1975 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 30th

Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational

purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MARCH 25, 1975

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 953 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Co-operative Associations Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 6).

Hon. Mr. Macdonald.

Introduction and first reading — 953

Real Estate Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 9). Hon. Mr.

Macdonald.

Introduction and first reading — 953

Patients' Estates Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 2). Hon.

Mr. Macdonald.

Introduction and first reading — 953

Limitations Act (Bill 8). Hon. Mr. Macdonald.

Introduction and first reading — 953

Oral Questions

Indian cut-off lands claims. Mr. Bennett — 953

Relocation of government offices due to CUPE strike.

Mr. Wallace — 954

Development of Langley land purchased by Land

Commission. Mr. McClelland — 954

Renegotiation of RCMP contract. Mr. Phillips — 954

Action against school picketers. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 955

DND land application. Mr. Schroeder — 955

Amendment to Securities Act. Mr. Chabot — 956

Steel mill locations in B.C. Mr. McGeer — 956

Raising of juvenile to adult court. Mr. Wallace — 956

Premier's meeting with UBCM. Mr. Gardom — 956

Approval of Mohawk oil refinery. Mr. McClelland — 957

Due date for B.C. Rail annual report. Mr. Fraser — 957

Investigation of Casa Loma construction practices. Mr.

D.A. Anderson — 957

Committee of Supply: Premier's estimates.

On vote 2. Mr. Fraser — 957

Division on motion that the committee rise and report

progress. — 984

Department of Finance estimates.

On vote 53. Mr. Wallace — 985

On vote 54. Mr. Morrison — 986

On vote 55. Mr. Wallace — 988

On vote 56. Mr. Wallace — 989

On vote 57. Mr. Curtis — 991

On vote 58. Mr. Phillips — 992

On vote 59. Mr. Curtis — 994

On vote 60. Mr. Wallace — 995

Appendix — 996

TUESDAY, MARCH 25, 1975

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

Mr. G.F. Gibson (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr.

Speaker, I'd like to draw the attention of the House to the

presence in the gallery of a number of members of the action

committee on cut-off lands — in particular, on the co-ordinating

committee, two members from my riding, Sy Baker and Phillip

Joe, and two from other parts of the province, Adam Eneas and

Harry Dick. I ask the House to make them welcome.

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

Speaker, in the gallery today is Rafe Mair, a newly nominated

Social Credit candidate for the constituency of Kamloops. While

he enjoys his present temporary status as a visitor, I would

like the House to bid him welcome.

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

Mr. Speaker, I've got a very special announcement to make today. It is

a first for Victoria — we've got a group of students from as far east

as Jaffray, Galloway, Grasmere and Elko. That is the area on the shores

of the Koocanusa Lake. They have come a long way to visit the House to

see what's going on. There are not very many chances for students from

that distance to have that opportunity.

They are here today with their teachers, Mr. and Mrs. Dore,

and they are sitting in the gallery along with my wife.

Mr. G.H. Anderson (Kamloops): Mr. Speaker, I'd also

like to join in the welcoming of Mr. Mair, who I believe is

going to remain Mr. Mayor.

In the galleries today we have three aldermen visiting from

the City of Kamloops — Alderman Mathews, Alderman Bianco and

Alderman Chapman. They were accompanied to Victoria by their

planner, Mr. Game, and the industrial co-ordinator, Mr. Kask. I

would ask the House to bid them welcome.

Hon. E.E. Dailly (Minister of Education): Mr.

Speaker, in the gallery there are two citizens from Burnaby,

Mayor Tom Constable and Ken Maddison.

Mr. P.C. Rolston (Dewdney): One of the more colourful

mayors in B.C. is Betty Dube from Maple Ridge. She is in the

gallery along with Mr. and Mrs. Elmer Walske. I believe Oscar

Austring, the mayor of Pitt Meadows, Mr. Jerry Selina, the

treasurer and Lyle Armstrong, the planner of Maple Ridge, are

also in the gallery.

Introduction of bills.

CO-OPERATIVE ASSOCIATIONS

AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Macdonald, Bill 6, Co-operative

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

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

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

REAL ESTATE AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Macdonald, Bill 9, Real Estate

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

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

next sitting of the House after today.

PATIENTS' ESTATES

AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Macdonald, Bill 2, Patients' Estates

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

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

next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to

introduce a bill — the Limitations Act — of which notice has

not been given on the order paper, so that Members will have a

chance over the Easter recess to peruse same.

Leave granted.

LIMITATIONS ACT

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Macdonald, Bill 8, Limitations Act,

introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on

orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the

House after today.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. King presented the annual report of the Workers'

Compensation Board for the year ended December 31, 1974.

Hon. Mr. King files answers to questions standing in his

name on the order paper. (See appendix.)

Oral questions.

INDIAN CUT-OFF LANDS CLAIMS

Mr. Bennett: To the Minister of Human Resources: can

the Minister inform the House if he is

[ Page 954 ]

holding discussions with the Union of B.C. Indian

Chiefs

with respect to the cut-off claims?

Hon. N. Levi (Minister of Human Resources): Mr.

Speaker, we met — the Premier and seven or eight cabinet

Ministers — on March 3 at their request for an informal, in-camera

meeting. We had a meeting that ran, I think, the better

part of two hours, at which there was an in-depth exchange of

views. We said that we would take into consideration the issues

that they had raised, and we left.

I might add that I did get a telegram last week asking for

us to make a statement on the cut-off lands by April 1. I

replied to Chief Eneas — I don't know whether I've got a copy

of the telegram — in substance saying that it was my

understanding at the meeting that we had on March 4 that we had

an exchange of views, that discussions would continue, and that

we were not prepared to deal in this way, where we were getting

an ultimatum from one side or the other to make a decision by a

set date. That is where the issue is at the moment.

Mr. Bennett: A supplementary. Is the Minister

prepared to arrange a formal cabinet meeting with the Union of

B.C. Indian Chiefs concerning the cut-off claims? I believe the

issue under question is whether they could have a formal

meeting in advance of the April 1 date.

Hon. Mr. Levi: We indicated to them at the meeting

that we would be discussing this matter with the full cabinet.

We have not had an opportunity to do this at the moment. Then

we'll get back to them.

Mr. Bennett: A further supplemental. The other part

of that question was: will the Minister advise whether he will

recommend to the cabinet that they hold a formal meeting prior

to the April 1 date?

Hon. Mr. Levi: No, I'm not going to recommend that to

cabinet.

Mr. Gibson: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, is the

Minister at least willing to say at this stage that there is

great merit to the case of the bands affected in the cut-off

lands?

Hon. Mr. Levi: Mr. Member, I'm not really prepared to

discuss the merit. We had eight cabinet Ministers present; we

had a discussion; we said we would take it back to the full

cabinet. That's the next step in the question.

Mr. Speaker: May I point out that Hon. Members can't

ask what advice a Minister proposes to give the Crown in

question period or opinions on matters of policy until they are

declared.

RELOCATION OF GOVERNMENT

OFFICES DUE TO CUPE STRIKE

Mr. G.S. Wallace (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask

the same Minister on a different subject: is it correct that employees

of the Department of Human Resources in Victoria, Saanich and Sidney

have moved their usual offices to temporary locations during the strike

of the municipal employees?

Hon. Mr. Levi: I'll take that question as notice.

DEVELOPMENT OF LANGLEY LAND

PURCHASED BY LAND COMMISSION

Mr. R.H. McClelland (Langley): To the Minister of

Agriculture. I wonder if the Minister, in light of the answer

he gave yesterday with regard to the 2,000 acres in Langley,

would be prepared to either table with the House or tell the

House the names of the consultants who are doing the studies

into the land-use proposals for that area.

Hon. D.D. Stupich (Minister of Agriculture): I'll

take it as notice, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, while he's taking that

as notice, I know that last year there was $100,000 in taxes

paid on that land. Would the Minister be prepared to tell us

whether this year's property taxes of approximately $120,000

will be paid by the government or the Land Commission?

Hon. Mr. Stupich: The Land Commission pays taxes.

Mr. McClelland: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary, the

Land Commission Act says only that the Land Commission may pay

a grant in lieu of taxes. The Land Commission doesn't pay

taxes. All I'm seeking is an assurance that taxes will be paid

on this land in the coming year.

Mr. Speaker: I really think the question is out of

order. If the Minister wants to answer, he can do it with

leave.

RENEGOTIATION OF RCMP CONTRACT

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

direct a question to the Attorney-General with regard to the

RCMP contract between the province and the RCMP and the

to ask the Attorney-General if any preliminary negotiations

have taken place between the province and the Government of

Canada with regard to renewing this

[ Page 955 ]

contract, or if any negotiations are planned in the

immediate future.

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, we've received the

proposal of the Solicitor-General of Canada (Hon. Mr. Allmand),

which has retrenched from the federal contribution to the

presence of RCMP constables in British Columbia, both at the

provincial level and the municipal level.

We made our counter-proposal approximately 10 days ago,

wherein we asked the federal government to provide 50 per cent

of the cost throughout the province, because we want to

maintain that incentive and choice for municipalities to choose

either their municipal force or the RCMP on as favourable terms

as we can possibly get, especially at a time when we're

expanding the number of police officers in the community.

Mr. Phillips: Supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In

view of the fact that the cost of the policing by the RCMP in

this year's budget is only up 25 per cent, and the increase in

the cost of sheriffs' officers is up 438 per cent...

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: From nothing.

Mr. Phillips: ...is there reason to believe that

even if the RCMP contract is renewed the sheriffs' officers

will play a more important role in law enforcement in British

Columbia in the coming year?

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, no role in respect

to law enforcement, but prisoner escort, court attendance,

service of process, clerical work that formerly was done by

police officers, yes. The sheriffs force will be doing that and

releasing police officers into the community. The estimates are

up because we have started from nothing, and they will be up

further in the coming years because we now have on staff in the

area of 100 sheriffs' officers, but the training schools are

continuing.

Mr. Phillips: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Has

the Minister received any expression of concern from citizens'

groups about the possible replacement of the RCMP as the main

police force in British Columbia by either sheriffs' officers

or some other possible provincial police force under the

control of the Attorney-General? Has there been any concern,

any representation?

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, apart from Grace McCarthy,

apart from her concern, there is nevertheless a general concern in the

Province of British Columbia that we have improved police services. But

don't mix up the sheriffs' officers with the police work. They're

different. One's a civilian force, and the other is law enforcement.

ACTION AGAINST SCHOOL PICKETERS

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

Education, Mr. Speaker. In view of

section 127(1) of the Public

Schools Act, which makes it an offence for any person to

"disturb, interrupt or disquiet" any public school, has the

Minister recommended to the Attorney-General that he initiate

action under the Public Schools Act against the picketers

presently disrupting classes in the greater Victoria area?

Hon. E.E. Dailly (Minister of Education): No, I have

not. I will be meeting with some of the school board officials

this afternoon.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. May I

ask the Minister whether she has recommended, then, to the

Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) that he appoint a special

officer or an industrial inquiry commission into this dispute

in the greater Victoria area so the children can get back to

school?

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: I think the Hon. Member is aware

that you had a report from the Minister of Labour, I believe,

just a couple of days ago, to the effect that both of us were

involved in offering those services. Actually, it comes under

the jurisdiction of the Minister of Labour. As you know, they

were rejected.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: The question was whether or not

you had recommended to him that he do it. (Laughter.)

Hon. Mrs. Dailly: We work together.

DND LAND APPLICATION

Mr. H.W. Schroeder (Chilliwack): The question is for

the Minister of Agriculture. Has the Minister received notice,

either through his department or through the Land Commission,

of application from the Department of National Defence for use

of up to 700 acres of agricultural reserve land in the

Chilliwack constituency for either rifle range or demolition

purposes?

