of

northern development. I am most appreciative of the Minister's

response and I'll have more, I hope, by Wednesday afternoon,

Mr. Streaker — I mean Mr. Speaker. (Laughter.)

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Supplementary to the reply,

Mr. Speaker. I wonder if it would be possible for the Premier

at this stage to table the documents or information regarding a

previous agreement on boxcars which BCR terminated some years

ago and which led to the present situation that we now are

faced with.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, I would not wish to give a

commitment to file papers unless I had a clearance from the

CNR. But certainly if that clearance is available, we can go

back in the history on arrangements. But they were in

discussions up until a week ago.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Premier, I'm sorry, perhaps I misled

you slightly there. The agreement I'm talking about is of some

years ago standing, which the BCR itself terminated with the

CNR at that time. Therefore, I don't think it would be

necessary to go to the CNR for permission.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, by practice it would require, even though the

agreement was made prior to this government coming into office....

[ Page

970 ]

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: And terminated.

HON. MR. BARRETT: And terminated by the previous

government.

One of the points I stressed with Mr. Marchand was that I

did not wish to get involved in a history of the "rivalries" —

and I say that very advisedly — "rivalries" between the BCR and

the CNR; that is a matter of history. If, however, the federal

government has no objection I will file that correspondence

from the railroad. But that is not the base — and that was a

clear understanding between the Minister and myself earlier and

today — that is not the base from which we, the new government,

and the federal government are now operating in terms of

co-operation.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I quite understand that, Mr. Speaker and

Mr. Premier. What I would like, though, is to find some basis

of the record, at least, of why the previous agreement which

was....

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to the Hon. Member that this is

not the purpose of question period, to seek information of past

history, according to Beauchesne at page 147. But if you

want that then put it in a motion, or else the Premier can

agree to it being tabled.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Fair enough.

BOXCAR PRODUCTION FROM SQUAMISH PLANT

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): One short

question, Mr. Speaker. Could the Hon. Premier indicate whether

he has any better idea of when the boxcar production will

commence at the Squamish plant?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Hopefully this summer, Mr. Member. I don't

have a specific date.

ICBC DRIVERS' CERTIFICATES

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER(Chilliwack): My question is for the

Minister of Transport and Communications. The drivers'

certificates are in the mail. Some have been received and that

they vary from $3 to $11 is my report, and I understand they

are prorated because of birth dates. My question is: will the

penalties, or the sums of money that represent the penalties

for demerit points, be prorated as well?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): It's

my understanding, yes, they will be prorated as well.

MR. SCHROEDER: And on what basis then, sir?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: On exactly the same basis, based on number of points

that exist on the driver's record.

MR. SCHROEDER: The anniversary date for demerit points that

are coming off the driver's certificate, will those

anniversaries then be the birth date or the anniversary date of

the occurrence of the demerit?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I would expect that the anniversary date

would be the birth date which is...that's when they get

renewed from then on, and it's as the driver's record at the

time with Motor Vehicle Branch. You have to remember that the

Motor Vehicle Branch is the branch that looks after the

allocating of points and the removal of points. The record at

the time of the sending out of the renewal from now on, will be

as it is in the Motor Vehicle Branch.

ICBC NEGOTIATIONS WITH

AUTO BODY SHOPS

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): To the Minister

of Transport and Communications. In view of the apparent

inability of ICBC management to negotiate satisfactory

arrangements with the majority of auto body shops, particularly

those belonging to ARA, does the Minister intend to intervene

personally in this matter in order that individual motorists

will not have to pay surcharges if they are involved in a

damaging accident?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I could make a fairly lengthy statement

on the present situation, but I just want to tell you that the

information I have as of now is that at the meeting yesterday

it was evident that the result of the motion was not a true

feeling of all body shops in the lower mainland area and that

it is the intention of the ARA to poll all body shops in the

lower mainland area on a written yes or no vote, indicating

whether or not a surcharge should be made on April 1. A reply

must be in writing and another general meeting be held, which

should be called prior to April 1, which, it is felt, will

clearly indicate what course the body shops in the Vancouver

and lower mainland will follow.

My understanding was that the vote that was taken yesterday

was 87 votes, or 74 per cent of those attending; only 90 per

cent of those attending voted. And those present represented

only 116 of the 240 shops in the lower mainland area. So it is

evident, in my understanding, that they weren't satisfied with

the number of those present; there were only 116 of 240 body

shops represented. So they're going to communicate with them

all and get a written answer and have another meeting before

April 1.

[ Page 971 ]

MR. CURTIS: A supplemental, Mr. Speaker, briefly. Does the

Minister foresee the situation where surcharges will become a

fact of life in dealing with auto body shops and ICBC?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, I certainly don't anticipate that

surcharges will be a part of the normal procedure. There are a

number of openings that are possible. We could go back to the

old matter of having three estimates prepared, which means body

shops will be spending time doing estimates that they won't

have to do under the proposed system. We could make individual

agreements with shops that want to make individual

agreements.

As for accredited shops, we could do what the automobile

manufacturers do — only demand a certain efficiency, a certain

number of workers and a certain efficiency of equipment for

accredited shops. There are all sorts of openings that are

possible.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Minister to

not go into all the possible things that might be done.

POWER OF BODY SHOP AGREEMENT

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, through you to

the Minister, does he consider that the agreement that is

signed by the body shops now is a contract or is it just simply

an indication that they will accept this rate? Is it a

contract, in your opinion?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The only way I could answer that is by

reading the letters that were sent out.

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, I'll have to consider it; that's

all I can say.

ELIMINATION OF COMPULSORY

ARBITRATION OF TEACHER SALARIES

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Hon.

Minister of Education. Can she confirm the statement made on

national television on Saturday by Mr. Stephen Lewis, the

Ontario leader of the NDP, that the B.C. government is

contemplating legislation this year to do away with compulsory

arbitration of teachers' salaries?

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): I didn't hear the

statement, Mr. Member. We have no intention of bringing such

legislation in at this session.

NDP MEMBERSHIP IN

SOUTH PEACE RIDING

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I'd like

to address a question to the Premier and leader of the New

Democratic Party. I realize, Mr. Leader, that you desperately

need memberships in my constituency, but is it the practice of

your party to forge signatures and send membership cards to

members who do not request them?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. This has absolutely nothing to

do with the business of parliament, and I would have to rule

the question out.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, it has lots to do....

MR. SPEAKER: The Members could take that up in the corridors

together if they were really that serious.

HON. MR. BARRETT: If he's been signed up in error, I will

look into this matter immediately. (Laughter.)

POSSIBLE TAKEOVER OF

LANGLEY PERSONAL-CARE HOMES

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, my question is

to the Minister of Health. Some time ago the Minister offered

to take as notice a question I asked about the possible

takeover by the provincial government of the Langley

personal-care homes. I wonder if the Minister would care to

comment any further on that, because I've had several questions

since that time.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, we as a

government are not in the personal-care home business. We've

indicated on a number of occasions that intermediate care is an

area, on a non-profit society basis, that we're expanding

continually. But at the present time it is not our policy to go

into personal-care homes. My colleague, the Minister of Human

Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi), of course, pays on a per-diem basis

for a number of people that are on welfare, et cetera, in

personal-care homes, but we don't plan to take over the Langley

personal-care homes.

MR. McCLELLAND: That's all I wanted to know.

FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS

AS ICBC SELLING AGENTS

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'd like to answer a question that was

asked the other day by the Member for Saanich and the Islands

(Mr. Curtis), and I said I

[ Page 972 ]

would take it as notice, His question was: "Has ICBC received a formal request or

recommendation that credit unions or trust companies or banks,

or all three, be authorized to act as agents in the selling of

fire insurance and perhaps other general insurance on behalf of

ICBC?"

The answer is, there has been no such request from any of

these organizations.

HEALTH COVERAGE FOR

OUT-OF-PROVINCE STUDENTS

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to

address my question to the Hon. Minister of Health. In the

House the other day, Mr. Minister, you explained the action of

the government in covering with medical and health coverage

civil servants who are working and living outside the

jurisdiction of British Columbia, as an employer, and I

understand that.

But I want to ask if you would be willing to take under

consideration the extension of this same coverage to students

who are seeking higher education outside British Columbia on

the basis that the courses they are working on are not

available in British Columbia, and extend this type of health

care to them for an extended period of time while they are out

of the province?

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I'm afraid that I would be

unable to answer that question; it is certainly a matter of

future policy.

EMPLOYMENT OF WOMEN

IN FOREST OPERATIONS

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Lands, Forests

and Water Resources: I understand that the Human Rights

Commission is advocating employment of more women in certain

sectors of forest operations. Could the Minister indicate what

steps are being taken to implement this recommendation at

Can-Cel or at Ocean Falls?

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

I can say, Mr. Speaker, that of the graduates the department itself has considered

this spring, virtually half of them are women foresters; and they generally

have the better marks and so on. (Laughter.)

MR. CURTIS: To the Minister; if I may use the term, what

about casual employment rather than graduates — those

individuals in the community who simply need a job?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I'm not sure, Mr. Speaker, with respect to casual

employment. But there are no bars departmentally with respect to women. In fact

we have accelerated the process. A woman forestry economist will be joining

the staff shortly, for example, as well as the new graduates we expect. I haven't

intervened or made any requests of Ocean Falls in that regard.

CIVIL SERVANTS' EXPENSES

TO POWER COMMISSION HEARING

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, to the same Minister: could

he inform the House whether he has accepted the offer of the

Skagit committee, the Ross committee, to provide $500 expenses

for the two civil servants from British Columbia who are to

attend the federal power commission hearings in their private

capacity without government backing?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I doubt if it would be necessary to do

that, Mr. Speaker.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Can I take it from the Minister's reply

then that the government will be providing these people with

expenses and will be authorizing them to speak on behalf of the

provincial government?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I am satisfied, Mr. Speaker, that

arrangements will be made.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE

On vote 51: Minister's office, $32,500.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Mr. Chairman, through

you to the Minister of Finance, I would like to ask him how the

interest moneys from the amateur sports and physical fitness

fund are distributed.

In January I wrote to you, Mr. Premier, regarding a case of

a young figure skater I have in my constituency. This request

was eventually handled by the Deputy Provincial Secretary who

gave me the name of the vice-chairman of the Canadian Figure

Skating Association, and suggested that I contact him with

regard to getting moneys or assistance for this young

skater.

I wrote the vice-chairman of the Canadian Figure Skating

Association at the address given to me by the Deputy Provincial

Secretary on February 1, asking what the regulations were for

getting assistance and what forms had to be filled out, stating

that this young lady had gone to the figure skating

[ Page 973 ]

championships in Moncton, New Brunswick. To date I have

received no reply from this vice-president of the Canadian

Figure Skating Association.

Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister of Finance, I find

that quite often these perpetual funds are used at the

discretion of those who are in charge of the funds in the lower

mainland. It seems to me that this is just one more case of

discrimination against those who live in the north country. We

sort of stay up in the north country and develop that land for

the benefit of those who live in the lower mainland and we sort

of stand and wait in line for whatever crumbs are going to be

given to us, not only by the provincial government but by

anybody who seems to handle funds in the area, whether it be

from a perpetual fund for amateur sports or education — no

matter what it is.

If we in the north country are sick we have to pay our own

way to special attention in the lower mainland provincial

hospitals. If our students want to attend an institute of

higher learning their parents have to pay their way to the

lower mainland and their board while they are here to attend an

institution of higher learning.

It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister of

Finance, that we have in northern British Columbia a larger

area north of the central portion of the province than the

provinces of Saskatchewan, Manitoba or Alberta. Yet in those

provinces they have seen fit to have a Minister and a

department of northern affairs. I think it's high time, Mr.

Chairman, that the northern part of British Columbia received a

little more recognition and had to stop getting on their hands

and knees to beg for money or whatever assistance they want,

whether it be assistance to build a hospital, a school, roads —

no matter what it is. We talk about northern development and

this government promised a department of northern affairs.

Mr. Chairman, my specific question is at this time: who handles the

money from the interest from this amateur sports fund? How can we in

the north get better representation on these boards that seem to dole

out this money? When you realize that whether it be a minor hockey

team, a minor baseball team, a football team — no matter what sports

activity it is — it seems to me it's the north that really requires the

money for travelling.

If the young sportsmen in the north who are members of these

particular teams want good competition, they have to travel to

the lower mainland where there is more and varied competition.

It's perfectly all right for them to pay their own way to go,

which is usually a much further distance from community to

community to compete. But if you want more and varied

competition those are the groups that need the assistance to

travel to the lower mainland where there is more and varied

competition.

However, most of the time, I find in dealing with getting

money for our swim clubs or whatever it be in the north to

travel to the lower mainland — particularly to provincial events — we have a great deal of difficulty getting money out of these

funds. If this is to promote amateur sports and physical

fitness throughout the province we certainly need at least our

fair share — more than our fair share — in the north country

and in the outlying areas.

HON. D. BARRETT (Minister of Finance): Well, Mr. Member,

your statement about northern recreation is absolutely correct.

That is why this government instituted, under the Department of

Recreation and Conservation, the capital grants to recreational

facilities which I'm happy to say have been supported by every

single Member of this House.

Your area, including North Peace River, has been neglected

in the past and, Mr. Member, I can't help but say by the former

administration. There was no specific programme under which

communities were helped to create facilities.

Just this last December I had the honour of being invited to

Dawson Creek to officially open the new Kids' Arena, as it's

called in that town. That arena could not have come into being

unless the provincial government had put up one-third of $1

million with no strings attached. Now, Mr. Member, there were

over 1,000 children at that arena on the opening day. I'm happy

to say that the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) was

there as well. As I recall it, that's the first time that the

Member for North Peace River hasn't attacked the government. As

a matter of fact, he said nothing on that opening day, because

what is there to say other than to praise the government for

creating those facilities?

Now, the method of handling the funds has not altered

dramatically from the former administration. There is to be no

lobbying, no pressuring, no favouritism. The system is under

the jurisdiction of the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall)

and each fund has a separate committee that reports directly to

the committee from the Treasury Board. The Provincial Secretary

is a member of the Treasury Board.

We have attempted to provide those funds on the basis of the

best possible information that we have. But I also understand

that the Minister has some separate plans in terms of reviewing

those funds' operation, and I suggest that during his estimates

you ask him directly.

I want to assure you that if we receive a request from, your

constituency or any other constituency to catch up on the

much-needed and very severely neglected recreational

facilities, not only did we put in an additional $5 million in

the fund last year but we will make every effort to put more

funds into that

[ Page 974 ]

particular programme if they are necessary this year.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I didn't really ask for a

political statement because I was trying to be non-political.

(Laughter.) I was trying to be completely non-political.

Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister of Finance, I want

to tell you that the north has needed facilities as they grow,

but the north has provided its facilities for recreation in the

past. In our area we have some of the finest recreation

facilities available anywhere. But, Mr. Chairman, through you

to the Minister of Finance, what I'm talking about are these

funds which are put in the hands of groups taken away from the

government. And there is politics played in that so far as I'm

concerned.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Member, if you have any evidence

of any group playing politics with those funds I would ask you

to put it in writing and bring it directly to the government's

attention. If that evidence is valid we'll act on that

immediately.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Premier, I wrote to you with a special

request which was relayed to the provincial government and

which was relayed to one of the groups handling some of this

money. This has been pretty near a month and a week ago and I

haven't even had the courtesy of a reply. This is a special

request for a girl who was in desperate need, who was from the

north country, who had to spend time down in here because our

arena was out of commission. To date I haven't got a reply! Do

you want me to send you the correspondence again?

HON. MR. BARRETT: No. I appreciate the fact that you wrote

me. I appreciate the fact that you acknowledged that you passed

the information on to the Provincial Secretary. Have you phoned

the Provincial Secretary and asked him up-to-date on what has

happened?

We receive requests from every MLA. That is their duty. It

is a good thing for every MLA to fight for his area in a cause

that he thinks is right, but we do not give special preference

to any MLA. The matter must be handled within the

administrative set-up we have and I suggest that you should

have contacted and still can contact the Provincial Secretary

directly and get a direct answer as to the status of your

request.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I certainly will be advising you of

some cases. I would suggest that from now on when our groups travelling are

not able to deal, I'm going to put a request in to all of the organizations

and have them come direct to me. In the past I've said: "Stand on your own two

feet. If it's a swim club or a volleyball club, deal with your provincial organizations."

I wanted to keep politics out of this. But if this is the way you want it done,

I feel there should be more representation on these boards from the north.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, there is no reason why people

shouldn't go through their MLA. I'm not suggesting that as the

best route. I'm suggesting that the course you've followed

initially is the best one — to write directly and find out,

rather than get yourself in the position of saying yes or no or

maybe. All I'm suggesting is once having made the inquiry — and

I passed it on to the Minister — it would be worthwhile to pick

up the phone and give the Minister a call and ask him where it

is in the request mills.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, through you again to the

Minister of Finance, would the Minister of Finance recognize

that the majority of the funds — we'll stick with the Physical

Fitness and Amateur Sports Fund — goes for training of people

who can instruct? It goes for equipment. Would you not

recognize that there should be maybe a larger portion of the

proceeds from that fund laid out for travel? If it continues on

the same ideal that it has been in the past, it's still not

going to help those young sportsmen from the northern areas who

have to do the travelling. There isn't sufficient amount of

money from that fund that goes for travelling.

Some years ago I had a son who was a swimmer. I must say

that he did very well at....

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I don't

think it's possible for me to discuss the philosophy of a

programme under another Minister's vote. I suggest those

questions are appropriate for the Provincial Secretary and not

for me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The point is well taken.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to

point out that I brought this up on Friday last and I was

advised by them when we were discussing the Premier's estimates

to bring it up under his estimates as Minister of Finance. So

that's fine; I'll bring it up again under the Provincial

Secretary's estimates.

Now, would you like me to discuss rural electrification

under the specific vote or would you like to discuss it

now?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, you asked me about interest

rates of those funds, not the specific programmes. I think if

you check Hansard you will find that.

[ Page 975 ]

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): I want to ask the Premier as

Minister of Finance again about travelling expenses. We passed

the Premier's vote that gave him $20,000 for travelling

expenses. Under vote 51, we have a further $7,500, which gives

the Premier and Minister of Finance, who are the same person, a

travelling allowance for this current year ahead of $27,500.

Why such a large vote for travelling expenses? Are you planning

on chartering a Boeing 707 jet to tour the world? Just what are

you planning on doing with it? That's a lot of money; that's

almost $3,000 a month.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, to my best recollection — I'll

get the exact figures — there is very little change in the

totals in these two offices between the former administration

and the present situation. If you check public accounts, you'll

find there is a steady pattern of expenditures by the former

administration prior to my becoming Premier.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Just while we are

discussing the Minister of Finance's expenses, I look through

vote 51 with interest. I must just refer back to vote 2

because, when one combines the Premier's and Minister of

Finance's office staff, we find that you have an executive

assistant at $27,000, an administrative assistant at $17,000, a

press secretary at $17,000, an administrative officer at

$17,000, and an administrative assistant to Finance at $21,500.

Mr. Premier, they are all men.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the opposite Member

to keep her remarks relevant to vote 51.

MRS. JORDAN: The Premier graciously says it's valid. I want

to make this point very seriously, Mr. Premier. When one

examines the breakdown — I don't mean the breakdown of the

women but the breakdown of the finances of the women in your

office — we find it appears the highest paid female in your

office is your own personal secretary at $10,000.

HON. MR. BARRETT: $13,200.

MRS. JORDAN: This pattern is contrary to your election campaign when

you stressed with warmth and vigour the role of women in government, the role

of women in your own life — (laughter) — and the role of women in the future

of British Columbia. So far you have been severely lashed by your own party

for not meeting this commitment. You have won the chauvinist of the year award

from the SWAG (Status of Women Action Group) group. In general, we haven't seen

any emphasis on your part to increase the stature of women, on the basis of

merit, within any area that you have direct jurisdiction.

I would also comment at this time it appears that one of the

prominent women in British Columbia in the area of labour and

management, Mrs. Christine Waddell, who is head of the Women's

Bureau of the Department of Labour has even almost dropped from

sight. I would ask you, if you are going to expand your staff,

as seems to be the pattern within your office, to bring in some

qualified women, perhaps a woman as a special adviser to you on

legislation and affairs concerning women.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Legislation on what?

MRS. JORDAN: Affairs... (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's what I thought you said.

MRS. JORDAN: ...concerning women. I would really suggest

that, with your track record, what you need is a specific

position in your office staffed by a qualified lady of a

non-partisan basis who could give you direct advice in terms of

legislation and the needs of family and women.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would draw to the attention

of the Hon. Member...

MRS. JORDAN: Are you against the affairs of women, Mr.

Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No. I'm merely ruling that...

MRS. JORDAN: You are against women.