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Mr. Speaker, no such notice has

come to my attention yet. I do want to thank the Member for

bringing this to my attention earlier, but so far I've found

nothing about the Department of Defence making any approach to

the Department of Agriculture or any of its agencies.

Mr. Schroeder: Supplementary. Since the

[ Page 956 ]

Land Commission has already been made aware of this

application, can the Minister tell us what is the status of

land held in agricultural reserve? Can the federal government

purchase or expropriate or use land that's in reserve, or

designate its use without any reference to the land

reserve?

Hon. Mr. Stupich: Well, Mr. Speaker, I suggest you

ask my lawyer. I can't give a legal

interpretation of something

like that, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: These matters are decided by both

federal and provincial statute.

AMENDMENT TO SECURITIES ACT

Mr. J.R. Chabot (Columbia River): To the

Attorney-General. Does the government intend to proclaim the

amendment to the Securities Act, passed a year ago, requiring

the filing of a prospectus with the Securities Commission?

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: The Real Estate Act?

Mr. Chabot: No, the Securities Act, dealing with the

filing of a prospectus.

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: Well, under the Securities Act,

of course, you do have to file either a prospectus or a

statement of material facts if it's not a new issue. Under the

Real Estate Act, with respect to subdivision lots....

Mr. Chabot: No, no.

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: That's not what you're asking

about?

Mr. Chabot: No, the filing of a prospectus to the

Securities Commission.

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: Oh, it's required.

Mr. Chabot: With the Securities Commission it's

required.

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: Yes.

Mr. Chabot: You've proclaimed the

section in the Act

that requires it.

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: Yes.

Mr. Chabot: When?

Mr. Speaker: There again, it's a matter of public

record.

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: You know, subject to checking

with a lawyer, this is a matter that for years you've had to

file prospectuses with a new issue of shares, and they have to

be approved by the superintendent of brokers.

STEEL MILL LOCATIONS IN B.C.

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

for the Minister of Economic Development, Mr. Speaker. Recently

there was a rejection by the local community at Parksville of a

steel mill in that area. I wonder if the Minister of Economic

Development has given consideration to locations of steel mills

in British Columbia.

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

Well, Mr. Speaker, I'm not aware of.... If the city council or

the municipal council of Parksville has stated so, they haven't

indicated to me. There is a Qualicum resolution. I have been

talking to the mayor and council this morning and explained to

them, to what was apparently their satisfaction, what the

details of a feasibility study entailed and that there will be

a full public dialogue before any decision is made.

RAISING OF JUVENILE

TO ADULT COURT

Mr. Wallace: The Attorney-General took as notice a

question last week about a juvenile who had escaped many times

from the correctional centre and caused a large amount of

community damage. I asked whether an application to raise this

young man to adult court had been blocked by the

Attorney-General. I have since provided the Attorney-General

with the person's name, which I don't want disclosed for

obvious reasons. I wonder if the Attorney-General could tell

the House what the facts of that situation are.

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: The Hon. Member was good enough

this morning to give me the name, which I shall keep in

confidence. I am having the investigation as to what happened

at the time the application to raise was made or not made. I'll

advise the Hon. Member.

It has nothing to do, incidentally, with the Department of

Human Resources. That's a decision made by prosecutor in

consultation with probation officers as to whether or not they

should advocate raising the juvenile or oppose the raising of

the juvenile to adult court.

PREMIER'S MEETING WITH UBCM

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

[ Page 957 ]

the Minister of Finance: is the Minister prepared

to inform

the House of the results of his meeting yesterday with the

members of the Union of B.C. Municipalities? Would the Minister

inform the House whether or not he gave them a firm commitment

for an absolute sum of money, irrespective of the outcome of his

peregrination to Ottawa?

Hon. D. Barrett (Premier): Question 1: no. Question

2: no.

APPROVAL OF MOHAWK OIL REFINERY

Mr. McClelland: To the Minister of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources: could the Minister advise the House whether or

not the Environment and Land Use Committee has been asked for

any approvals or has given any approvals to the proposed Mohawk

oil refinery on Sumas mountain?

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

Resources): No, I don't believe the committee has made any

decision. The committee has been informed at initial stages, but I

think that's the situation at the moment.

Mr. McClelland: Would the Environment and Land Use

Committee be required to give a final approval before that

refinery could go ahead?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I think it's a matter that should be

reviewed, and I might advise the Member further. I would like

to become fully up to date with respect to any activities

between the Mohawk principals and the staff of the

secretariat.

DUE DATE FOR B.C. RAIL

ANNUAL REPORT

Mr. A.V. Fraser (Cariboo): A question to the Premier

as president of the B.C. Railway: in view of the fact that the

annual report of the B.C. Railway was tabled in this House on

February 22, 1974, for the 1973 operations, when can we expect

the 1974 report, as it's now a month or so late?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Thank you, Mr. Member, for the

question. The report is a little late this year.

Mr. Fraser: When can we expect the report?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Very soon, I hope, Mr. Member.

INVESTIGATION OF CASA LOMA

CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES

Mr. D.A. Anderson: On March 19 I asked the Attorney-General

whether he was launching an investigation into the Casa Loma project on

the strength of representations from N.B. Electric Ltd. of curious

practices that took place in construction. He said he'd take the

question as notice. I wonder if he would now inform us whether such an

investigation has been launched.

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: The Hon. Member asked me if I had

received a letter. I had received the letter which did make

some allegations that there was unfair preference as between

lienholders. The letter from Neville Bernard also alleged that

some of the funds that were supposed to go into the Casa Loma

had been expended on the Mahal health resort, I think it

was.

I don't order an investigation without some substantiation.

On the other hand, this was somebody who was a contractor

working on the project, and he had submitted this in letter

form. He said very fairly that he didn't know whether or not it

was substantiated. But on the strength of his representation

some days ago I asked the commercial fraud

section of the RCMP

to check into it, making it clear to Mr. Bernard that his civil

remedy — because a court case may go forward there — was

something he had to attend to himself. A criminal investigation — maybe

I shouldn't even use the word "criminal"; it's a very

tentative investigation — should not inhibit him from taking

what action he should take, if any, through his lawyer to

protect his own interests.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: PREMIER'S OFFICE

(continued)

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

Mr. A.V. Fraser (Cariboo): I have raised this issue

before, but I don't think we had an answer. I am referring to

the estimates that we have before us, and I'd like to hear what

the Minister of Finance has to say. It's my information that in

the estimate books there is a $135 million figure in there for

stumpage sales.

I understand from the industry that they are owed $90

million by the government for roads constructed last year. What

I would like to know is: if the amount is owed, and I

understand it is owed, does it come out of this $135 million

estimate of revenue and reduce this revenue to $45 million?

There's a great deal of difference here, and I understand

that all this money owing is owed to the interior forest

operations for roads already built. I

[ Page 958 ]

also further understand that the Forest Service is

still

trying to figure out how much is owed and to whom. It seems to

me that with this debt, and in view of the stumpage that will

be available under the depressed lumber market, we could well

end up having no revenue from this

section at all during the

new fiscal year that we're discussing now.

The other complication about it is the fact that these

operators who have built these roads have not been paid, so now

they haven't got the financial capability to go on and build

roads this year. I think it's quite an important question for

the industry. It certainly is for the government in relating it

to the revenue of the government if they have miscalculated

this.

I notice that the Premier has asked the Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams), and possibly

he will now be able to answer that.

I would just like to go back onto the Arab money deal for a

minute. Did the Premier ever ask to have that clause taken out

of the deal where they didn't want the source of their

borrowing divulged? If he didn't, why didn't he?

The other thing was asked of the Minister in question period — about

the discussions he had with the Union of B.C.

Municipalities yesterday. Did you tell them they would get

their share of $1.50 per hundred cubic feet, more or less?

Exactly what did you really tell them? So I'll just lead off

with that and see if we get some answers.

Hon. D. Barrett (Premier): On No. 3, Mr. Member. I

told them that I felt very, very sure there would be an

increase in the price of natural gas, and that the commitment

made by the government in the budget speech would be carried

through; that is, they would receive one-third of the net

returns of any increase over $1. I do not believe the federal

government will turn down our request for a price increase

because, as you know, Mr. Member, the same gas is selling in

Alberta for an ordered price by an Idaho court — for a minimum

of $1.63. If the Idaho court says that the B.C. gas is worth at

least $1.63, surely the federal government in Ottawa will say

the same thing.

Number 2 question: the Arab money. We sent a wire as recently

as February asking if they had changed their mind about that

clause, and they had not. Every other detail of that loan is

public and available to the Member, except the source.

Number 1 question, Mr. Member, on stumpage, is a detailed

response. I've turned to the Minister of Lands, Forests and

Water Resources, and he suggests that a more appropriate time

for that question to be asked would be under his estimates.

Since he recognizes my superior skills, he also acknowledges

that I don't know everything. (Laughter.)

Mr. G.B. Gardom (Vancouver–Point Grey): It's nice to

hear the Hon. Premier respond so quickly today, which is

certainly a departure from the earlier days we spent on his

estimates, but sitting from this corner there are still the

better part of five or six....

Interjection.

Mr. Gardom: Yes, he didn't say anything, but it was a

quick response. Mr. Member. I agree with you on that.

But there are still five or six questions that remain

unanswered in this corner of the room, and I would appreciate

having the responses to those. Surely to goodness, I don't have

to repeat them to the Premier. He's fully aware of what they

are.

One thing that disturbs me a great deal in considering his

financial responsibility is the amount of money that he has set

aside — his contingency dollars, his hedge, his rainy-day

money. It seems to be in the vicinity of about half a million

dollars — about $500,000 in a budget of $3.25 billion. I think

to set aside only that amount of money for a rainy day....

It's really a very measly, miserly and miserable sum. It's in a

rainy-day ratio of about 1 to 6,500, and it's just plain and

simply dangerous. It certainly is a complete reversal of any

evidence of restraint. The government has been talking about

restraint, but there hasn't been any evidence to the general

public that they intend to bring that restraint into

reality.

I would suggest to the Hon. Premier that he could just as

readily display in this House today some evidence of restraint.

He could do that extremely simply by saying that he's going to

cut down the enormous amount of money in the estimates for

advertising. We find that advertising has increased in these

estimates that are before the Legislature now. It's up from $4

million to $6.2 million in one year, and that only includes the

estimates that are before the House. It has nothing to do with

the Crown corporations, and it's extremely difficult to receive

precise, if indeed any, cogent information about their

operations.

But I think it wouldn't be going out of the ball park or out

of line to estimate that we'll find an advertising expense item

to the people of British Columbia of $12 million this year. And

that will be for the sole purpose of pumping up failing cabinet

Ministers and some unfortunate programmes.

What we should be doing, Mr. Chairman, is not increasing but

decreasing that pork barrel. I would commend the Hon. Premier

to raise that miserable little half a million dollars in $3.25

billion — that miserable little half a million dollars of rainy-day

money — up to $12 million by cancelling out these

unnecessary and uncalled-for advertising programmes.

Earlier on the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) was

wagering with the integrity of the

[ Page 959 ]

stock exchange, and he was talking about the Monte

Carlo

operations. I would suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this

government's dealings with the municipalities — nay, indeed the

Premier's dealings with the municipalities — are far worse and

far less principled than any kind of Monte Carlo operation. The

municipalities have been thrust into a game completely contrary

to their wishes, a game that is so politically sleazy that it

would make even Las Vegas blush.

The Minister of Finance knows full well that the

municipalities in this province are financially crippled. He

knows full well that they cannot exist and cannot make their

way without provincial assistance, and he also knows that they

cannot make any kind of a move, let alone a move onto the step,

without an injection of public money. They cannot administer;

they cannot plan; they cannot properly function, and for all

practical purposes he has denuded them at the present time of

the responsibilities which they have to take care of.

Is his response being an effective response or a responsible

response, Mr. Chairman? I would say in no way, for his total

response is: "Just stick around. I'm going to go high-rolling

on to Ottawa." He's offering a gambling mechanism as an answer

for a need, and that's just not right. He's offering them a

share of the unknown, and what they need is a positive dollar

commitment below which it should not, under any circumstances,

drop. I asked the Hon. Premier today if he had given that

kind of commitment to the Union of B.C. Municipalities

yesterday, and his answer was in the negative.

So he's just going to go to Ottawa, and he's going to Ottawa

without considering the provisions of the British North America

Act; he's going to Ottawa without considering whether or not it

would be appropriate to have a determination of a very serious,

far-reaching, difficult and vexing condition by the Supreme

Court of Canada. He's avoided that step. Are there conflicting

provisions in the British North America Act, or are there not?

Should not that be something that should be determined by the

Supreme Court of Canada? The Hon. Premier, Mr. Chairman, is

essentially going to Ottawa like Lester Maddox, but with all of

the bargaining equipment of Casper Milquetoast, and that's

exactly what it's going to be.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: No!

Mr. Gardom: The Hon. Premier made the analogy to one of the

Members on this side of the House — he said it was like going in to the

basket for a lay-up and finding that somebody had covered the hoop.

Well, okay. If that is the situation that he has arrived at today,

surely to goodness the responsible step that should be taken by the

Premier of this province is not to leave all of his bargaining

authority at home but to make up his mind as to whether or not there

should be a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Now the Premier ran, and this government ran, very, very

much on the policy of open government. They were going to tell

all, and let the sunshine in; there was going to be proper

accountability and they were going to furnish safeguards. But

then they got elected, and of course, what followed? Well,

what followed was as little as possible. Mr. Chairman, they

snapped down the blinds, they reduced accountability, and for

all practical purposes eliminated safeguards.

I would say that now, with a most serious example of abuse

since they've taken office, they've throttled the right of the

public to ask questions about the responsibility of the office

of the Minister of Finance, when he refused to answer questions

as to what discretions he was exercising under the provisions

of the Revenue Act of this province. I have to ask the Minister

of Finance if he has exercised discretion afforded to him by

law under the provisions of the Revenue Act. He he invested any

moneys from the consolidated revenue fund in the capital stock

of any corporations? If so, which companies, how much, when and

in what manner?

You know, when the Premier introduced this bill the former

Leader of the Opposition and former Minister of Finance (Hon.

Mr. Bennett) regarded this as perhaps the most single dangerous

step undertaken by the present administration. I think he's

been proven to be absolutely correct in that point.

When the Premier introduced this bill he said it was a very

short bill. We all appreciate that. In Hansard on April

6, 1973, he said this:

I want to assure the Hon. Members that it is not the

intention of the government by this amendment to start playing

the market with the people's money, but rather it is the

investment policy of this government only to commit the

people's funds to the capital stock of those corporations where

it is considered the investment is a most prudent one or it is

considered highly in the public interest to do so.

But, Mr. Chairman, he refuses to furnish this

Legislature

with any specific evidence as to whether these investments were

prudent, whether they were highly in the public interest to

take place.

When he closed the debate on the bill on April 6, 1973, he

said this:

This amendment is the first shift away from the

balance-sheet mentality of governments that have not understood the

wonderful potential of the British parliamentary system. The Queen has

given to the people the right to decide for themselves...

"for themselves" — he's deciding unto himself, not

for the

people themselves.

...with scrutiny here in this chamber.

He's not providing the scrutiny here in this

[ Page 960 ]

chamber because he's refusing to answer the

questions and

they are being ruled out of order by the Chair, and you know

it!

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Nonsense!

Mr. Gardom: The Premier ended with: "And it is on

that great delegation of authority by the Queen that I move

second reading of this bill." You moved second reading of the

bill on the basis that the people would have the right to

decide for themselves and that the policies and procedures

could be scrutinized in here. You have made that absolutely,

totally impossible.

A couple of days ago I was ruled out of order for asking

you, Mr. Minister of Finance, how much money you, in your

discretion, had authorized to be ploughed out of the

consolidated revenue fund into the Insurance Corp. of America.

I was ruled out of order by the Chair, and you sat silent in

your chair. You even said this in your budget address:

"Legislation approved by the Legislature last year provides

that the corporation will have access to the consolidated

revenue funds of the province in order to assist in its

operation."

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I'm shocked!

Mr. Gardom: If you read

section 9 of the Act, it says

this: "The Minister of Finance may, in his discretion, invest

any moneys of the consolidated revenue fund in the capital

stock of any corporation." We were ruled out of order yesterday

by the Chair, supported by this enormous socialistic mandate

over there, on the ground that it was not possible to answer

any questions along this line. It is supposed to be shuffled

off onto some Minister who does not have the power and who does

not have the discretion to make this allocation of public

funds.

Hon. G.R. Lea (Minister of Highways): You're against

the voters.

Mr. Gardom: I'm not against the voters, Mr. Member.

Not at all. I'm trying to protect their interests. You can't

find the answer to these questions from your Premier. He won't

tell you. He won't tell anyone. It's unto himself. It's only

unto himself, and it is exceptionally wrong — and little

wonder. I really commend the former Leader of the Opposition

(Hon. Mr. Bennett) for having the foresight to see that this

was the most dangerous amendment that was ever enacted by this

administration since they took office in 1972. You have proven

him to be absolutely right, 100 per cent.

How many companies have you put public money into? About 25?

And you have not furnished this House....

Interjection.

Mr. Gardom: I'm not quite finished. You have not

furnished this House with the very safeguards that you promised

yourself when you introduced the bill. You said there would be

an opportunity for scrutiny here in this chamber, and there has

been none.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Sit down and I'll tell you. Don't

you want to hear the answer?

Mr. Gardom: You were asked questions about the influx

and transfusion of money into the Insurance Corp. of British

Columbia. You were asked questions about that every day of your

estimates, and you've never answered one. You have not answered

one. That's being totally irresponsible. You are causing these

estimates to get into a critical situation by delay, and you're

totally responsible for that, and you seem to think that's

funny. My friend, it is not funny. It's a deliberate plot on

your part, and you know it, because you want to shore up some

of those weak cabinet Ministers at the tail end of the

estimates, and you know that very well, too. This is a very

cunning and a very designed procedure on your part. That's what

it is.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Nothing to do with your filibuster,

eh?

Mr. Gardom: No. If you can call a filibuster the

right to ask a question and the non-right not to answer, then

you can accuse that of being a filibuster, but it isn't that,

and you know it.

What you've done is just not answered questions. You've just

not answered questions. I can well remember when you used to

sit in that lonely little seat up there in the corner of the

room, and your voice used to go up octave after octave saying:

"I want answers to my questions. I want answers to my

questions!" Yes, you did.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I never used to say that. I used to

say: "Why don't they quit?"

Mr. Gardom: Yes, you did. I remember you doing that

very well. You used to get into dreadful frustration. Dreadful!

You didn't know whether you were Angus or Agnes at times.

(Laughter.) That's right!

Hon. Mr. Barrett: No!

Mr. Gardom: Yes! (Laughter.)

In all seriousness, you can have these estimates. They

should come to an end, in my view, but you should answer the

questions you've been asked, and you have not done it.

[ Page 961 ]

You have not answered the questions about the reserve

Indians. You have not answered the questions raised to you

about eliminating the 5 per cent tax on prescriptive drugs.

You've not answered the questions about the amount of money.... I see

the Chairman's not ruling me out of order today, and

I wonder why. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

Mr. Gardom: It was inappropriate yesterday. Have we

had a change of thought?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. When the Hon. Member

finishes I will clarify a point with him, but would the Hon.

Member continue?

Mr. Gardom: You have not answered the questions about

the amount of money you have committed to infuse into the

Insurance Corp. of British Columbia, even though you earlier

committed that they would never ever receive a subsidy.

Interjection.

Mr. Gardom: Are we going to turn another 180

degrees?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Gardom: And you have never yet informed....

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. It might be appropriate

at this point to make a distinction, which I think the Hon.

Member fails to appreciate, from the Chair. In discussing this

area, that is to say government investments or financial

assistance to Crown corporations, the test is: is the

investment on the initiative of the Minister of Finance? Then,

of course, properly the questioning should be to the Minister

of Finance.

However, if the initiative...

Mr. Gardom: Who wrote that?

Mr. Chairman: ...to buy shares arises in any other

department, or assistance to ICBC originates from that

department or that area of responsibility of that Minister,

then the question should properly be directed to the Minister

who initiated that request.

I trust that the Hon. Member gets the distinction. Would he

continue?

Mr. Gardom: I get the distinction all right; the most

remarkable bit of soft-soap we've heard all session, Mr. Chairman. It

doesn't matter who may initiate a request; the person responsible for

paying the

money is the Minister of Finance, and only he can exercise that

discretion. A request may be initiated from the Member for

Atlin (Mr. Calder).

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. In that case....

Mr. Gardom: It may be initiated from yourself, but he

is the man who has the discretion to pay.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. If the Hon. Member is

correct in what he is saying, then we should have the Premier

do all the estimates rather than the various Ministers.

Mr. Gardom: Oh, not at all. Oh, no.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: That's what they want.

Mr. Gardom: I'm talking about....

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I think the point is

that the Minister of Finance provides the money for every

department in whatever form it may be required; however, the

important thing is the administrative policy or the policy of

the department and who sets the policy. Clearly it is the

Minister responsible in the department; therefore he should be

the one to answer the question.

Mr. Gardom: Oh, no, no, no.

Mr. D.M. Phillips (South Peace River): Author!

Author!

Mr. Gardom: Oh, with every respect, Mr. Chairman, you

are totally wrong. However, I suppose I am forced, by virtue of

the fact of the number of seats sitting over there, to

subscribe to your ruling — if it is a ruling again. Is it?

Mr. Chairman: It is a repetition of the ruling.

Mr. Gardom: It is a repetition of the ruling. Tedious

and repetitious repetition of the ruling. But, Mr. Chairman...

Mr. Phillips: Who wrote it? Who wrote the ruling?

Mr. Gardom: ...it is the Premier who made the

decision.

Mr. Phillips: Shocking!

Mr. Gardom: It is the Premier and Minister of Finance

who made the decision that the Insurance Corp. of British

Columbia was going to get help. It

[ Page 962 ]

wasn't the Minister of Transport and Communications

(Hon.

Mr. Strachan); you can bet your sweet bippy on that.

The Minister of Finance also decided, Mr. Chairman, if you

will reflect, exactly from whence this money would come.

Mr. Phillips: Right!

Mr. Gardom: And he decided it would come from the gas

tax.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Gardom: I'm wanting to find out how much money

from the gas tax he is...

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Gardom: ...laundering through the consolidated

revenue fund and ploughing into the Insurance Corp. of British

Columbia.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Gardom: He still hasn't answered the

question.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Hon. Member, before I

recognize the Hon. Premier I think I will repeat the point

again, that, clearly, if the standard which the Hon. Member is

applying were the one that determined the Chair, then we would

simply have the Premier deal with all the estimates, since he

authorizes the money for every department.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Well, Mr. Chairman, if you want to

be....

Mr. Gardom: A point of order, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The Hon. Second Member

for Vancouver–Point Grey on a point of order.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I just gave you all the answers,

and you weren't listening. (Laughter.)

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Gardom: Mr. Chairman, you once again interrupted

me. I sat down and recognized you, Mr. Chairman, but I didn't

yield the floor. You were looking this way, I'm sure.

Mr. Chairman: The Hon. Member has the floor. Please

continue.

Mr. Gardom: Well, okay, then why did you suddenly

recognize the Premier?