MR. CHAIRMAN: ...you confine your debate to vote 51 and

suggest that women be included, perhaps, in the Minister of

Finance's office.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, I think this would be an excellent

suggestion because it is quite common knowledge that women

today manage the majority of finances in our economy, certainly

in terms of life insurance and investment.

I would be glad to give the Premier some names of very

competent women in British Columbia who have had experience in

business, who have had experience in the legislative field and

would be a great help to him. So one day we might see him win

the...I was going to say the lover-of-the-year award, but I

don't think that's the one he wants. But an award where you are

really showing your intention of incorporating women in the

proper management of government.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, in solving one problem, you

have created another. Within one

[ Page 976 ]

minute of you speaking about women in my office, I have a

note from my secretary asking for reclassification.

(Laughter.)

I want to point out that Mrs. Thomas, who has been my

secretary for a number of years, has been the first woman in

history to travel with a Premier from this province that I know

of. She has been with me on three trips; she has done

invaluable service for me.

Quite frankly, I did consider another woman out of the

applications in terms of one of the administrative positions.

Unfortunately, the qualifications were in balance and I made

the choice. But Mrs. Thomas has travelled with me and will

continue to travel with me. She is a valuable assistant to me.

She did come to our office on a non-political basis, she is a

civil service appointment and has done a very good job.

I will take your suggestions under advisement in terms of

female advice for my role. There are two problems: one of prior

right and the good advice I am already receiving from my

wife.

MRS. JORDAN: Would you consider putting your wife on the

payroll so that you are not demeaning her role? If she is

giving you professional advice, she should be paid for it.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Madam Member, I am sure you wouldn't want

me to go around quoting an opposition member's suggestion that

we put our wives on the payroll.

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): I would like to ask the

Minister of Finance a few questions concerning the sales tax.

As you realize, the lower income groups are always inclined to

be discriminated against whenever there is a level tax of any

kind. I appreciate very much that sales tax has been taken off

meals, off certain feminine supplies and off books.

There is one area I think is important and that is in

relation to household care such as detergents and toilet

tissue. These types of supplies are required to just as great

an extent by the poor as they are by the rich. But to the poor,

the tax is actually higher than it is to others because that is

in a relative percentage to the actual incomes they are

receiving. I would like to ask the Minister if there is any

possibility or any thought that probably in the near future

this tax could be removed.

Another area in which I would like to see the tax removed is in relation to

yardgoods. I would like to explain why. Suppose you have two children going

to school and one is taking industrial arts. He is making a cabinet or a table

or some other piece of furniture. He receives his supplies at school and he

doesn't have to pay any sales tax on it. The other child takes home economics

and she has to make an

article of clothing or an outfit. Because part of the

instruction is in relation to selection and choice of materials, she not only

pays sales tax on her pattern but she pays sales tax on the material.

That's only a small amount of money; it might amount to

about 50 or 60 cents altogether. But I think it goes a little

bit further than that. Children up to the age of 15 can have

their clothes purchased without any sales tax attached to it. A

very small sized woman can go into a child's clothing store or

child's department and find a skirt or something like that that

might fit her. She can quite easily buy it without paying any

sales tax.

Suppose a mother makes clothes for her children because she

feels they are too expensive to buy. When she buys yard goods,

she has to pay tax. It is discriminatory in that way.

I would like to carry it one step further. Probably most

people who buy their clothes ready-to-wear are either too busy

to sew or don't feel they have to try to save to sew. People in

more straitened circumstances will sew because they are trying

to economize, because they haven't got sufficient income to be

able to buy all their clothes ready made. It becomes a burden

to them each time they buy a pattern or a piece of material for

sewing when they have to pay sales tax on it. Yet, it

dressmakers buy material so they can sew for other people, they

can buy a great amount of that material through wholesale firms

where they don't pay sales tax. I think it's rather

discriminatory. I would appreciate it if the Minister of

Finance would look at that.

HON. MR. BARRETT: In terms of the household care goods, I am

advised that the department will be looking at that. We've had

a number of requests. There's no commitment, but we will be

looking at it.

In terms of the school purchases, when the school itself

purchases there is no sales tax. It's simply a matter of

administration. If the teachers would take the trouble with the

classroom to ensure that the purchases are made by the school,

they would avoid the tax on those special projects. So I would

suggest that's the route that should be followed in terms of

those school purchases. Some advice, I hope, would go out to

the schools to see that they would become flexible enough to do

the buying for the students and then avoid the tax on that

basis.

MRS. WEBSTER: Mr. Chairman, a supplementary question to the

Minister: would it be possible in such cases for the teacher

then to be able to give the children a chit or some sort of

statement that they're buying it for school purposes? They

cannot buy in bulk through the school; that's impossible. The

purpose of that particular instructional area is bypassed if

it's bought in bulk through the school.

[ Page 977 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Through you, Mr. Chairman, that is an

excellent suggestion and we'll look at it immediately.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): I would like to ask the

Minister of Finance whether he would consider bringing in some

kind of legislation that would provide some cost-sharing

agreement, either federally or perhaps with the municipal

people, on the business of riverbank protection. Presently

there is a federal/provincial agreement whereby the cost of

riverbank protection is assumed for the lower Fraser Valley,

but only on the Fraser River as such.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, I'm afraid to suggest this,

but I do think it's out of order. That particular legislation

would be initiated by the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water

Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams).

MR. SCHROEDER: I understand that that would be administered

by him, but there is no agreement at all....

HON. MR. BARRETT: If we were to pursue the line of argument — "Would the Minister provide money for this and this?" — it

would mean that in the Finance department we would discuss

everybody's estimates, and we can't function that way. In terms

of policy, of sharing formulas for that kind of specific

programme, it should be related to the specific Minister.

MR. SCHROEDER: Thank you. Is it guaranteed, Mr. Chairman,

that I could discuss this under his estimates without it being

called out of order? Because no legislation exists?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, I did it for years under his

estimates.

MR. SCHROEDER: Thank you, sir.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, I'd like to

address my question to the Minister of Finance. As a former

member of the accounting committee I think he would probably

appreciate it, but apparently there's been some change in the

way the vouchers have been filed. I understand there has been a

change in November, 1973. Formerly vouchers were filed by the

vote number. In Public Accounts when you wanted to look up the

particular item under a particular vote it was relatively

simple to get that file. Now, I think there's a good accounting

reason for the change. I'm not saying it was done for any other

reason.

Maybe if I could give him a couple of examples he would understand the problem

I'm trying to point out. For example, if I wished to find how Mr. Speaker spent

his travel money for that particular period, I have to know specifically the

month in which that bill was paid, and I have to be able to refer to that calendar

month. Then from that month I can then find his vote number, but it becomes

extremely difficult to find how the total was spent. If I'm looking for one

particular item it's relatively easy to find; if I'm looking for the total it's

almost impossible to find.

Again, if I wanted to find out how the Minister of Finance

bought that new Tiffany lamp and what it cost, it's very

difficult to find unless I happen to know the month.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, that's not a purchase, Mr. Member.

MR. MORRISON: Well, I only used that as an example. There

are many other items, but you can appreciate the point I'm

trying to get at. I have to know the month in which it was paid

for, not the month in which it might have been spent. It's a

very complicated procedure at the moment to try and track back

some of those things when you really only have a general idea

of what it is you're looking for.

Again, if I take the public accounts and do as I did and ask

for a particular page number and a particular supplier, with a

total, if it's more than one or two items it's again almost

impossible to find the total. You have to go to about four

different books. Each book gives you a month and then you have

to total that month and from that month you have to go back to

that particular supplier, which may be supplying eight or nine

different departments.

Now, the department has been most obliging. They are willing

to spend as much time as possible to do it, but it's a very

difficult thing to try and find. I wonder if he could give us

some suggestions as to how it might be changed, or how we could

follow it up a little more easily.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Chairman, there's been no

change. As a former member of Public Accounts, that was the way

we functioned as well.

MR. MORRISON: The committee told me the change was November,

HON. MR. BARRETT: Unless it's through the computer there's

been no.... Well, it may be new coding. I'm not even aware of

that — it's a decision made by Mr. Minty.

MR. MORRISON: An accounting reason.

HON. MR. BARRETT: An accounting reason. It

[ Page 978 ]

was certainly not a policy decision. I can check back and

find out for you, Mr. Member, what's involved.

MR. MORRISON: They've been most helpful. They're willing to

give me all the help they can. It's just a matter of time and

effort.

HON. MR. BARRETT: There is obviously a reason for the

computer. It's my understanding that the same service, in terms

of access to vouchers, that was present when we were in

opposition still exists and that they will provide a staff

member to sit in the room with you.

MR. MORRISON: If you ask for a particular vote number. Even

with the

section number, it becomes extremely difficult to get

that total.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm advised there's no change to our

knowledge — certainly not in policy. If it's administrative

procedure we'll find out what's happened with it.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Chairman, to

the Minister of Finance, I recall his enjoyment over the years

as a member of the public accounts committee. He had a lot to

say about it from time to time, and seemed to find it — could I

say to be "illuminating," or is that the wrong word? I

wonder if the Minister would give us his reaction, Mr.

Chairman, in view of his long experience with that particular

committee, how he would feel about a year-round public accounts

committee that is struck at the beginning of the spring session

and left in operation. It would be not necessarily a travelling

committee — I don't really think that it's necessary for that

committee to move too far from this particular building — but a

committee that would be set up and could function on a fairly

regular and continuing basis to examine the accounts.

Now, I make the observation, Mr. Chairman, with all due

deference to senior civil servants — and this is not an attack

on them — that they could be expected to resist it, because in

many cases and many ways the public accounts committee is a

nuisance. I submit to the Minister of Finance, through you, Mr.

Chairman, that it's certainly something worth considering.

Perhaps the thought occurred to the present Minister when he

was in opposition.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, it's a very interesting proposition,

Mr. Member, and I'll discuss it with staff.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, in this vote there is, of

course, the Minister of Finance's estimates. An area which I think should be

looked into fairly closely is the purchase of shares by government, and there

have been large numbers, of share purchases. Indeed, we had a short time ago

a claim by a Member of the House that there had been insider trading. He gave

evidence of the jump in shares from 30,680 per month up to 294,976. That's the

Columbia Cellulose for the month of January, shortly before the takeover was

announced. In other words, there was substantial increase from 30,000-odd up

to 294,000-odd — a tremendous increase in the amount of shares. Preferred shares

jumped from $2.95 a share up to $8.38 a share. That's a very substantial jump

in value, and a very substantial jump in the numbers of shares traded.