Mr. Chairman: I have not recognized....

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Because I was up.

Mr. Chairman: Order! The Chair is recognizing the

Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey.

Mr. Gardom: In view of that enthusiastic support, I'd

like him to have a shot.

Mr. Chairman: The Hon. Premier has the floor.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Chairman, first of all, I must

be responsible to make an observation on the attempts by the

spokesmen for the Liberal Party to now justify their week's

delay in these estimates by saying it's our fault.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Ten days.

They have embarked upon a course of action unprecedented in

this House in delaying these estimates to the point where the

government is going to have to consider setting aside time in

estimates for every department to be heard so that a

schedule

will be brought to this House, because we do not want the

Liberals to waste all the time in the House and not give the

opposition the opportunity of hearing every single Minister. So

we will have to consider...

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: ...bringing this

schedule

forward.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Would the Hon. Premier

confine his remarks to the vote, too?

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: No, no, any vote can be called at

any time. If they are going to be irresponsible, I want my

Ministers to be up here to answer questions. If they don't want

to ask them, that's up to them.

Mr. Chairman: Are you calling the vote?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: No, I'm not calling the vote,

because I'm enjoying this opportunity to pummel the opposition.

I have never had such a frequent, consistent opportunity to

allow them to expose themselves, Mr. Chairman. Every time they

get up and talk it's a vacuum of reason, a vacuum of,

[ Page 963 ]

not intelligence but perceptiveness, a vacuum of

consistency

and, on top of that, a vacuum of leadership.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: What happens when a party begins to

disintegrate is that all of them begin to act like leaders. The

result is that there is no leadership whatsoever.

Mr. G.S. Wallace (Oak Bay): Not this party.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: But when a party is entirely

defeated, nobody speaks — and lets the rump group take all the

lead. The official opposition hasn't said a word — the Liberals

are doing all the....

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Would the Hon. Premier

confine his remarks to the vote.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Yes.

Interjection.

MR. Mr. Barrett: Now just because of.... There's the

man who should have been the leader, but he got vacuumed out of

the convention. It was a shortage of money, not power.

The question....

Interjections.

Mr. Phillips: The only vacuum is in your head.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Chairman, just because you

state a premise....

Mr. Phillips: The vacuum is in your head.

(Laughter.)

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Just because you state a premise,

you have the presumption to think that that's the only premise

that is viable. I don't know how you fellows figure that out.

You come up with the argument that if I don't take your advice

to threaten the Americans by turning off the gas, I've thrown

away the only threat that we've got. That's the kind of

single-minded, unimaginative, dull, reactionary, threatening

negativism that we expect from someone other than the Liberal

Party. To have the Liberals stand up and threaten our American

friends...

An Hon. Member: Oh!

Hon. Mr. Barrett: ...is enough to call the CIA on

their head.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Shocking!

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Far be it from me, I hope, that

Ottawa has heard what your limited threat is to them. You said

we should consider in the weapons of our arsenal — even using

war-sounding words — the weapon of the threat to cut off the

gas.

Mr. Wallace: Peace.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Peace. Right, brother, I believe in

peace. I don't want to attack the United States, but if the

Liberals do, go ahead. Sign up your army and go at it, but

don't try to leave the impression with this House that that's

the only weapon because it's the one you thought of. You

haven't been doing any thinking.

Just because we've rejected that doesn't mean that there are

not other ways, period. Do you want me to stand up and give you

all the details of the other things? That would be stupid. That

would be giving away all of our plans so that you could get on

the phone and call Ottawa...

An Hon. Member: Oh, oh!

Hon. Mr. Barrett: ...because even though we know you

have a difference of opinion with Ottawa, you still would call

them and tell them what's going on.

Hon. A.B. MacDonald (Attorney-General): They've got a

pipeline to Thumper.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: A pipeline to Thumper. As a matter

of fact, you talk about advertising — I'm glad you mentioned

after page after page in Canadian newspapers are full of

full-page ads saying: "Conserve energy." How much is that

costing the federal government and the taxpayers of this

country?

Then, this morning, I hear on the air Thumper's voice — the

other Macdonald — saying: "Don't use any more energy than you

have to, folks." Do you know how many kilowatts he burned up

sending that message out, let alone the taxpayers' money? The

Liberals are in enough trouble without taking national

advertising programmes to advertise: "Turn off the lights." If

you turn off the light, you can't read the ad.

Then you've got all these radio programmes, and you've got

the nerve to come in here and say that our advertising budget

is too high.

An Hon. Member: Shocking!

Hon. Mr. Barrett: It is disgraceful, and

[ Page 964 ]

I'm pleased that you've acknowledged that you're

incorrect

and you're hanging your head in shame. You're using your own

words.

I want to tell you we will never spend $10 million a year,

like the federal government is doing, on nonsense ads....

An Hon. Member: You're shedding.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: $10 million. I'm shredding, I'm

shredding, I'm shredding.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I'm just thinking.... I'm

shredding; that's true. It's like your multicolored,

many-disciplined political career. (Laughter.) It has so many

facets, it's impossible to put any sense of philosophy through

in terms of your experience in politics. The only thing that

stops you from jumping to another party is that there's nowhere

else to go — you've hit bottom. (Laughter.)

Now, Mr. Chairman, the question of the purchase of shares.

You unintentionally — because I know he wouldn't do it with any

other reason in mind; I know that Member, he wouldn't — you

have unintentionally left the impression in this House that we

have bought shares in a company that you don't already know

about. Now that's not true, Mr. Member.

Mr. Gardom: No, no, no, I wouldn't do that, not

giving the full facts, and you know it.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You wouldn't do that. That's

good.

An Hon. Member: Don't try to fog the gears.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Member, how can you fog gears?

(Laughter.) When you're that hard up and start quoting an

ex-Socred, then I know you're in trouble.

Look, there is a question....

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Political politics — those are the

worst kind. (Laughter.)

Mr. Member, there is a question on the order paper, which

will be answered, giving in exact detail how much money....

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: That's a dangerous threat.

(Laughter.)

From general revenue, I want the House to know, we have only

purchased West Coast Transmission shares and some Can-Cel shares. The

other shares that we've purchased have been through the pension funds.

They're all well-known and publicly made available. That information

will be put on the order paper in detail.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: That's shares — you asked about

shares.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I took the note. It says here you

want to know under that....

Mr. Gardom: The validity of the reasoning.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Oh, the validity of the reasoning — I'm

coming to that. I've got a note about that.

The reason....

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: No matter what I said, you wouldn't

be happy, because you have a different philosophy than I have.

You believe that private enterprise knows best and that the

people should only be supplicants in their own house. They

should be thankful, somehow, that the big outside investors

came in and developed our resources, and not ever ask for a

share. We don't agree with that, Mr. Member.

When El Paso was told by the American court to divest

themselves of Westcoast Transmission shares, which amounted to

13.5 per cent of those shares, we bought them. And what money

did we use to buy them? Why, irony of ironies, for the first

time in Canadian history, instead of Americans using Canadian

funds to buy out a Canadian company, we Canadians used American

funds to buy out a share of an American company to bring it

home to Canada. If you don't like that philosophy, you go tell

the people of the province. But for the first time in Canadian

history, we're using our resources to gain control of our own

industrial development system. What's wrong with that?

Mr. J.R. Chabot (Columbia River): Filibustering.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Filibuster? Now I'm being attacked

for answering questions after being attacked for not answering

questions. He asked me the philosophical reasons. I'm giving

them.

[ Page 965 ]

Mr. Gardom: How much?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You know, when you open your mouth

like that, Mr. Member, I keep on feeling like getting an apple

and putting it in there.

How much for the Westcoast Transmission shares? A little

over $25 million.

Mr. Gardom: No, no. ICBC.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: How much for B.C. Telephone? Nine

to $10 million on B.C. Telephone.

Mr. Gardom: ICBC.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: ICBC? I have told you, Mr. Member,

that no payment has been made from ICBC. Our policy is this — and you

want a policy statement: we believe that there should

be a shared approach to paying those premiums. When we got an

increase....

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Just a minute. Of course, there's

been a change. We got an increase....

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Now, Mr. Member, you're a cynic

when you say a thing like that. You want people to pay twice as

much for their car insurance under private companies rather

than letting people share in their own revenues.

We got an increase in petroleum prices after hard bargaining

with the federal government. The Province of Saskatchewan and

the Province of Alberta reduced their gasoline tax by 5 cents,

thereby allowing tourists not to pay their fair share of the

highways and other costs. We said we're not going to reduce the

gasoline tax, but the more money we got on gas we would help to

pay the drivers' premium here in British Columbia. What's wrong

with that?

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I want you, Mr. Member, to go out

and tell every voter that if they vote for you, you will raise

the price of car insurance to them. I ask you to do that in all

fairness. I ask you not to play politics. Go out and tell them

your exact position. You believe the premiums should be

higher.

Mr. Fraser: Go buy a gallon of collision.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Gallon of collision. Mr. Member, that's an

inappropriate comment. You have struck me dumb with that vicious

attack. I listened to a Socred argument once, and the same thing

happened.

I want to tell you, those purchases are public information. ICBC

will be spoken about by the Minister. But you have gone on a course

here, for heaven knows what reason, of stalling and delaying and

stopping the estimates from being passed. I think what you're trying to

do is to say: "We'll waste all the time on the Premier's estimates, and

when the time is up, we'll say we didn't have enough time to question

the other Ministers." Because I'm concerned that that's the suicidal

course you're going on, I think we should seriously consider a

schedule

to make sure that every Minister speaks in this House and is available

for questioning so that the opposition must do their duty. They must do

their duty, and the government must not impede them from doing their

duty and must make available these estimates for everybody: the

Attorney-General, the Minister of Human Resources, the Minister of

Agriculture, the Minister of Recreation and Conservation, the Minister

of Recreation and Conversation and the Minister and the Minister and

the Minister. I want democracy done, even if the opposition wants to

thwart it, even if they go out of their way to kill it in British

Columbia.

Time's up? No time limit? Did you say aye? Oh, I'm

sorry.

Therefore I've answered all the questions. I've gone through

it all.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Ten days.

Westcoast was bought with Petroleum Corp.? Oh, that's right —

revenue from the Petroleum Corp.

Mr. G.F. Gibson (North Vancouver-Capilano): New

questions, Dave?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: New questions? New questions,

because I've answered the old ones. So you're really revealing

that you're going to ask....

Look, I don't mind answering all the questions. I enjoy

having the opportunity of sharing with all the people of this

province the wonderful job this government has done. I want to

thank you humbly for giving me that opportunity. The more the

people understand what we have done in car insurance, in

repatriating our economy, in sharing the benefits of the good

fiscal policies of this government, of having the opportunity

to say that we are masters in our own home.... These things, I

say to you humbly, are most welcome in this province,

considering a 100-year history of buccaneering by the free

enterprisers, the giveaway gang over there...

Mr. Chabot: You're emptying the galleries.

[ Page 966 ]

Hon. Mr. Barrett: ...the doom-and-gloom boys over

there who have never looked forward or had faith in the great

potential of our own people. All of them said to give it away

to the outside doers. I say that's wrong. That's the difference

of philosophy. That's why we're here; that's why you're there.

My heart goes out to you. My reason goes out to you, and you

won't accept either.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: But that doesn't stop me from

sharing my concern for you. I want to say I've done my best to

educate them, but some people, no matter how hard you try, just

can't learn. But I still have great concern for you, Mr.

Member, and I'm still taking notes.

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Chairman, that was another little

play by the No. 1 actor in the House. While he stands in this

House and filibusters his own estimates, after one solid week,

Mr. Chairman — one solid week of seven sessions — of not giving

an answer of a particular question, yesterday he invites the

leaders of the opposition parties to share in his conspiracy of

silence into where he borrowed the money for B.C. Hydro.

Mr. Chairman, I want to tell you that the people of British

Columbia have lost faith in this government. It isn't that the

previous administration didn't have faith in the future of this

government. That's why it was such a great province. That's why

the keys were so full. That's why the economy was so strong

that even their break-and-take, even their destructive policies

have not been able to cease the great economic machine that was

filling the coffers to give this Minister of Finance the money

to go out and play with on the stock market. I notice he plays

with the tax money, but he doesn't play with the stock market

with his own money.

I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, the people and taxpayers

of this province have lost faith in this government. They told

the Premier that in the federal election last year. They told

the Premier that again in the civic elections last fall, and

they told him again on Saturday in the election in Esquimalt.

The people are telling the Premier that they have lost faith in

his policies and that they are tired and sick of having welfare

and no wages — that they want work and wages. But the Premier

doesn't seem to listen. He goes on. He seems to enjoy getting

up here and going on with his clown act, but really it's time

the Premier took a serious look. He's going to spend $3.2

billion of hard-earned taxpayers' money this year, and it's time

that he started taking on a little seriousness and recognized

the heavy responsibility that he holds in that office as

Minister of Finance.

Yesterday afternoon the Premier promised to tell us how much the

options were sold for when he let the options go to purchase shares in

the Bank of British Columbia. Mr. Chairman, you talked about him

shedding just a moment ago, but he was shedding policies, and he sheds

policies from day to day. He's not like a eucalyptus tree or any

ordinary animal that maybe sheds their fur, their feathers or their

horns or leaves once a year. Our Premier sheds policies every day of

life — it just depends on which way the wind is blowing.

He was shedding another policy because last year, in March,

1974, the Premier said that he wanted the people of British

Columbia to own a share in this bank and he was generally

concerned about it. He said, and I quote from Hansard on

March 4, 1974:

We have moved to go up to our federal limit in the

bank because we believe in a publicly owned bank or, at the

very least, the presence of the public in a bank, and we are on

record as supporting that concept right from the very beginning — as a

matter of fact, since 1933, the founding of the CCF and

the NDP.

That was last year. But this year the Premier's policy has

changed again. In answer to a question he again tries to muddy

up the water because he says: "When we buy shares you attack us

for buying them; when we don't pick them up you attack us for

not picking up the options. Fellows, you've changed your

position so much in six months it's unbelievable." But it is

the Premier who has changed his position; flip-flop, doubletalk — is he

really sincere when he says that he wants the public to

have a share in a banking institution of British Columbians?

Heaven knows that this Premier has attacked the eastern banking

system practically ever since he has been in this Legislature,

and yet he lets the options to pick up these shares slip

through his fingers to an eastern financial institution.

Interjection.

Mr. Phillips: Yes, financial wizard. I'll tell you, I

think it's a financial lizard — he changes colour or changes

his skin.

The Premier hasn't told us what he sold these options for,

and he hasn't given this House a reasonable explanation as to

why he did not pick up those options of the shares in the Bank

of British Columbia. There's some wishy-washy, airy-fairy

scheme that he has going to come in, and we are going to have

the opportunity to vote on a financial institution in British

Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr. Phillips: Would you call these gentlemen to

order, Mr. Chairman? (Laughter.)

An Hon. Member: Wanna step outside?

[ Page 967 ]

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The Hon. Member for

South Peace River has the floor.

Interjection.

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Chairman, it's astonishing to me

that the Premier has changed his position from a year ago, when

he stated clearly that it's a backward move. You had the

opportunity to move up....

Interjection.

Mr. Phillips: Listen, Mr. Chairman, I'll take my

embarrassments and I'll take my lumps and burnps from the

Premier, because he thinks he can get up and twist the thing.

He said it clearly in Hansard that it was a policy of

the government....

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I don't want to embarrass you, but

you're wrong.

Mr. Phillips: Well, I just read it out of

Hansard .

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Well, sit down, and I'll

explain.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please!

Mr. Phillips: The Premier can try and try and twist

his position around if he wants to.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Would you buy non-voting

shares?

Mr. Phillips: He can try and twist his position

around if he wants to, Mr. Chairman, but by having over 10 per

cent of the shares, you can get involved in the voting

shares.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You can't vote more than 10 per

cent — you know that — by federal law.

Mr. Phillips: By holding the 10 per cent you exercise

more influence in the operation of that bank. The Premier has

stated very clearly that he would go on and bring his options

up to 10 per cent. But the Premier is trying to twist the

situation around now.

The State of California, Mr. Chairman, suffered until the

financial institutions in California put the say of those

financial institutions in the State of California and got away

from the shoestrings that were being tied around them by the

New York banking system. A movement on behalf of the government

would lead the people of British Columbia to know that he has

faith in the Bank of British Columbia. There would be more

shares purchased in British Columbia by the Bank of British

Columbia.

The Premier is going to get up and try and try and twist

this around and say that 10 per cent isn't a voting share. I

can hear him now. But he doesn't seem to realize, Mr. Chairman,

that he as Minister of Finance influences a lot of purchasing

in British Columbia and influences what people will do with

their investments. He has shown his ignorance in this several

times. I want to tell you, it's just another example of the

Premier's ignorance of the power and the influence that he has

in this province.

It's a complete turnabout from what he said last year, and I

won't read it again, where he says he believed in it and he

would go ahead and purchase more shares. In one place he even

said that he would bring it up to the maximum. "Nonetheless, we

agreed with that and we agree that we should be in the bank." I

read it in here this morning. Anyway, he said last year that

the Minister of Finance of the province would move to bring

their total holdings in the Bank of British Columbia up to the

maximum allowed — 10 per cent — by federal law.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I did that.

Mr. Phillips: Yes, you did that, and now we have a

complete flip around on behalf of that flip-flop Minister of

Finance.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Oh!

Mr. Chabot: The Flip Wilson of the Legislature.

(Laughter.)

Mr. Phillips: Now, Mr. Chairman, there's just one

other subject that I'd like to ask the Premier about. Last

year, when he realized what a grave error had been made in

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

when he finally came to realize this and he realized that his

budget was going to be overspent in one department alone by

over $100 million, what action did the Minister of Finance

take to curtail spending in the other departments? Were there

any highway contracts or work-day labour going on...

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Oh, come on!

Mr. Phillips: ...in the Department of Highways?

Was there any work curtailed by the Department of Highways

because of this overrun? Were there any orders, official or

unofficial, issued to any of the other departments to curtail

their spending for the remainder of the year?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please! I think the Hon. Member

would be more proper to direct this type of questioning to the

Hon. Minister of Highways,

[ Page 968 ]

inasmuch as....

Mr. Chabot: That's a directive.

Mr. Phillips: Oh, no. I'm talking about not only

highways; I'm asking the Minister of Finance and the chairman

of the Treasury Board, when he realized that there was going to

be this tremendous overrun in the Department of Human

Resources, whether he issued verbally, officially, or

otherwise, any instructions to any of the comptrollers in any

of the other departments or to the Ministers involved any

request to curb or curtail their spending.

Last year we had several of the departments overrun their

estimates by over 50 per cent — others about 70 per cent. Was

there any priority given by the Minister of Finance to any

particular department, allowing them to overspend their budget

more than any other particular department?

Mr. Chairman, as you know and I know, the entire budget was

overspent last year by some 25 per cent. Had the projections,

as laid out in his budget by the Minister of Finance a year ago

now, been adhered to — with the exception of the Minister of

Human Resources, which was a very gross error — we still could

have had a surplus last year in the vicinity of $300 million.

It would not have been necessary for this Minister of Finance

to go and borrow the $200 million that he borrowed from one of

the secret — blank — OPEC countries, and future generations

would not be faced with paying back the interest.

So I would like to know if the Minister in any way tried to

curtail the overspending in other departments after learning of

this very, very gross error in the Department of Human

Resources. I hope that the Minister will give me a very candid

and a very honest answer.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Chairman....

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Chairman....

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Oh, I thought that was your last

question.

Mr. Phillips: Well, you'll have your opportunity.

Just take it as notice; take the question as notice. You know,

it always amazes me, Mr. Chairman, that when the Premier does

have an answer or when he's all ready to get up with his

showmanship or maybe he's got a clown act all ready, he's

really anxious to get up and get at it.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Oh, oh!

Mr. Phillips: But when you ask him a detailed question on

something, and he hasn't given us any statement of policy in the

sittings that we have been debating his estimates....

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You shouldn't say those things.

Mr. Phillips: Oh, I'm merely stating the fact that

the people of this province, as witnessed in the federal

election, as witnessed in civic elections and as witnessed in

Esquimalt, are sick and tired and fed up to the teeth with this

showmanship and these half-answers that that Minister of

Finance is giving us. Sick and tired and fed up to the teeth.

He can get up and clown about all he wants. He really doesn't

impress me, because if I want to see a movie I'll go to a movie

with the heading "comedian." But I came in here to do the

taxpayers' business, to be sincere and to get answers because I

represent and work for the taxpayers of this province. I am

concerned about the taxpayers of this province.

Mr. Chabot: Selective amnesia.

Mr. Phillips: Now I would like to know, Mr. Chairman,

one other question. I would like to know from the Premier and

Minister of Finance how much of the interest on the $5 million,

which has been set up for the Economic Policy Analysis

Institute of British Columbia, has been paid out on behalf of

that particular Act. How much of it has been paid out?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I'll have to look that up.

Mr. Phillips: You'll have to look it up. Well, maybe

while you're looking that up, in just a minute you'll give us

the answer that you said you'd give us yesterday on how much

you sold those options in the Bank of British Columbia for.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I can give you that right now.

Mr. Phillips: Well, you haven't given it to us yet,

but I'd like to know. And I'd also like to know how much of

this $5 million...? Can you find that out for me this

afternoon, Mr. Premier?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Okay.

Mr. Phillips: I'd also like to know where the

cultural funds are invested. What interest is being derived for

that fund from their investments? I'd like to know where the

Physical Fitness and Amateur Sports Fund is invested and what

interest that fund is deriving from those investments.

I'd also like the Premier, while he's on his feet in just a

few moments, to tell us the true profit of Can-Cel because he

loves to say in this Legislature that Can-Cel made a profit of

$60 million. He likes to

[ Page 969 ]

say: "Oh, this little socialist group here.... They

said we

couldn't run a business, and look at this $60 million profit we

made in Can-Cel." I want the Premier to be candid and honest

with this Legislature; I want him to tell us how much of that

$60 million paper profit — because it's not real profit, it's

paper profit — is real, honest-to-goodness profit made by that

corporation last year. How much is recaptured depreciation? How

much is recaptured income tax?

It always amazes me when the government goes into something

because I remember that when the government was in opposition

all we could hear about was pollution, pollution, pollution.

Everything was pollution; everything had to close down. But the

government takes over the mill up in Prince Rupert and all of a

sudden we never hear anything more about pollution. It's a word

of the past.

An Hon. Member: Right.

Mr. Phillips: We never hear a word. We don't hear any

of these groups saying: "Close down the business because

they're polluting our province." We never hear a word about

it.

By the way, Mr. Chairman, we don't hear any of these groups

marching for peace in Vietnam today when South Vietnam is being

overrun by North Vietnam. Where are all the peace people?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Phillips: Where are all the peace people? Where

are all the love people?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The Hon. Member is

straying away from vote 2. I would ask him to return to the

vote.

Mr. Phillips: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I realize on Can-Cel

that there will be very little depreciation because the

building and the equipment have probably all been written off.

That's why the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources

(Hon. R.A. Williams) said that it would take an additional $200

million to $300 million of the taxpayers' money to bring it up

to a properly functioning plant. We realize that, and we

realize that as the building has probably been written off in

the past, and all the equipment, there won't be any

depreciation. So that would certainly have a great bearing on

that amount of profit that that mill would make in comparison

to other newer buildings where they are still writing off their

equipment or they are still writing off their plant.