The question, of course, arose in this House at the time

whether or not there had been insider trading, whether or not

there had been leaks, whether or not there had been special

tip-offs, and how, indeed, it had occurred that in the case of

Columbia Cellulose there was this very, very substantial

increase in the amount of trading and, of course, in the value

of shares. Clearly somebody made money. The statement was made

quite clearly by an Hon. Member to my right in this House that

great sums of money had been made, and he implied they may have

been made by people who had an inside track, either with

respect to the government or the company.

So I'd like to know from the Premier at this stage what his

investigations in this matter have revealed, because I think

that insider trading, especially when the government is

involved, not only in Columbia Cellulose, but Kootenay Forest,

Plateau Mills, Ocean Falls and the rest of them is a very

serious matter, and I think the Minister of Finance should

comment upon it.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It is indeed a very serious matter. In

regard to certain allegations, I received a memorandum today,

dated March 11, 1974, from Gerald Cross, the director of Civil

Law, informing me that writ No. 29819 of this year and of

Vancouver registry has been issued concerning allegations about

insider trading.

The plaintiffs are Werner K. Paulus, David Howard, J.

Dahlberg and James Wolstencroft. The defendants are one Gary

Bannerman and Radio CKNW Ltd. In Vancouver. The endorsement on

the writ says the plaintiffs' claim is for damages for libel

or, alternatively for slander for words published by the

defendants of and concerning the plaintiffs in certain radio

broadcasts over radio station CKNW between February 20 and 25,

1974. It was issued on March 7, 1974, and this information was

received from the solicitor for the plaintiffs.

This deals directly with some comment about insider trading that is a matter

of public concern outside this House. We are just as concerned, Mr. Members,

as you are about this. We take every pre-

[ Page

979 ]

caution; we deal only through business houses that are

available to the public generally. The question of how each one

is handled is done through independent, legal advice which we

canvass not only from our own staff but from outside legal

advisers as well in every instance.

This instance is a specific allegation attached to it.

Because it is now sub judice, I won't add any comment but will

certainly wait for the outcome of the court hearing in this

regard. We are just as concerned, Mr. Member, as you are. We

take every precaution that is humanly possible.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I think the Minister of Finance has

perhaps forgotten that there's a civil suit. I'm talking about

government itself. It cannot be put off, I feel, by a civil

suit no matter who brings it forward.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, no, I'm not suggesting that we're

putting it off, Mr. Member. I'm suggesting that as a result of

some statements made to dealings which referred to earlier

charges of insider trading, there is an atmosphere created as

well as fact. In terms of the atmosphere, I'm bringing to the

attention of the House that there is a civil suit related to

the charges around insider trading. The government is cognizant

of the problem and we'll take every caution, as I said, by

using outside law firms, our own people, and the best possible

advice through our Finance department. We are not frivolous in

this matter.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, I should certainly hope not, Mr.

Minister of Finance, nor should I suggest so. But the fact that

there is an outside civil law suit between a group of citizens

on the one hand and a radio station and their announcer on the

other does not alter the fact that we've had charges in this

House dealing with insider trading, not with the case of

Columbia Cellulose, which have not really been referred to at

all by the Premier in his remarks. Since the charges have been

made, what attempts to investigate this have been made by the

government? It should not rest upon a group of citizens outside

this House to launch law suits on matters such as this.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I refer this question to the

Attorney-General. There are specific comments he may wish to

make in the House.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It's quite true that the Attorney-General

will be questioned on this; very sharply questioned on this. We

want to know, though, what steps you have taken as Minister of

Finance in this regard.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The Attorney-General has been advised and he will

report to the House on what steps he has taken.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A problem arises as there is a motion on

the order paper put on by the Deputy Premier of the province

(Hon. Mrs. Dailly). Since that time, the Premier of the

province has stated that he doesn't believe in special

committees on privilege.

We're left with this dilemma. The issue was raised by a

Member of this House. It was immediately taken out by the

Deputy Premier in a lengthy motion, motion 16, and extends for

pages on our order paper. Since then, the Premier himself has

said that he will not have such committees of privilege. So

what is the situation we're left with? We're left with serious

allegations by a Member of the Legislature. We are left with

these allegations immediately transferred out of debate by a

Minister of the Crown, the Deputy Premier. And subsequently we

have the Premier himself stating that, even though it's on the

order paper, that's tough; these committees of privilege will

not be struck. Therefore, how can this thing ever come up? At

what stage are we going to have the debate on it?

HON. MR. BARRETT: My advice on the past experience in this

House is that the debate on Dunhill is sub judice because

there's a matter before the court. It's certainly not a matter

that is held up in terms of either the Member for South Peace

River's (Mr. Phillips) motion or our motion on the order paper.

The fact is that it's now the matter of a civil suit, and I

understand that these matters become sub judice to this House

and have been so ruled by previous Speakers.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Legal action. I just read that out, Mr.

Member. I was just advised by memorandum, today's date, March

11, that four people have launched a suit on this issue related

to the allegations referred to in both motions on the order

paper, the motion by the Member for South Peace River and the

motion by the Deputy leader of the government's side. So that

matter has become sub judice.

In terms of the other questions raised by the Member, I'm

being advised by the Attorney-General that these are matters

related to his department and he is prepared to make a

statement during his estimates on this.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Chairman, I'd just like

the Premier to clear one thing up. I hope he's not suggesting

that during the estimates on the Department of Housing this

House will not be allowed to discuss any manner of the

[ Page 980 ]

purchase by the government of Dunhill Development or its

thrust on future housing policy in the whole province.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I would not think that the thrust of the

housing policy would be a matter excluded from the debate. But

we would certainly need a Speaker's ruling in light of the fact

that there is now a civil suit related to the purchase of the

company and allegations made around that. In former experiences

with former Speakers, when such matters are referred to courts

outside of the House, the matter in terms of the specifies

related to the court are ruled sub judice. I have no idea what

the Speaker's ruling would be if the matter is raised at that

time. But I'm advised, considering past practices of this

House, that such discussion becomes sub judice once it's before

the courts — and has so been ruled in previous sessions of this

very House. But the information just came to me in written form

dated today's date, Mr. Member.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I think there are a number

of issues being confused here. One, of course, is the Dunhill

one which is apparently a subject of a civil suit in accordance

with the statement made by the Premier. Secondly, there is the

case of Columbia Cellulose. Apparently the Attorney-General is

going to reveal all and let the sun shine in on this particular

case. He was out of the room at the time I made the original

statement, but I wonder what his....

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): I heard it.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Oh, good. No need to repeat. Apparently

he was listening to his speaker in his office and he will be

making statements on the results of his department's

investigations into the tremendous increase in the volume of

shares traded and the tremendous increase in the value of, I

believe, the preferred shares. Yes, the preferred share: from

$2.95 a share at the start of negotiations up to $3.38 in three

months.

Now, as this is the Minister of Finance's estimates and as

the Attorney-General is here and as the whole subject of

acquisition of companies is essentially one that should be

dealt with by the Minister of Finance, I would strongly urge

the Attorney-General to get up at this stage and enlighten us

so we can then continue with the discussion of Columbia

Cellulose under the estimates of the Minister most

responsible.

That was the second issue. First Dunhill, then Columbia Cellulose. The third

issue is this: we have a Member of this House against whom a motion has been

placed that he is guilty of contempt and in breach of the privileges of this

House and the Members when he made certain statements. Yet the Premier has stated

that he'll have no opportunity to clear his name, no opportunity to discuss

the motion on the order paper because no such committees on privilege are to

be called in future. That's the third issue.

I'd like to know what the Minister of Finance's views are on

this. I think it's the third part of that question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. That is not a matter for

consideration.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, you're predicting actions of

this House. I have no way of having the same kind of

information you have in terms of the actions of this House.

In terms of Dunhill, I've made it very clear — and you seem

to accept it now after three times — that it is a matter of

civil suit. I have said that every normal business precaution

has been used in the purchase of Columbia Cellulose. If you

have specific charges, then it is your responsibility to bring

those to the immediate attention of the Attorney-General rather

than repeat allegations you've heard somewhere else.

Thirdly, the Attorney-General has been part and parcel of

the normal process of purchases in this regard and has assured

me that every normal process that should have been followed had

been followed in terms of these purchases.

Now, Mr. Member, I don't know what I can say beyond that to

satisfy you.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, since this has come up, I didn't know it

was allowed to be discussed under the Minister of Finance....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The discussion may continue providing that the

questions are directed to the administrative responsibility of

the Minister of Finance in this matter...

MR. PHILLIPS: ...responsibility of the Minister of

Finance, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would complete the point.

Providing the remarks are not covered by the matter which is

now sub judice or the two motions on the order paper.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm discussing the

responsibilities of the Minister of Finance. If he says nothing

is going to happen to the motion which is on the order paper,

in essence to censure me, not necessarily with regard to the

allegation made about Dunhill or Columbia Cellulose — it was

with regard to mining legislation — I think the motion should

be withdrawn.

[ Page 981 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: ...because I'm going to be like the Minister

of Finance, I'm not going to be cajoled, bullied, or bludgeoned...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: ...Either call the motion or take it off the

order paper.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! This is not a matter for debate at this

time. I would ask him to confine his remarks....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, point of order. On your

point of order, it is a subject for discussion at this time for

the following reasons: my friend from the Peace River is faced

with a situation where he has made statements, presumably made

in good faith — all statements in this House are made in good

faith — and the Deputy Premier takes steps to prevent him from

continuing discussion of it. Flat statements are made by the

Premier to the effect that no such motion will be picked up

from the order papers. Therefore...

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, Mr. Member....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: ...by this circular argument we are

preventing this man from at least having his charges

answered.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, I didn't say that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. In regard to the point of

order: the point of order is not well taken because this is a

procedural matter which he has raised and this not something to

be considered in Committee of Supply under this estimates.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It is the responsibility of the Minister

of Finance. It's his responsibility.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask that any further

discussion be confined to vote 51.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Mr. Chairman, I want to

ask the Premier regarding the financial revenue of the

government. I look at the interim financial statements for the

nine-month period and I find that the revenue is approximately

$22 million a month more than estimated in the previous budget,

which comes to almost $200 million in the nine-month

period.

I'm wondering if that process has continued: whether January, February and

part of March reflects this continued flow of revenue into the public treasury,

over and above what had been estimated last year in the budget.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, we have already allocated $140

million of that surplus. If there is more, I'll certainly

report it to the House.

MR. CHABOT: That isn't my question regarding the allocation

of the funds. It appears from this financial statement, when

one takes the nine-month period over the 12-month period, that

there is a reflection of approximately $200 million of

additional revenue more than what had been estimated last year.

I'm wondering if that process is continuing on into January and

February.

Certainly you must have some idea of what your cash flow,

what your revenue, has been for the month of January and the

month of February because I understand this is kept on a daily

basis. So I was wondering if the Minister of Finance could tell

me what the revenue has been for those two months, and what the

indications are for the month of March.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Things look very good.

MR. CHABOT: Well, in dollars and cents.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's a good month. I haven't got the exact

figures, but I want to put to rest once and for all that under

socialism things look bad in British Columbia. We've never had

a better year and it's still going well, Mr. Member. No matter

what happens, under the NDP things are much better than

ever.

MR. CHABOT: Mr. Chairman, he has drastically underestimated

his revenue position in the last budget, and it appears it's

going to be more so in this coming year because of the new

legislation which we see on the order paper.

I think in all fairness to the Members of the House we

should have a statement from the Premier. I'm sure those

figures are available. He has people who can give him the

information as to the revenue for the months of January and

February. If we could get that, it would give us some kind of

idea — and I think we're entitled to that — as to what the

revenue was for the months of January and February.

But we can estimate at this time just what revenue was

derived by the provincial Treasury over and above what was

estimated in the last budget, which will give us some kind of

idea as to how far you are out in your figures for the

forthcoming year.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, sometimes mid-April we will be

able to give you the exact figures for January, February and

March. It is true that I underestimated the revenue. Perhaps

the reason I

[ Page 982 ]

underestimated the revenue was that for a weak moment I

listened to the criticism of the Members of the opposition and

thought, indeed, they may have something with their doom and

gloom.

I confess I was wrong; I underestimated the revenue. There

is far greater confidence out there in the Province of British

Columbia and throughout this whole world in this government

than the opposition has and, therefore, we've brought in more

money than we counted on. What a sin!

You'll find out how much more money we have — and if

necessary we'll have to spend it for the people of British

Columbia. You'll have the answer in mid-April, Mr. Member.

Revenues seem to be bearing up very well.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, a question to the Minister

of Finance. Can we return to discussion of share purchases of

the government under the Attorney-General's estimates after

such time as he has made the statement on Columbia

Cellulose?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I have no reason....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. That would be ruling from the

Chair. I would....

HON. MR. BARRETT: The technical aspects of share purchase,

certainly. The technical, legal aspects are supervised by

advice from the Attorney-General's Department and outside legal

advice as well. The technical aspects of how we've handled them

certainly can be discussed — the technical aspects,

certainly.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: We've looked at these things because

they've been mentioned in debate. But I've found nothing

irregular, nothing that went beyond or is any way unusual under

the traditional provisions of government — the insider

provisions in the Securities Act and in

section 152 of

the Companies Act. However, because these matters have

been raised in debate we're continuing to look at them. Beyond

that, I can't tell, you.

Now, if any Member of the House has information that there

was anything irregular in terms of insider trading, I wish

you'd bring it to my attention. I really do, because we'll look

at it with a microscope. But I have asked for an investigation.

For example, all the Dunhill share transaction — that was

raised. I've had them...they're still in process of being

checked out one by one, because it can be done in that case;

it's not a big company. Nothing irregular has appeared, but

that doesn't mean we shouldn't look at them.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Thank you, Mr. Attorney-General. This is precisely

the point we're trying to get at. Columbia Cellulose was the one I was more

concerned with because as the Premier mentioned....

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Give me any. Information of anything

irregular.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The information that we have is of a

substantial jump in share prices and a substantial jump in

number of shares traded. I wonder if the Attorney-General would

like to comment on the results of his investigation so far into

Columbia Cellulose and whether or not these increases...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: ...have turned out to be perfectly

normal or regular on the marketplace.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. You are straying away from the

vote under consideration at the present moment. I would ask you

to raise this...

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We can't. We've got to get that settled

first.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Under the Attorney-General's estimates is

the question you've asked, you've had the answer: Yes, under

the Attorney-General's estimates you can discuss the technical

aspects.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The problem, Mr. Chairman, is this: if we

get the technical aspects only at a later date, we can't go

into substantive discussion of the purchase of shares under the

Minister of Finance's estimates, where they should be.

It's a fairly simple proposition for the Attorney-General to

continue the useful, friendly, sensible remarks that he made a

moment ago with respect to Dunhill. If he would do that for

Columbia Cellulose, for all we know, the whole problem might

disappear.

MR. MORRISON: I'd like at this point to ask the Minister of

Finance: having done all other normal practices, is there any

specific reasons why they could not have suspended trading on

any of those companies which they were proposing to take

over?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: They did it in the normal way.

MR. MORRISON: With neither of those, as I understand it, was

trading suspended from the time

[ Page 983 ]

you made the commitment to go ahead. There was no trading

stopped on the market.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order.

MR. MORRISON: Would you elaborate on that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I'd ask the Hon. First Member

for Victoria to direct his questions solely to the Minister of

Finance, not the Attorney-General.

MR. MORRISON: I think the Minister of Finance should answer

it, but the A-G preferred to. I'd like to have an answer from

the Minister of Finance, because this is going to recur and

recur each time we acquire another company.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, in the case of Columbia

Cellulose, I think the lawyer was Hank Hutcheon who is now a

judge, I believe that there was a suspension of trading.

Although I'm not fully...I can't give you the date.

In the case of Dunhill I believe the Vancouver Stock

Exchange, in its usual procedure in the case of an acquisition,

suspended trading in order to convey a forewarning that there

could be a purchase or a merger or something of that kind in

the normal way. I think it was done and then it was lifted

after that warning was out. That's the traditional

practice.

MR. MORRISON: Could you give us the specifics on that at

some point in the debate?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes. I'll look it up. I'll be glad

to.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): I would like

to return briefly with the Hon. Minister of Finance (Mr.

Barrett) if I may, on matters I discussed with the Hon. Premier

(Mr. Barrett). I hope he has had a chance to talk to him over

the weekend.

Concerning the matter of the control of our resources: While

I raised it under the Premier's estimates, Mr. Chairman,

because it can have such a serious effect upon the future of

the finances of the Province of British Columbia, I think it is

appropriate to continue this discussion at this time.

The Hon. Premier, on Friday last, indicated what the

position of his government was vis--vis the national

government.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, before you go further, I would

just like to add one thing that I neglected to mention on

Friday. I was asked this same question, related to resources,

at the Western Premier's Conference by one of the other

Premiers. I said at that time, as I recall my words, that I didn't

relish the idea in terms of the agricultural area of forestry;

however, it was in the best national interests that some time

in the future that would have to be discussed — in terms of the

same way I felt about oil. But my position is the same as it

was Friday. I did make that remark at the Western Premier's

Conference. But in no way does that alter my position as of

Friday, and this government's position that we do not see the

forest industry as an area of national emergency in terms of

national ownership or national encroachment.

I just wanted to mention that because I didn't mention it on

Friday.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I thank the Premier for

that further comment. It helps to assure me, but I want to go

back to the distinction he makes between the renewable

resources and the non-renewable resources — only to press him

again with the position that concerns me so greatly.

I understand the basis for the Premier's distinction, but

what is concerning me most is that unless and until we have

those frank discussions with the national government which will

lead to the kind of co-operative federalism that the Premier

mentioned on Friday...and I'd make certain that I fully

understand the Premier.

With respect to non-renewable resources, the Premier

indicates that it's the policy of the government that they are

prepared to enter into co-operative arrangements with the

national government, for instance, with respect to oil or

petroleum resources; he would seek the mandate from the people

of British Columbia before finally committing ourselves to that

position. But he would, for the benefit of Canada as a whole,

so long as the rest of the provinces would go along with it —

and the people of British Columbia having given the mandate on

energy resources — make them available co-operatively for all

of Canada. That's his position.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I appreciate that position. I think that

perhaps with some modifications I could support it. But what is

concerning me, Mr. Chairman, is that unilateral actions appear

to be on the horizon from the point of view of the national

government.

I would like to know from the Premier, if the

national government moves continually in those unilateral ways,

without seeking the co-operative position of all 10

provinces, what the Premier of British Columbia is going to do

to ensure that our constitutional right to control our natural

resources, even though they be non-renewable, remains solely

within the jurisdiction of the Province of British

Columbia.

[ Page 984 ]

I'm quite happy to have the Premier say to the national

government: "If you sit down with us and the other nine

provinces and work out a policy for the nation as a whole, then

we are prepared to seek the mandate from British Columbia to go

along that basis."

But if the national government, as it has clearly indicated

it is prepared to do, legislates within the area of its

jurisdiction in a manner which is contrary to the natural

resource control which British Columbia has, what is the

government of British Columbia prepared to do to ensure that

such action, which is destructive of co-operative federalism,

is not allowed to take place?

MON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, I did not rise to object to this discussion

taking place under the Minister of Finance, because I think you have raised

a very important matter that should be related to Finance as well.

I made reference on page 6 of the budget speech to a point

that really relates to your question. "I am concerned over the

federal government making a change in a provincial tax base

without discussions with the province, for the British Columbia

income tax is calculated from the federal base."

Now that was a unilateral action and it bears a great deal

on your question. It is obvious that the federal government,

for one reason or another — and, I suspect, reasons that I do

not ascribe to politicians other than perhaps benign neglect.... But that decision was made on the advice of some

bureaucrats, and the political necessity of discussing that

change with the provinces was overlooked.

I raised it in the budget speech to send the message back

that although the province was not opposed to the indexing, we

are opposed to the method of imposing changes in arrangements

between the provinces unilaterally.

Now I think that was an oversight rather than a calculated

design by the federal government, but I am alarmed — and I'll

say so openly — over the fact that after having had what was

described by the federal Prime Minister as one of the most

important federal-provincial conferences — that was on energy — after having had that conference, and being advised that there

would be a further conference, we were advised without

consultation that there would be no further contacts; and he's

meeting separately with two provinces. I want to tell you here....

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Divide and conquer, eh?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, divide and conquer. I want to tell you here that

we took a position as a provincial government that we would not go for the alteration

of the federal proposal of cost sharing and hospital plans. We said, as a have

province, that that although we would benefit, we would not be a party to anything

that destroys the level of care, or perhaps autonomy, of the Maritimes or the

weaker provinces.

Now to answer your question and to impress upon you that I

think we're of the same mind with regard to the forestry, there

is no way that I would have unilateral discussions with the

federal government about forestry without the other nine

provinces being discussed, because on that basis it would be a

threat to Confederation as we know it.

I want to assure you, Mr. Member, and the people of this

province, that under no circumstances would I discuss any

change without the other provinces being there, nor do I

consider any change of authority to be necessary or warranted

in Canada at this time.