I would like the Premier to be candid and honest and not try

and mislead the House with this $60 million....

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I'm sure the Hon. Member

didn't mean to say that the Premier would mislead the House,

but I would draw to the attention of the Hon. Member that

Can-Cel, strictly speaking, is not under the administrative

responsibility of the Premier.

Mr. Phillips: Oh, well, I want to tell you, if it is

not under the administrative responsibilities of this

Legislature, why does the Premier spend so much time in this

Legislature talking in such glowing terms about how this little

socialist group was able to run Can-Cel and make such a great

profit? If it isn't under his responsibility, or the

responsibility of the cabinet, how come the Premier takes such

great joy in telling us of all the great profits? Now answer me

that, Mr. Chairman. Answer me that.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. We are dealing with the

administrative responsibilities of the Premier. However, any

Member may rise on a point of order at any time if they feel

like it.

Mr. Phillips: Mr. Chairman, if he isn't responsible

for running it, why does he take all the credit? Why does he

take all the credit? Or is that just more of his clown act?

That's just more of his act — to try and partially mislead the

people of British Columbia into thinking he was running it

himself. You'd think he was running it himself, wouldn't

you?

Now, I would like to ask the Premier one other question,

which directly falls under his responsibility. I would like to

ask the Premier one question with regard to the operation of

the British Columbia Railway, which I have asked him before in

this House, and still no answer. I would like to know when the

British Columbia Railway has to return the $15 million grant or

loan — whichever it is; the Premier changes every day — when he

has to return it, and what interest the Treasury Board is

charging the British Columbia Railway. The reason I am asking

this, Mr. Chairman, is because the British Columbia Railway may

have to come to the Premier and to the Treasury Board again

very shortly for some additional operating funds if we don't

pass this Act, because the railway needs money now. It can't

pay its bills.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Who isn't paid?

Mr. Phillips: I'll tell you who isn't paid. You know

who isn't paid. If you're the president of the railway, you

know who isn't paid, and you know there are bills unpaid in the

BCR...

Mr. Chabot: For several months.

Mr. Phillips: ...for several months.

[ Page 970 ]

Hon. Mr. Barrett: No, no, no. Don't say that.

Mr. Phillips: Are you calling North Peace Wood

Products liars?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: For several months?

Mr. Phillips: Are you calling North Peace Wood

Products liars?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I haven't heard from them.

Mr. Phillips: You haven't heard from them. Well, if

you were as fine a financier as you are trying to lead the

people to believe, and as president of the railway, you would

know.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You're picking.

Mr. Phillips: I'm not picking at all. What I'm trying

to say is that I want to know. What I am trying to ask you — and I want

a candid answer — is when does this $15 million have

to be repaid? What interest? Is there any possibility that the

BCR will be coming to you again very shortly for more money to

keep it operating and so it can pay its bills, Mr. Premier, Mr.

Minister of Finance, Mr. president of the railway?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I've got to go to the men's

room.

Mr. Phillips: I'd like some candid answers from the

Premier. Now I will sit down, Mr. Chairman, while the Premier

stands up and does his act again....

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Well, now there you go.

Mr. Phillips: Oh, you are going to change. All right,

I'll withdraw that statement, Mr. Chairman, and I'll sit down

and I'll sincerely wait for the Premier to give me some honest,

candid answers, straightforward answers — never mind the

showmanship, never mind the clowning around. Just give us

straight, simple answers.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Now, Mr. Member, I know it's not

your intention to dwell on personal insult. You shouldn't do

that, through you, Mr. Chairman.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Now I've got the floor. There you

go, you see; you're interrupting.

Mr. Chairman: The Hon. Member for South Peace River

on a point of order.

Mr. Phillips: I'm talking about the Premier's policy — no

personal insults — his policies, his politics, and the way

he acts.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Okay, that's better. I'm now asking

you, since he's corrected himself, to please strike out the

last 15 minutes from Hansard (laughter) because he

didn't really mean it when he said those things.

Mr. Chabot: Division. (Laughter.)

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Division? You lose. (Laughter.)

Now, I appreciate the Member's sincere interest in getting

this information, but it becomes embarrassing to have to point

out again that he has done no research. Now I ask the press

gallery, if they are taking notes on this accusation: please

don't note again that the opposition has not done their

research again. If that should happen to go into the papers,

don't blame me. I tried to protect you. Halfway through I

warned you. I said: "Sit down. I'll give you the answer on the

options."

Your seatmate said: "I bet you didn't get 8 cents for them."

He got quieted by the businessman in the back row who knows

better.

Mr. Chabot: What did you get for them?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Well, I'm coming to that. How much

do you think?

Mr. Chabot: A buck and a quarter.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: That's a long way from 8 cents.

Since we are all MLAs I feel embarrassed for some of my

colleagues and specially for some who are a little more

inadequate than others...

Mr. Chabot: Human Resources.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: ...so I feel a tremendous sense of

embarrassment for the former speaker.

Now, on page 11.... I know that you feel put out that you

didn't get an autographed copy. That's why you raised that

question. That's what it really is.

Mr. Chabot: You offered me one, and I turned it

down.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Member, you asked a question

about how much the department spends. Even the Liberals will

tell you this, because they read books. I know how difficult it

is for Social Credit to get into that habit. Nonetheless, here

it is on page 11 of the budget speech presented by the Hon.

Minister

[ Page 971 ]

of Finance, whose picture is in the front of this

book.

Mr. Phillips: You weren't as pale then as you are

today. How come?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: That's my wife's painting in the

background. She's very good.

An Hon. Member: It's a halo.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: That's right. She knows who to put

a halo around.

Mr. Phillips: I feel sorry for your wife.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You feel sorry for my wife? So do

I, but there are some people in this world who continually

sacrifice — she, by living with me.

Nonetheless, page 11, and it's embarrassing. You asked about

Highways. If you had really been interested....

Mr. Phillips: That isn't what I asked at all.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Look, you asked if Highways had

been cut back. Those were the words.

Mr. Phillips: I asked if you had sent out a memo....

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Shhhh. I'm giving you the answer. I

didn't interrupt you.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You don't want the answers.

Mr. Phillips: I've read the budget. I know what's in

there.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The Hon. Premier has the

floor.

Mr. Phillips: I asked you if you put out any memos.

That's what I asked.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Phillips: Don't try to twist it around.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I haven't even answered yet, and you

are accusing me of twisting!

Interjection.

Mr. Chairman: I would ask the Hon. Member for South

Peace River to wait....

Interjection.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I gave him the answer, and he

doesn't want it.

Mr. Chairman: Would the Hon. Premier continue?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: The estimated expenditures in the

budget for the Department of Highways, 1974-1975: $194,936,468;

spent, $195 million. Right on, practically.

Mr. Phillips: Why did you tell them to cease and

desist their operations?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I didn't tell them to cease and

desist — they spent their budget. Now he's attacking the

Highways department for spending their budget! First of all he

attacks one department for overrunning, now he's attacking

another for spending its budget. What kind of sense are you

making?

Mr. Phillips: You're hopeless.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I'm hopeless? The reason I'm

hopeless is because I am trying to be logical with you, and

that is a mental impossibility. How can I be logical with

people who are illogical to begin with?

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: There you go — if, if, if. "If you hadn't

done this, if this had happened, then that would have been wrong." But

that didn't happen. There weren't any ifs. It's right on, Mr. Member,

and your whole theory is shot to blazes.

Mr. Phillips: What about the other departments?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Shhhh. I'm on the floor.

An Hon. Member: Yes, what about the other

departments?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You're going to get bad marks for

interrupting.

Mr. Phillips: You sent out a memo where you asked

them to curtail spending.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

[ Page 972 ]

Mr. Phillips: That's my question. Answer my

question.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I would ask the Hon.

Member for South Peace River to wait for his turn to speak

again, and I would ask the Hon. Premier to continue.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Look, there it is. You've raised a

hypothetical question, and you didn't check, and you're wrong

again.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Will you please be quiet? Please?

It's very rude to interrupt.

Mr. Phillips: You're changing your terminology now.

The other day it was "shut up."

An Hon. Member: You're a Pooh-Bah!

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Do you want the answers? Well, will

you be quiet?

Mr. Phillips: I asked a straightforward question, and

I want a straightforward answer. You haven't given a

straightforward answer in this Legislature in nine days.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. We can't proceed with

two people speaking at once. I would ask the Hon. Member for

South Peace River to observe the standing order and allow the

Premier to continue.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Whether he's up or down, he's still

talking.

Now on the question of the sale of B.C. Rail....

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: You can't turn it off, can

you?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: He's in absolute defiance of the

zipper industry. They could do nothing to cure that

problem.

An Hon. Member: Old Jell-O Mouth.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: We are limited by law in the bank purchases

to have only 10 per cent voting shares. Above that, we can't vote the

shares. What's the point of having shares you can't vote? Even a

politician

understands that.

We said, and I repeat it, that we would move up to the 10

per cent position, but I want the House to remember who bought

the first shares in the Bank of British Columbia. Was it the

NDP who went into the marketplace in this new venture of

government-buying shares? Wasn't this dangerous practice

initiated by this government? No.

Mr. D.T. Kelly (Omineca): Gunderson.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: No, it wasn't Gunderson. It was

W.A.C. Bennett who was on the phone publicly flogging the

shares. I don't like to do this because I don't like to

embarrass anybody, but his own son came in here yesterday and

said: "What is the ethics of the government buying shares?"

That's what he said.

An Hon. Member: Did he say it like that?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Yes, he did, and I've heard it a

hundred times. I didn't want to raise it, but his own father was

on the phone flogging shares throughout this province. He

called a press conference — one of those breakfast conferences

in the morning — and he said: "Buy these shares."

Who interfered in the marketplace? Who set a standard for

people flogging shares? The former Premier. Then his own son

came in and condemned him yesterday. Shocking! What a

destruction of a father-son relationship. (Laughter.) And then

we find that no letter is sent to the father saying: "Repent

for what you've done in setting this pattern." Ethics, morality —

that's what the son said yesterday. The old man was flogging

the shares on the phone. That's what he did.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Shhhh! We did have option to

purchase more shares, but because the federal government has

limited a province and because we do not wish to go into the

marketplace and disrupt the market by the Premier and Minister

of Finance flogging shares — that would not be a nice thing to

do — we decided to sell our options.

Mr. Gibson: You could have just maintained your

position.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Okay, we could maintain our

position and go through the same old game again. They split

shares and split shares. What's the point, when we've already

announced that the Province of British Columbia is going to go

in its own financial-institution direction anyway?

[ Page 973 ]

Now I find a curious situation that is embarrassing for me

to have to explain when I speak to the people of this province.

A year ago the official opposition and the Liberals attacked us

for buying shares, and now they're attacking us for not buying

shares. You don't have a responsibility to be consistent, but I

have a responsibility to tell the people that you're

inconsistent. You can't say one year, "Don't buy the shares," and then

come back a year later and say, "You should

have bought the shares; buy more." It doesn't matter what you

do; all you want to do is criticize. That doesn't behoove the official

opposition. They have no policy; it's just politics.

I don't like to expose politics when I see it, but it's my

duty. You say a year ago: "Don't buy any shares," and we

take your advice, and don't buy them. Then you come back a year

later and say: "Why didn't you buy them?" We're confused by

your position. Well, we sold the options.

Mr. Phillips: For how much?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Shhhh! Well, I've been interrupted — not by

logic, but I've been interrupted.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please!

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Shhhh! We have sold those options

for a total of $18,479 at a range price of a low of 37 and a

high of 60, which isn't bad. It's pretty good.

The Member also wanted to know where we have invested the

cultural fund, the sports fund. Do you remember that question

you asked? What other fund did you want to know about?

Mr. Phillips: The Economic Policy Analysis....

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Yes, that answer we had, but all

the other funds — you want to know where they are invested.

Just those two? Okay. All the funds are invested in schools and

hospital bonds at the prevailing rates.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Well, we don't change them on a

day-to-day basis. Okay? Okay.

The question of Can-Cel. You can certainly ask the Minister

responsible. We've already got a ruling that I can't answer all

the questions for all the Ministers.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: The other question is the war in

Vietnam. I can't do anything about it, but I took notice of

your question, and I'll try and contact the jurisdictions

responsible for that war. I will convey to those jurisdictions

your concern, and hopefully they can bring a peaceful

conclusion to that holocaust.

I think I've lost the thread of your reason but still

answered your questions. I welcome them, and I hope I have the

opportunity of serving you again.

Mr. Phillips: Questions answered. Put a mark on the

wall.

Mr. Gibson: Well, I think the first thing that's

worthwhile saying, Mr. Chairman, is that the Premier was saying

earlier on today that there had been some filibustering in this

estimate. I think the last performance indicates quite clearly

where, if there is any filibustering, it has come from. It has

come from the Premier. He has been stringing out his replies to

a considerable degree. He's not answering questions adequately

and taking a great deal of time doing it. Very amusing, but

he's taking up the very limited time of this House on

estimates, a limit which he imposed. Now he is suggesting

closure within closure, and arbitrarily moving from estimate to

estimate. I say that that's a disgraceful thing to do.

Now there are a number of things I want to cover here. In

response to the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey

(Mr. Gardom) earlier on today, the Premier suggested that the

2-cent rise in the gasoline tax which he imposed, would, in

effect, be a tax on tourists coming into the province and that

British Columbians would receive this back in an abatement of

their ICBC premiums.

I hope the Hon. Attorney-General is taking notes because

here's the question I have.

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: I just made a note of that.

Mr. Gibson: How much revenue is that 2 cents a gallon

going to generate?

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: That's in the budget.

Mr. Gibson: No, not precisely, Mr. Attorney-General — not

precisely. My own calculation is about $20 million, but I'd

like to check that.

An Hon. Member: You're low.

Mr. Gibson: That's low? Good. We'd like to know if

it's enough to cover the ICBC loss. I won't even ask again what

the loss is. I'll just ask if it is enough to cover.

[ Page 974 ]

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I would ask the Hon.

Member not to ask questions in this manner, but rather to state

his questions and then wait for an answer after he has

completed his speech.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, I'm attempting to state my

questions. Could you...?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The Hon. Member is

putting a question and expecting an immediate answer while he

is on his feet. Just for order, I would ask the Hon. Member to

state his questions and then get the answers at the end.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman....

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Perhaps I'm directing my

ruling to the wrong party. I would direct it to the Hon.

Attorney-General to not interrupt the Member. (Laughter.)

An Hon. Member: Shame on you, Alex.

Mr. Gibson: Mr. Chairman, to be quite frank, I have a

lot of skepticism as to whether I'm going to get any answers at

all, let alone immediately. I just wanted to make sure that the

Hon. Attorney-General was writing them down on behalf of the

Premier.

That was the first question. The second question is just a

simple question: why can't the Province of British Columbia

have monthly financial statements? A simple question. Other

governments are able to do it; large corporations are able to

do it. Why can't the Province of British Columbia? That was

question No. 2.

Question No. 3. The Premier just informed us that the Bank

of B.C. writes.... I'd like to check the number. According to

the press there were 25,000 or so sold at a range of between 30

cents and 60 cents. The Premier is always telling us how good

he is at stock transactions and how the province is making

money. I'd ask him if he's aware that the trading range over

the period December 18 to January 31, I'm told, was 30 cents to

$1.10. You might note that down, Mr. Attorney-General, because

the Premier said that they were sold between 30 and 60 cents.

It sounds like almost no shares were sold at over half the

price of the trading range, which doesn't sound very good to

me.

I do hope the Attorney-General is getting these questions

down, or I'll just have to ask them all over again when the

Premier comes back.

Hon. Mr. MacDonald: You've got lots of time in your

game plan.

Mr. Gibson: Goodness gracious! The Attorney-General just said

we have lots of time in our game plan. We just want to get answers to

these questions quickly, Mr. Chairman.

Would the Premier like to be briefed now by the

Attorney-General, or should I re-ask the questions?

Interjections.

Mr. Gibson: There are just the first few, Mr.

Premier. I'm just trying to ask concise questions here and get

short answers.

My next question is on the organization of his cabinet. It

has to do with the assignment he has made on the question of

Indian affairs. I'm not going to discuss questions falling

under Indian affairs right now because we're on the Premier's

vote. I'm simply making a representation to him that something

is obviously wrong with the structure he has set up to handle

the grievances of the Indian people, when we have

demonstrations, when we have demands for meetings by April 1,

and when we have talk of blockades if that kind of meeting

doesn't arise. Something is wrong with the way it's being

handled. I must very gently and non-politically ask the Premier

if he would sensitize himself to that subject and see what can

be done to give a feeling to the Indian people quickly that

there's a serious intention by the government to redress these

grievances, particularly the cut-off lands.

My next question relates to the federal/provincial First

Ministers' conference coming up next month. It's in two parts — I

gather that economic affairs, generally, are going to be

discussed. I would ask the Premier if he is prepared to support

the proposal of the Canadian Labour Congress as advanced in

their brief to the federal cabinet, that all wages and salary

payments in this nation should be indexed as a positive

contribution to taking some of the sting out of inflation and

taking out some of the psychology of a dog chasing its tail in

order to keep up, because this would automatically do it. I

would ask him if he'll support that at the First Ministers'

conference.

Next question for the First Ministers' conference. There was

a good

article in The Province this morning with respect

to how the various provinces are lining up on the rise in the

price of oil. This is one of the main things that the

conference has been called for. I ask the Premier what position

he is going to be advancing on behalf of the people of British

Columbia. Is he going to be supporting a rise in the price of

oil or not?

Interjection.

Mr. Gibson: Certainly Premiers across this country

are making their position clear.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Yes.

[ Page 975 ]

Mr. Gibson: I think British Columbians would like to

know what our government is going to do in that regard.

I would make a representation to the Premier — I don't

really want him to answer it; I just hope he will think about

it — that we need in this province our own corporation tax

structure. I would suggest to him that Quebec and Ontario

already have it, that Alberta is moving in that direction, that

the reason for it is to give ways and means of giving

industrial and manufacturing incentives of various kinds in

this province that we can't give unless we have control of our

own tax structure. It does take more bureaucrats, I freely

admit, but hopefully not too many because there are currently

bureaucrats enforcing at the federal level and some of those

could be dropped — so not too many on a net basis. I think that

that could be valuable to British Columbia.

My next question harks back to some things that weren't

brought out at the time we were discussing the Columbia River

study which is to be done. Three very short questions there:

Will that commission report publicly? Will it hold public

hearings? Will it allow cross-examination of witnesses? I think

that that's essential for a proper airing of that....

Interjection.

Mr. Gibson: On the Columbia River hearings. Will the

commission hold public hearings? Will it report publicly? Will

it allow cross-examination of witnesses? I think on this $800

million question, as the Premier puts it, this sort of thing is

essential.

I'd next like to ask the Premier a question about the

provincial income tax schedule, which bears particularly on

persons of low income — under the 1974 tax

schedule until the

level of $1,000 taxable income is reached. Provincial tax

payable, which in many cases applies to people on quite a low

level of income, starts right at a zero level of taxable income

and, by the time that $1,000 level is reached, $45 in tax has

already been paid. I'd ask why we can't establish the same

level of abatement for low-income people in British Columbia as

has been done at the federal level.

My next question is to ask the Premier if he has or if he

will designate within his cabinet group a Minister responsible

for the problems of population growth in British Columbia,

making representations to Ottawa on immigration and for the

general problem of encouraging people to live in different

parts of British Columbia rather than in the present

high-growth centres, and, again, that question of making

representations to Ottawa on immigration policy for the

Government of British Columbia.

I'd ask the Premier briefly, as I asked him the other day — and I

think he wanted to reply but forgot at the time — his general attitude

towards foreign investment in an equity sense coming into British

Columbia.

I would finally ask him to discuss his concept of equity

between oil and gas furnace users. I think the Premier has told

the House that the oil price equivalent for gas would be $1.93.

In fact, the wholesale price of gas is, I think, more in the

order of 55 cents, give or take a cent. In other words, the

person heating their home with oil is paying considerable

premium over the person heating their home with gas. I've been

getting phone calls and letters from oil users asking why this

should be. "Why should I suffer because I installed the more

expensive oil equipment?"

It's a fuel that's better used in this way. Natural gas is a

very high-value fuel in the ecological sense, a very high-value

fuel for petrochemical feedstocks. But, in fact, we are

subsidizing the person who uses natural gas. So I ask the

Premier if he thinks that's fair and if he has a plan either to

subsidize oil users or to raise the price of domestic natural

gas. I suggest to him that unless we are to waste exceedingly

valuable and limited natural gas resources in this province, it

would be prudent to gradually raise the price to an economic

level.

There, Mr. Chairman, is, I hope, a series of short, cogent

questions within the Minister's responsibility that I hope he

will now reply to.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Member, the first question, of

course, we've already thrashed out. That is the responsibility

of the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr.

Strachan) to respond to.

(2) Monthly financial reports are an

internal matter. We are up to date perhaps more than any other

government in terms of knowing where we are on a month-to-month

basis.

(3) The sale of the British Columbia rights was done

through a British Columbia firm. I don't think it's necessary

to give their name. There was a time limit on the sale. The

sale ranged from January 2 to January 14. The high was 60 and

the low was 37. If you want the firm's name, I can give it to

you across the floor or privately, whichever you want. It was a

British Columbia firm.

(4) Policy. In native Indian affairs it's true that we

have one Minister responsible for co-ordinating, but more than

one Minister is involved in meeting with them. We've had

cabinet meetings with native Indian groups. That's the first

time in the history of this province that anything like that

ever took place.

As a direct result of our first meeting with native Indian

groups, we changed the legislation related to home acquisition

and made that retroactive because we felt that it had been

discriminatory against native Indians.

The cabinet committee has met with native Indian groups and,

although we have not resolved all their

[ Page 976 ]

problems, there is a recognition by a number of

Indian

leaders that this is the first time cabinet Ministers have been

so available to them, both individually and as groups to

discuss their problems. That is good. That is the way it should

have been years ago. You ask us to move faster — then the

accusation comes that we are moving too fast.

(5) I'm not familiar with the CLC's whole brief, so it would be

inappropriate for me to comment.

(6) I'll announce my position on the oil price when I get there.

That is a decision I've made because I've been under what I

consider to be irrational political criticism. The last time I

announced my position before I got to Ottawa, I was attacked

for announcing it ahead of time. As a matter of fact, I will

even dig up the Hansard and quote a Member of your own

party who attacked me for announcing my position ahead of time.

I was dismayed by that attack. Now I've decided not to announce

it, and you are saying I should announce it. It is either a

confusion in the Liberal party or just politics. I am not sure

what it was. I prefer to believe it was just confusion. I don't

think you would sink to that kind of politics.

(7) I've got an open mind on that proposal in terms of corporation

taxation of the provinces. We are certainly thinking about it.

(8) The method of Columbian inquiry will be announced when the

people are available. I will certainly take into consideration the

suggestions you have made.

(9) We are looking into the problem you have raised.

(10) Population growth is a matter that concerns us deeply. The

heavy urbanization, the sociological pattern in Canada is something

that is a phenomena that is absurd. But only voluntary guidelines can

be made to discourage that.