I have made the distinction on energy in terms of oil and

natural gas simply because of the world supply situation and

the need for us to have our own national plan to protect our

own national integrity. But that's as far as it goes at this

time. If, in the future, some other commodity was required at

the same level of pressure or emergency that oil and gas are,

then I would propose that that be discussed at the national

level by all the provinces.

I share a concern expressed by the Member, and I can't say

that that concern is a long-standing one. It has come to a

focus out of the fact that the federal government has taken

unilateral action on oil and gas in these last few weeks, and

it is enough to alarm all those constitutionalists who understand the uniqueness of

our Confederation. As a matter of fact, Lord Durham's report is

hardly 140 years old and is now being assaulted by the actions

of the last few weeks.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Unilaterally.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Unilaterally. It's just 100 years ago that

Disraeli was in the mother of Parliaments. I think 1974 was the

second time he was called to form a national government in

Great Britain.

He had spent some six months earlier, about eight years

earlier, as Prime Minister. But at that time the whole Durham

debate came up again, and Durham had since passed on. But the

point was well taken that Durham's pattern, in terms of

colonialism as they discussed it in that day, was seen as the

wisest course to follow to keep communities together within the

commonwealth.

I buy that argument, over 104 years old, except in the case

of emergency in terms of oil and gas, but I want to say with

the Member, if I understand him correctly, that we are of one

mind when it comes to forestry, considering what's going on.

There is no way that we would consider unilateral discussions

between Ottawa or by Ottawa, or by party discussions between us

and Ottawa, on forestry — no way.

I'm deeply concerned about the unilateral action

[ Page 985 ]

of the federal government in terms of discussing oil and gas

separately with Saskatchewan and Alberta.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I'd like to continue this for a few

moments if the Member for Columbia River (Mr. J.R. Chabot)

would yield.

I would like to see if I can't come closer to my concern

with the Premier. I'm not making the issue with respect to

forest resources or with respect to energy, or any other

non-renewable resource.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I have to make that distinction.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I gather the Premier to say that with

respect to actions by the national government he is not

prepared to enter into separate talks apart from the other nine

provinces; and he would have urged that Saskatchewan and

Alberta not have taken the course they did in the past few

weeks.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's correct.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: What I'm trying to get, I suppose, is

this simple statement, but perhaps it's too simple. Does the

government of the Province of British Columbia take the

position with the national government that the control of

natural resources are ours under our constitution, and we are

not prepared to consider with the national government any

relinquishment of that control unless it is done in concert

between the national government and all 10 provinces? Indeed,

we are not prepared to accept a change in the constitution of

Canada unless it is carried out within the scope of that

constitution.

Whether you follow what Lord Durham says or whether you come

to more recent times and concern yourselves with the

Fulton-Faureau formula, or whatever the case may be.

The fact of the matter is that Ottawa should understand that

we are not prepared to sit idly by and allow them to use the

legislative powers they have to undermine British Columbia's

control of its natural resources.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, I want to say clearly somehow

how important this debate is.

You raised a fundamental problem, or question — I wouldn't say problem — beyond

the very distinct party lines we have in this province. I want to say on behalf

of my party that I know of no other party position that is espoused seriously

by a formal party in this province. There is no way we, as long as we are government,

would consider relinquishing our autonomy and control over those natural resources

as provided under the BNA Act. That does not mean that we would not go into

a federal-provincial conference. We would certainly discuss anything with our

fellow provinces.

But I make it very clear that there is no way we would

relinquish the control we have under the BNA Act. The only

departure I've given, which received absolutely no sympathy —

even from my socialist colleagues in Manitoba and Saskatchewan — was the argument that in terms of the non-renewable energy

sources, I felt, and I still feel, that as national policy we

would be well advised to have all oil and gas under public

ownership of the federal government.

Now I am a minority in that position, but I also....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, I have one supporter. But I also

wanted to make it very clear that it is such a fundamental

change in the nature of the relationship between any province

and the federal government to allow even this to be considered,

that there is no way, if the federal government said,"Yes, we

accept British Columbia's proposal," I would enter any

contract or any agreement without first going to the people of

this province and saying: "This is the position; reject it or

accept it."

No responsible government could avoid going to the people on

that issue, because it is a fundamental issue and not every

British Columbia citizen would feel that way. They may see

giving up this one area under the BNA Act as a small, thin edge

of the wedge, and they have a right and a responsibility to

debate that on that basis — but certainly not in any other

area.

Nor would we enter any singular discussion — that is between

us and the federal government — on any other resource. Now

there are several laws governing taxation, royalties and other

matters. Those are separate battles that have taken place

between this province and Ottawa, and other provinces and

Ottawa, historically.

The other battle which took place was the question of

off-shore resources and who controlled those; and the federal

government, although it won the federal court case, said they

would share 50-50. But in the clear-cut definition of the

existing constitution of the BNA Act, there would be no change

by this government in any resource other than oil and natural

gas.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: And that's not really a change, because

that involved discussions....

HON. MR. BARRETT: That involved discussions. But I have

raised fear in some peoples' minds. That is a valid question,

because having made the proposition about oil and gas, people

have the right and the responsibility to ask what the

government's intention is on other resources, as you have

raised. I welcome

[ Page 986 ]

the opportunity of putting it right on the record: No way,

on the other resources.

The only reason for the consideration of gas and oil is

because of the critical energy crisis in the world that I,

frankly, do not see any solution to. I feel so strongly about

the nation that I would be prepared, and have been prepared, to

say on this issue that the nation has a prior responsibility to

plan for its own energy needs.

I'll tell you something else: in my opinion, I think I'm

right. I think the other provinces are making a mistake, and I

think the federal government, if it called a federal election

on the proposition that it wanted a mandate to enter into

discussions with the provinces for public ownership of natural

gas and oil under federal control, would win the election on

that issue. I believe the Canadian people are further ahead

than other provincial governments and the federal government on

this issue.

I believe the Canadian people respect the fact that the

integrity of this nation should not be threatened on an

economic basis by a shortage of oil or gas. The best way of

ensuring that we have the stable economic development of those

non-renewable energy resources is through public federal

ownership.

I think any party, including my own, that would take this

position in a federal election would do two things — cause the

matter to be debated publicly and, secondly, would gain a large

number of votes, because whether it was British Columbia or

Alberta or Saskatchewan or Manitoba, or what else, we are

Canadians first, and I think that is the most popular sentiment

and position.

MR. PHILLIPS: I would like to enter into this debate because

I really think that you're touching upon something more than

just the energy resources of the province. I refer to the fact

that every year there is the conference of the fiscal agents,

or the Ministers of Finance of Canada, and I just wonder what

our Premier's attitude is towards equalization payments.

Mr. Chairman, I've heard our Premier endeavour to promote

the myth in the Province of British Columbia that British

Columbia has been giving her natural resources away, and that

under his leadership the return of the natural resources is to

the people of the province.

However, in the Province of Quebec and in the Province of

Ontario they are blessed with as many natural resources as we

are in the Province of British Columbia. I wonder, when the

Premier takes into consideration some of the moneys returned to

the Province of Quebec from her natural resources versus the

amount of money returned to the Province of British Columbia

from the natural resources here, if he can still continue, in

all honesty, to promote the myth that the natural resources of

the Province of British Columbia have been given away. If, indeed, the

natural resources of the Province of British Columbia have been

given away, what, in heaven's name, have they been doing in the

Province of Quebec with their natural resources?

I would like to quote just a couple of figures to give

credence to my statement. In 1969-70 equalization payments

totaled $673.5 million, of which Quebec got $343 million and

Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario got nothing at all.

Yet, Mr. Chairman, Quebec's revenue from all natural

resources in the year ending March, 1970, was only $60 million,

whereas British Columbia's natural resource revenue in the same

period was $172.25 million, with forests amounting for more

than $116 million of this amount.

Now the Province of Quebec has a larger land area and

certainly more land under forest than either British Columbia

or Ontario. Certainly, if they were found, they may have what I

consider is not a natural resource until such time as it is

found; they may have minerals. But I do not consider those

minerals a natural resource until such time as they are

found.

They are not a natural resource in the true sense of the

word that forestry is a natural resource, that agriculture is a

natural resource, or even, so far as that goes, oil and gas,

because oil and gas follow a certain sedimentary basin and the

lay of the land and is much more easily found. But minerals are

there in the rock, and no one has been able to find a

particular lay of the land that gives them one mineral. They

have to be out and they have to be staked out by prospectors.

So they are not really a natural resource as such.

Now I presume that in the Laurentian Plateau there are as

many minerals there as there are, indeed, in British Columbia.

Yet our Premier would lead the people of British Columbia to

believe the myth that the resources of the province have been

given away.

Well, if the resources in British Columbia have been given

away, what have they been doing with the resources in the

Province of Quebec? How can you justify going to a financial

meeting with the Ministers of Finance from the other provinces

and the Minister of Finance from the federal government and

justify British Columbia giving money to, particularly, the

Province of Quebec, who is either not developing her natural

resources, or she is the one who is giving them away?

Of the province's forestry, Mr. Chairman, the province owns

95 per cent of it, and to my knowledge none of the forests in

British Columbia have been given away. Private owners only

control 4 per cent of the forests in British Columbia and the

federal government controls 1 per cent. How can the Premier

continue to justify his statements that British Columbia has

been giving away her natural resources?

I would like to quote from a newspaper article:

"Quebec, which covers an area half as large

[ Page 987 ]

again as British Columbia, has potentially accessible and

productive forest land of 141 million acres, nearly twice that

of British Columbia's 78 million. In 1969 British Columbia took

in $78 million in forest fees of various kinds and Quebec took

in only $20 million."

Now, my question to the Minister of Finance is: what

attitude does he take at these federal provincial fiscal

conferences? The same thing could happen in the Province of

Alberta if it wished to either give away its oil or gas or,

indeed, wished to leave them in the ground and not develop them

At this time. Then the Premier's theory of making all of the

resources part of the federal government would be swept under

the table, because provinces could, indeed, leave their natural

resources in the ground and wait until the country became

bankrupt.

I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if he feels that the Province of

Ontario and the Province of Quebec would take the same attitude

that Ottawa is asking Alberta and Saskatchewan to take with

regard to their oil and gas and their energy, if it was Ontario

and Quebec who had these vast resources of oil and gas. Do you

feel, Mr. Minister of Finance, that they would take the same

attitude as you were taking? Do you feel they would allow the

federal government to, as the Member for West Vancouver–Howe

Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) has pointed out, allow Ottawa to

infringe on their rights, as they would seem to be doing?

So here we are in western Canada, and the question comes up

again: what's going to happen if we find a rich body of ore

here — for instance, uranium — and uranium in the world becomes

necessary for the development of atomic power? Then what

attitude are the provinces and the federal government going to

take?

Suppose that a large ore body of some specific mineral were

found in the Province of Quebec which could be turned into

instant energy. It could be possible, because there is a lot of

energy still in the crust of the earth that we don't even know

about yet. It's strictly technology that prevents us from

utilizing it. What attitude does the Premier think the Province

of Quebec would take with regard to letting all of the rest of

Canada have access to this energy?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Member, there are two answers. First, I

think I have already made it plain that no other province agrees with us in

terms of the non-renewable energy sources — oil and gas. That's why I went to

Ottawa with two propositions. Now, I still believe my first proposition is a

valid one and I said that I would not impose that one on the people of British

Columbia. If Ottawa accepted it, we would go to the people and say: "Look, this

is our proposition. We want you to throw us out of office, or say, 'You're right

on.'" We just would not unilaterally alter the BNA Act without a reference

to the people of this province on such an important issue as the non-renewable

resources. It was not a hollow suggestion on our part, because we do have natural

gas.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm not suggesting it was.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I know that. Now, I think that the

provinces of Quebec and Ontario have already stated their

position. They would do the same as Alberta and Saskatchewan

are doing.

When you talk about the Province of Quebec, there has been

an unfortunate tendency in his country, when we criticize other

provinces, to shy away from Quebec because of their special

problems. The former Premier of this province was labeled a

bigot for his efforts in getting into the arena of discussing

the problems of Quebec. That was a matter of great regret for

every Member of this House, but it's a very emotional thing and

it gets responses such as that.

I have said that in my opinion, although we are not opposed

to equalization payments, the fact that this government is

extracting more revenues from our natural resources by way of

taxation and royalties only means that a certain percentage of

it goes to equalization payments to the Province of Quebec

because of their extremely poor management in terms of

royalties and in terms of revenue from those natural

resources.

The remedy for Quebec is not separation; the remedy for

Quebec is to get rid of the Quebec Liberal Party and find a

party that represents the better interests of the ordinary

people of Quebec in ensuring that those natural resources pay a

fair share to all the people of Quebec. There is no reason for

unemployment to be high in Quebec.

I consider the language issue to be a phony issue. I'm not

denigrating them on a basis of culture or identity, but it is

less an issue in terms of the economic determination that

should be part and parcel of Quebec and Canada.

Quebec within Confederation can make it on its own two feet,

and that's where the separatists make a mistake. The people of

Quebec have the same talents, energies, skills, desires,

visions and hopes as the ordinary people of British

Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: More.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Sometimes more. In my one brief visit to

Montreal, my wife and I spent a number of hours in downtown

Montreal, meeting people and talking to them in restaurants.

People came up and talked to both of us. I was impressed with

their warmth and their friendliness. As a matter

[ Page 988 ]

of fact, without starting an inter-nation fight, they're

sure not uptight like some Ontarians I've met.

MR. PHILLIPS: You don't have to speak the language.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No. We got along very well. (Laughter.)

But the point is that the previous administration in British

Columbia, in our opinion, had not been charging enough for our

natural resources that were being extracted. That was part of

the election campaign, you recall. We're now moving in, and I

won't go into the legislation that exists in the House. Mr.

Member, we're going to produce, I think, maybe about $50

million more in natural gas than the former government produced

per year. Now, we say that just because you are in a black

position in the books doesn't mean that you shouldn't ask a

fair price for your commodities.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: King Feisal and I have nothing in common

whatsoever, Mr. Member, and you must seriously consider the

implications of that particular remark.

To conclude, it is my opinion that the former government was

like the government of Sir Richard McBride; it believed that

the cornucopia had no end, that this treasure house of British

Columbia should be used by any entrepreneur, any developer or

any promoter that came along and had a vision of the day and

sold it to the government. The same Sir Richard McBride

mentality existed with the former Premier, W.A.C. Bennett, and

a fine example of McBrideism by Bennett was the Wenner-Gren

deal — the grand promotion, the great dream of the north, the

mysterious financier arriving on our shores with genius, with

talent and a heck of a lot of flim-flam.

This province was flim-flammed for 100 years, Mr. Member. We

were giving away our resources and this government has said,

"no more give-aways." If Quebec did the same thing they

wouldn't need equalization payments.

So the matter becomes a political battle, and that's why I

went to visit one Rene Levesque to express to him my opinion,

"bon chance." I said: "There's no need for separation — there's

a need to explain to your people, as we've done in the Province

of British Columbia, that the resources can help pay the

way."

You know, Mr. Member, the people of this province understand

that issue. If the Quebecois are ever confronted with an

election campaign on the same issue, that party that said that

we would bring in the same royalty structure, the same taxation

structure as the Province of British Columbia would sweep to

victory in the Province of Quebec.

So now I appeal to Rene Levesque to drop this separatism, if

he can hear me. Drop this separatism. Join the New Democratic

Party and help build a wonderful democratic socialist Canada

from shore to shore.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm certainly glad the Premier has a big mouth

because he not only talks out of both sides, he talks out of

the middle — and he does all three at the same time. The speech

he made just before he sat down certainly.... First of all, he

says they are giving their natural resources away in Quebec,

and that the British Columbia tax bill is more than any other

province. Yet he wants to give away our oil and gas rights

because he may be....

HON. MR. BARRETT: To the people of Canada? That's not a

giveaway — to give to the people.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I've said on more than one

occasion in this House — and it's in Hansard ; it's in

the record — that I felt that our natural gas contracts with

the United States of America should be renegotiated. This has

been accomplished, I feel, in a very fair way. I feel that the

extra revenues the Minister of Finance is obtaining from the

sale of natural gas to the States, in view of today's demand

for energy, are certainly justified.

I also had to point out at that time, when I made this

statement to the Minister of Finance, that had those sales not

taken place at that time and had the atmosphere in the Province

of British Columbia not been as it was at that time — to spur

discovery of the natural gas and to build that pipeline — I

doubt very much if there would have been any contract with the

United States for our present Minister of Finance to

renegotiate. I doubt very much if there would even have been a

natural gas pipeline from northern British Columbia even to

Vancouver.

I think it's time that the Premier stopped passing about

this myth he's trying to pass about that all of a sudden he

rides in on the great white horse and returns the natural,

resources to the people of British Columbia. Had the

development in our natural resource industries not taken place

that have taken place, he, as I have said in this House time

after time, would not have the large budget he has to play

around with, and the people of British Columbia would not be

burning natural gas, nor would industry be burning natural

gas.

If they did, they would have been paying not three or four

times what they are paying today, but probably about 10 times

the amount they are paying today, because of the cost of the

pipeline.

Now the Premier still didn't answer my question. What I want

to know is: when you go to these federal-provincial

conferences, do you point out to the Ministers of Finance of

both Ontario and Quebec

[ Page 989 ]

that they are not getting sufficient revenue from their

natural resources?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, I do.

MR. PHILLIPS: Do you tell them that you are sick and tired

of taxing the natural resource industries of British Columbia

to subsidize them when they are the ones who are giving their

natural resources away?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I tell them to stop it the way we did in

B.C. We got rid of Social Credit and straightened it out, and

they should do the same back there.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm trying to carry on an intelligent

discussion with you, Mr. Minister of Finance, and you always

want to bring in that smokescreen and bring political politics

into it. Is it not possible to have an intelligent discussion

with you? Or do you have to keep on dragging in these red

herrings: "give away our natural resources... return the

forests to the people" — and you already own 95 per cent of

them.

You know, people are going to see this eventually. We're

going to tell them, so there's no sense...you know. You've

changed. You made a few changes here in the forest royalty.

You've done a few things so that you can go back to the people

and say, "Look what I have done; look what I've done."

Any government would have renegotiated those gas contracts

with the United States. Any government would have.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You voted against it.

MR. PHILLIPS: I recommended it here in the House last

year.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm certainly glad you went and did what I

recommended. I'll commend you for taking my advice, Mr.

Minister of Finance. I'll certainly commend you for that.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You voted against the bill. You voted

against the Petroleum Corporation. That's their name. It's on

record.

MR. PHILLIPS: Let's not bring that into the facts. I'm on

record in this House of saying what should be done. Because you

did it through a vehicle, it gives you the power to march in to

service stations and be the Gestapo. Well, I wouldn't vote for

a bill like that which would take away the rights of the people

of British Columbia. You know that, Mr. Minister of

Finance.

But I am on record. Don't you forget that I'm on record,

right in Hansard , as telling you exactly to do what you

did; and you did it, and I thank you for it.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, twice you are wrong: first an

error, and now the Gestapo.

MR. PHILLIPS: Will you tell that Member not to interrupt me?

You know, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Minister of Finance,

it's not only the Province of Quebec that seems to be giving

their natural resources away, but also the Province of Ontario.

It's not noticed in the Province of Ontario because of the

tremendous revenues she gets from her secondary

manufacturing.

I would just like to point out to you that...and I am going

to quote again from an

article in The Vancouver Sun

dated February 10, 1972. It's an

article by Mary Rawson where

she is talking about equalization payments. I would like to

quote from this

article again:

"Even the poor province of Quebec has been raising more in

natural resource revenue than Ontario has, although there too

resource revenue is a declining proportion."

Even Ontario seems to be giving her natural resources away.

I wonder what the Premier would do down there? You wouldn't be

giving it away; you would be subsidizing them to take it out of

the ground.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I would vote NDP.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, NDP is not the answer because you will

find out if you keep on forcing punitive taxation — and I

didn't want to get into this, Mr. Chairman — but if you keep on

forcing punitive taxation on the resource industries of this

province, you will find that they have in many socialist

countries.... Here again, I didn't want to get into this.

What's the matter with Russia? What are they doing in

Russia? She's got lots of natural resources. How come they

can't live in the same standard of living that we are here in

British Columbia? So if you follow along those same lines, you

are going to be leading the people of British Columbia down the

garden path.

I just want to continue this because it's very important

when you go to these finance meetings, Mr. Chairman — when the

Minister goes — representing a big province like British

Columbia that has been taxing her natural resource industry

almost to the limit for the last 20 years, that he recognizes

that the Province of Ontario has a giveaway programme too.

British Columbia, by contrast — and I am quoting again from

this article:

"In British Columbia, by contrast, the

[ Page 990 ]

proportion of revenue from resources has remained fairly constant

while the actual income has better than doubled. In 1956 Quebec took in $36

million, compared to British Columbia's $46 million. Quebec public accounts

for 1969-70 show natural resource revenue at $58 million, while British Columbia

is now drawing $172 million."