Our programmes as instituted by the Minister of Agriculture

(Hon. Mr. Stupich), in securing farmland and making it

available through the Land Commission is one way that the

government can voluntarily redirect people back to land use. As

a matter of fact, the Minister of Agriculture's programmes of

making more land available and giving minimum income guarantees

to farm activities make us one of the few jurisdictions where,

in some specific areas of agriculture, there is a growth of

production — for instance in dairying, in contrast to other

jurisdictions, where there is a decrease.

I don't believe that, short of government decree, one can

take away the freedom of choice for people to decide whether or

not they wish to be urban or rural developers. You can

encourage, and the programmes instituted by the Minister of

Agriculture in an essentially non-agricultural province have

been beneficial in that regard.

Alternate lifestyles will either be adopted voluntarily or will be

forced upon us. I don't think it will be in our lifetime, but surely,

if we reach the point of excessive population concentration as they

have in some areas of the world, governments of that day will have to

say that for the community's sake we must restrict this, this and this.

That will be a change in our basic western ethic about "go where you

can, shoot your guns wherever you want, do whatever you...." It is

going to be a real cultural shock, if I may borrow someone else's terms.

I don't think there is much serious consideration being

given to that by any politician, certainly not the public. I

believe that the public is prepared to discuss in an

intellectual way the need to be concerned about demographic

development, to be concerned about the patterns of urban life

versus rural life. We have scads of research in Canada on this.

We are a very liberal nation — I say small "l" liberal nation — when we

discuss these problems among intellectuals, in

educational circles and even in trade union circles.

But when there is a practical application to resolve the

problem, you run into a skin-deep emotional barrier. My first

reaction, my first realization, of this particular problem was

around the land bill. Mr. Member, fortunately you weren't in

the House, but we saw the raw edge of hysteria come from the

official opposition on this bill. Yet most people at the

intellectual level had accepted the responsibility of any

jurisdiction to preserve farmland.

You can go and talk to people throughout this province. If

you talk to them on the street, on the ferries, or anywhere

else, and say, "what do you think of the idea of preserving

farmland?" 85 per cent of them are very much in favour of it.

But once you make the move, that is, once the government makes

that decision, you find the skin-deep reaction to old

traditions, old beliefs. It even led to pamphlets about me

being distributed, calling me every name. One pamphlet, I

recall, called me "Hitler" and "Mussolini" on the same

pamphlet. I don't have the moustache, but I have the other

physical abilities, I suppose. Other than that, in a democratic

process, when you start dealing with these kinds of problems,

you touch the raw edge of emotion.

Even some of your colleagues.... For instance, your

colleague, the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A.

Williams) appeared on an irrational platform in Langley with

one of the hotlines who is one of the wildest hotliners there

are. So when you try to get a consensus of responsibility about

making these moves, you will find that people are either

politically motivated in opposing it or there is an

emotional reaction against change.

I know for a fact that once it is done it is like socialized

medicine. Once it is done, it is here to stay. The Land

Commission, once here, is here to stay, and other jurisdictions

will be copying the same thing.

[ Page 977 ]

I find it very interesting that once the Land Commission was

established, opposition voices that were strident in

Hansard against the concept are now completely reversing

themselves, saying that the Land Commission isn't tough enough.

I find this kind of lack, I think, of some sense of leadership,

some sense of responsibility in dealing with issues that are

tender, with raw emotion....

There comes a time when politicians, aside from all

political, philosophical differences, aside from all particular

bias, have to take a stand and give some leadership. We did it

with the land bill. I'm telling you, when the time comes for

people to do it on a demographic basis, for saving the nation

and making the best use of what's available, there will be

political and social upheaval around it. Once a politician

places

an Act in our kind of system, you can't guarantee that

there won't be any irresponsibility against that particular

Act.

I learned it all in the land bill. As long as I've been in

politics, as long as I stay in politics, and when I'm out, one

of the proudest moments of my participation in this whole

parliamentary process was around passing that land Act. Yet I

took no more violent abuse in my whole political career than I

did during that period of time.

The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) was the

subject of intense, vicious name-calling, irrational screaming,

jostling in front of this Legislature. No support at all from

the official opposition; irresponsible statements from

opposition Members on radio, in the press, on the hotlines. He

weathered that whole storm, and his name will go down in the

history of this province a generation from now as being a

courageous politician who had the foresight to bring that

legislation in. But I will venture to say that when youngsters

of that day read about what happened, there will be little

discussion of the personal abuse that he took or the kind of

name-calling or screaming that went on against this government

in that massive demonstration outside.

So when you raise the question of governments being

concerned with demographic patterns, with population

integrations, with changing sociological structures within a

rapidly urbanizing society, and you say government is being

concerned, all governments in a small "l" liberal country like

Canada are concerned. But when a government places

an Act, when

it moves, then you see the raw nerve of that limited

understanding that exists. Then you see the vacuum of political

leadership or political responsibility in response. I saw it

all in that land bill.

I've taken it all with humour, but it's a lesson that I've learned

much to my sorrow in seeing otherwise rational people standing and

screaming and calling us names, whipped up by other politicians — other

politicians actually whipping them up — when the idea and the concept

was one that was good. We should have had the kind of rational debate

saying: "Look, this is a social objective that we all value and

treasure for this beautiful province." But we never had that

responsibility in this House. I hope that we can mature over the years

to that kind of responsibility. Hopefully we will.

Mr. Gibson: Who is going to be the lead Minister?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Well, in terms of the lead, I think

that this government has demonstrated that it is very

courageous in leading. Can you name any other jurisdiction that

faced the problem of the land bill and made the decision?

An Hon. Member: Which Minister?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Well, in this case it was the

Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) who brought in a

land freeze.

Mr. Gibson: I know it was.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: It was a policy decision of the

cabinet, duly elected. He came to us with the problem; he came

to us with the remedy that he recommended. He took the lead,

and that's only right; he's the Minister of Agriculture.

I say with no small degree of modesty — I say it with a

great sense of pride — that that Minister had the nerve to do

what he did and took all the abuse, all the criticism, all the

vacuous statements. No responsible opposition support, much to

their embarrassment and shame — and I don't want to rub that

all over again. But no one at this stage — just a matter of 24

months since that Minister took his courageous action — would

go around this province and say: "Vote for me and we'll

destroy the Land Commission." People have understood after the

fact that it was necessary for government to act.

Some day it will be necessary.... Everyone has to justify

their own action, and I'm not passing judgment on you; you look

in the mirror and you decide for yourself in reviewing your own

role at that time and in that hysteria. I do not recall one

Member of the opposition standing up and in a responsible voice

saying: "I ask you all the people of this province to remain

calm. I ask all the people of this province not to become

hysterical." Instead they went on hotlines, they went to the

newspapers, they abandoned any concept of liberal democratic

discussion of a government's right.

It's all there in Hansard . I will never forget, as

long as I live, listening to abuse hurled at me and my Minister

on hotline shows, in newspaper reports of opposition MLAs

making wild and irresponsible statements throughout this

province. Yet we put the

[ Page 978 ]

bill through, and it's there.

Mr. D.A. Anderson (Victoria): And they amended

it.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Certainly we amended it. And we

were most anxious to receive positive criticism from

the opposition. Only halfway through the debate did the

Liberals being to move away from Social Credit and offer

alternatives. They realized that most of the people in this

province were rational and began to recognize what their

political tactics were.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Reread the debate.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: "Reread the debate," says

the Member. I've reread it, and it's in my mind. I will never

forget, never forget as long as I live, looking in the face of

hate day after day in this House when we came here. The faces

of hate, bitterness, reflected by those words that are in

Hansard , and the kind of whipping up that went on with

cries as demonstrated out here. It's all a memory. But if we

don't learn from history, we're condemned to relive it.

You raised the question, not me. You raised the question

to you, with a population of 22.5 million, that we're not faced

with that absolute yet.

I'm saying again that voluntarily, with government

incentives, we can change demographic patterns. But sooner or

later, Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Chairman, a government in

this country is going to be faced with the responsibility of

determining where people settle — not in this generation,

perhaps not in the generation after that, but it will come. It

will come. Some government will be faced with that very, very

difficult position.

You talked about foreign equity. I have no objection to

foreign equity in competitive enterprises. I believe that

foreign equity in the competitive enterprise is welcome. I

don't believe that any foreign equity should be in a dominant

position in any particular area of the industry. It's a matter

of concern to us — and we've altered that balance — that of the

five majors in the forest industry, four of them are foreign

and one of them is Canadian. That's almost an incestuous

Canadian relationship, too, because M and B, which is No. 1, is

also eaten by CPR, which has a hunk of that.

I'd like to see a range of foreign equity, and another thing that I

would favour seeing, Mr. Member, is multinational equity in joint

venturing. I think one of the greatest things for world peace would be

multinational joint venturing, where the community at large has a

piece, the province has a piece and outside capital looking for a fair

return has a piece.

Where we get into trouble, and what led, as I saw it, to the

Pacific war in World War II was essentially an economic

struggle between corporations that had no multinational facet

and no understanding of joint venturing. People forget that

when we fought the Japanese what preceded it was a very strict

energy embargo by the United States. If we read the history

dispassionately, and go back over that period of time, we find

that, had it not been for this embargo, there were a group of

Japanese politicians who were intensely involved in changing

the conflict with China and hopefully avoiding World War II

breaking out in the Pacific. But again we find in history the

influence of single national corporations, so large that they

influence national policy, making the decision in the United

States and putting the embargo on Japanese oil.

Now it wasn't a morality question. There was no embargo on

scrap iron that was being used to manufacture weapons against

the Chinese.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: No, no, there were demonstrations

against the Canadian ports, but there was no official

government policy against the shipment of scrap iron which was

being re-used in armaments.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Well, what I'm saying is that there

was no conscious.... We must learn from history. I'm not

passing judgment. I'm making observations, and in making the

observations I'm saying that you asked me a question about

equity, and I say to you that one of the approaches to the use

of equity in Canadian soil that I favour is a multi-nation

approach, whether it is that nation's private capital or public

capital, to a joint venture within Canadian boundaries, under

Canadian limitations and Canadian direction.

Now that's what the federal government set out to do in

their legislation. Unfortunately we've never seen a

demonstration project to prove what can be done. But in theory

I agree with the intent of the federal legislation. I've

disagreed with my own party nationally, which at times has taken

an absolute position against foreign equity. I think that's a

very dreamy position to take. I belong to that party, but I

don't believe that that's a sensible policy. It can't

function.

But if we were to have had the position before the Second

World War where there were multinational interest in joint

venturing, I am convinced that the Second World War in the

Pacific would not have broken out. We would have been in a

position, I

[ Page 979 ]

think, to lever attitudes. I think we would have

been in a

position to say to the Japanese: "Get out of China." Japan's

economic imperialism was an extension of a threat, as they saw

it, to their own economic security from the United States.

Reason hasn't overcome the world; the nuclear weapon has.

It's a balance of terror, and as a result of a balance of

terror we are forcing ourselves to look into multinational

ventures, even in space (as a dramatic illustration), where the

Soviet Union and the United States are now experimenting in

joint space venturing: good, demonstrative projects of

cooperation, the kind of thing we've been forced to learn as

human beings because of bitter experiences such as the Second

World War.

As a small province in a small nation, I believe that our

people in this province are understanding. They don't want to

lose the attitude of maîtres chez nous . They do believe that we

should have a right to be masters in our own house, certainly

on the basic resources, which your party is now turning round

and supporting us on. But that does not lead to the exclusion

of outside capital on a competitive basis in either secondary

manufacturing or in raw products production.

I hope, within my time in office, that we are able to

pioneer the kind of dream multinational participation with

local levels and provincial levels involved as well. I wou