In other words, in the Province of Ontario and in the

Province of Quebec they have not only been not getting enough

revenue from their natural resources, but they are on a

declining basis.

"Can we conclude from these figures on resource revenue that Alberta and British Columbia are

resource rich and that Ontario and Quebec are, relatively,

resource poor? Or is it that Ontario and Quebec simply do not

tap the potential resource revenue available?"

Now my whole point in bringing this up, Mr. Chairman, is

that here, as the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr.

L.A. Williams) has brought up, is our Premier, who wants to

share our natural resources, our natural gas and our natural

oil — strictly because they are in short supply and there is a

crisis — with all of Canada.

Well, I'm a Canadian first too. But I think that you've got

to be a hard-headed businessman as well as a good Canadian when

it comes to this resource sharing and tax sharing. If the

Premier is going to go down to Ottawa and wants to share all of

this with Ontario and Quebec, don't you think that Ontario and

Quebec should come forth first of all and develop their own

natural resources so that we don't have to subsidize,

particularly in the case of Quebec?

It seems to me that if I were in business and I was making

lots of profit and there was another business down the road

that was running theirs very poorly and I had to subsidize

them, I would get pretty angry. I think this is really what our

past Minister of Finance was talking about all the time.

As I say, Mr. Chairman, what would happen if the shoe were

on the other foot? If we are going to nationalize our natural

resources such as oil and gas.... The crisis is not that

drastic yet. What we need to do in that is provide more money

for exploration because, as I've said in this House before, we

really don't know what our oil and natural gas resource is

until we explore them fully. We don't know how much is down

there. This is what is required: money for exploration.

Now, what is going to be next? Is it going to be lumber? Is it going to be

minerals? Is the Minister of Finance going to get himself into a position to

do some hard bargaining for the Province of British Columbia, because there's

no sense in taxing our natural resource industries, many of which are developed

by private industry, to the point where they almost break and then go down to

Ottawa, and give the money to Ottawa so that they can subsidize the same types

of industry in another part of Canada?

I think that our Minister of Finance has got to do some hard

bargaining and maybe reassess his situation not only as being a

good Canadian, but as being a better businessman, because if

you're going to return the natural resources of the Province of

British Columbia to the people, then you've got to be a good

businessman as well.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The oil companies don't need any sympathy

from you or from me in terms of more money for exploration.

Standard Oil of British Columbia didn't pay any income tax

in this province from 1965 to 1971.

Imperial Oil profits operating in British Columbia from 1972

to 1973 went up 45 per cent, from $157 million off the people

of British Columbia to $228 million in one year. In the fourth

quarter Imperial Oil's profits in British Columbia went up from

$46 million to $73 million — a windfall, an increase of 58.7

per cent by Imperial Oil.

Gulf Oil of Canada in 1972.... These are the companies

operating in B.C. and this is their national profit

picture.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I gave you figures for Standard of their

original investment. The public has the right to know. I asked

the federal Minister to have a parliamentary committee or some

inquiry into these excess profits.

Gulf Oil of Canada was up in one year 58 per cent. You know

those Gulf ads — "We hurry"? They put the running shoes on the

profit. They're heading all the way to the bank.

Texaco sponsors opera every Saturday. In 1972 their profit

was $42 million; their profit's now up to $55 million. That's a

concerto soprano's performance. The profit's gone up 31 per

cent.

Shell Oil: 1972, $79 million; 1973, $112 million — an

increase of 42 per cent.

Come Home Oil — come home to the bank. In the first nine

months of 1972 the profit was $5 million; in 1973 the first

nine months, $10 million — a 100 per cent profit for Home

Oil.

It's the old Shell game to come Home so you can put on your

running shoes for Gulf, to hear the opera for Texaco so you can

have an Imperial approach to the spread of all these huge

profits.

Mr. Member, you come in here pleading for the oil companies

and more money for exploration, and I tell you — bunk, bunk,

bunk! They've had more money to explore and they have more tax

write-offs than any other industry. So don't come in here

crying on behalf of the oil companies. If you want to go out

and tell the story, I'll go out and tell the story too.

[ Page 991 ]

I'll go tell the story up in your riding when you said last

year that your home town would be a ghost town. Some ghost;

some town.

There's more going on in terms of drilling. The oil industry

says they don't like the NDP, but they've got to grudgingly

admit there's more stabilization in terms of dealing with this

government than the former administration. The finance pages

report that the producers are signing up every day under our

new set-up. There's more drilling going on in the north than

ever before.

God did not place the resources there for Imperial Oil,

Standard Oil, Come-By-Chance, Fly-By-Night, Running Shoes or

any other outfit. Those resources are there and can be found by

technologists and geologists in the employ of the government as

well as private companies. If the private companies can't use

their divining rods with their mysterious monopoly and

multi-national corporation approach, we'll find oil.

We had a great Liberal Premier in this Province, Duff

Pattullo, who unfortunately stopped the drilling programme just

a few hundred feet short of oil in the Peace River country in

the 1930s. And the oil companies did Duff Pattullo in in this

province. Duff Pattullo as the Premier of this province had the

nerve and the guts to take on the oil companies and do some of

his own drilling. It was the oil companies that did him in. One

of the most progressive governments that this province ever had

was the Pattullo administration, with Dr. Weir and others — what

they did in education, what they did in labour, and what they

did in the economics. And they were done in by the oil

companies and the oil companies' spokesmen.

Mr. Member, I reject your political philosophy. You're not a

bad guy, but your political philosophy is way out of tune.

Those resources belong to the people, and we're all Canadians

together. When I talk about the oil and the gas belonging to

the federal government, the federal government reflects the

people. It's not a giveaway; it's a sharing.

You talk about hard bargaining. I also believe in hard

bargaining, but I also believe in human compassion and

co-operative lifestyles. I don't believe that a multi-national

corporation should have the prime requisite....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: He surrenders!

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm not surrendering — I'm sending you a

handkerchief to wipe your nose with!

HON. MR. BARRETT: What are you going to do? Now I've got to

turn social worker on him.

Mr. Member, certainly I'm discussing politics. You have a political philosophy,

and I have one. My political philosophy is more humane, more intelligent and

superior in all ways to yours. But I don't rub that in. I don't want to remind

you of it constantly. I'd rather go up to your home town and tell them there.

MR. PHILLIPS: Come on up again — it was the greatest show

since the circus was there.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The reason you're talking, Mr. Member, is

because it's snowing back home and you don't want the session

to end too early. You'd get lost in a snowdrift.

MR. PHILLIPS: You should come up with something

original.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, you're wrong.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Chairman, I just don't know what to

say after that filibuster. (Laughter.) I never knew a Minister

to filibuster his own estimates before.

Mr. Chairman, in that byplay between the Member for South

Peace (Mr. Phillips) and the Hon. Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr.

Barrett), we've gone back a step from where we were a few

moments ago and on Friday. And I'm going to bring the Minister

of Finance back to it.

The point that the Member for South Peace was trying to make

was one that I thought I had established with you. What the

Member for South Peace was saying was what I said on Friday.

When eastern Canada — and I mean Ontario and Quebec — get in a

jam, as they are today with petroleum resources, they have no

hesitation in coming to the west and saying: "Oh, now we'll tax

your resources, and we'll use all the additional tax moneys to

help explore for more."

And what the Member for South Peace was saying, I think, and

what I say, is that that's very well, but when are the

industries in Ontario and Quebec going to contribute to this

same kind of programme? For 100 years they've had all the

breaks to support their industries, and now that they're in

some kind of difficulty with natural gas, again western Canada

is going to be picked clean to help them out of their problems.

And there's only one reason this is done: political power in

Canada is centralized in Ontario and Quebec. All we have to

say, Mr. Chairman — and I think the Member for South Peace will

agree and the Premier would agree — is that before they start

to dip into our natural resources, we want them to contribute

equally so that western Canada has some of the benefits that

they want.

It's not good enough for the Hon. Minister of Finance (Hon.

Mr. Turner) to come out here as he did

[ Page 992 ]

last Thursday and say: "We're going to make some tariff

changes that will help things in the west." We've been after

tariff changes as only one thing for 100 years. I hope that the

Premier and I and the Member for South Peace are on the same

basis. If we're going to help the rest of Canada, fine — as

Canadians we should do so. But let's not do this only to secure

increased political power in the provinces of Ontario and

Quebec.

The federal government should get this loud and clear. We're

not separatists in British Columbia; we aren't separatists in

western Canada. We just want to play our full equal role in

Confederation — not to be grabbed upon every time it serves the

advantages of the national federal government and its political

power based in Ontario and Quebec.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, I am referring to the serious

level that you bring to this debate and you've opened it on

that basis. I don't mean to be frivolous Mr. Member for South

Peace River (Mr. Phillips).

It is true that in a historical context everything you've

said is correct. But if you enter bargaining overtones which

could be wrongly interpreted as being, "Aha, now is the time to

make up for the 100-year hosing we've had!" and you adopt an

attitude that is rigid, then no compromise can be reached.

There is no question that the history of Canada has been

focused on the central power of both Quebec and Ontario. That

point has been made by western politicians for generations. Now

the west has a chance to ask for equalization in terms of

opportunity, equalization in terms of development, but not

vengeance.

I don't for one moment put you in that category, although

there are voices in the west who do respond emotionally on that

basis. Do you recall the bumper-sticker campaign they tried to

start in Calgary? "We can be warm here and they can go to hell

in Ontario," was the expression. Mr. Chairman, those are

the words of the bumper strip, not mine.

But I don't view the solving of problems on the basis of

dragging in everything that was wrong in the past to find a

solution for today. I'm cognizant of the fact things were done

to the west that were wrong, but I'm prepared to believe in

people. That preparation to believe in people has been a bit

jaded in the last couple of months. You hit the nail right on

the head Friday. You have to be admired, Mr. Member, because

it's your own party that's in power federally. Are you sure

there's no central Liberal that would speak the way you speak

as a western Liberal?

But the fact is you cannot, in my opinion, go into meetings or

conferences with the idea that it is the same old story and we're going

to be taken again. I'm wary; I'm cautious. I've inherited many

competent senior staff who have been bitten before. They have been

gentle but firm in their admonitions to me to be cautious and to be

wary. But I still believe in the best of human nature — even after

being in politics for 14 years. That statement opens me for the

greatest accusation of naivet that one could possibly make.

Nonetheless, I have hope for man.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!