1977 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 3ist 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)

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 1977

Morning Sitting

[ Page

1073 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Telephone Directories Dual Listing Act (Bill M 205). Mr. Macdonald

Introduction and first reading — 1073

Committee of Supply. Executive Council estimates

On vote 18.

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 1073

Mr. Barrett — 1074

Mr. Gibson — 1079

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 1084

Mr. Macdonald — 1088

Mr. Rogers — 1092

Mr. Cocke — 1093

Mr. Wallace — 1093

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 1097

FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 1977

The House met at 10 a.m.

Prayers.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): In the gallery later

today I will have the third and final contingent from the Lake Cowichan

Senior Secondary School visiting. Presently in the gallery is a group

of students from Ladysmith Senior Secondary School under the auspices

of Crown Zellerbach and accompanied by their teacher Mr. Helmcken. I

would ask the House to join me in welcoming both groups.

Introduction of bills.

TELEPHONE DIRECTORIES

DUAL LISTING ACT

On a motion by Mr. Macdonald, Bill M 205, Telephone Directories Dual

Listing 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.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

On vote 18: executive council, $713,648.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): This is such a small vote in

comparison with the other departments, I'm sure it will pass quickly in

the House. I would like to just reiterate the restructuring of the vote

to the executive council. I know I went through part of this last year

but we have a new member since that time so perhaps we can explain what

took place in the restructuring of the office.

The office has been divided into not only the Premier's office vote,

but Intergovernmental Relations has taken the place of the former

planning advisor to the cabinet whose vote used to be found under the

Provincial Secretary. As for Intergovernmental Relations, that vote was

transferred, renamed and most of the staff, who were there when we took

over government in December 1975, brought into the Premier's office.

Additionally, to correlate the various activities of the various departments,

the executive council has a vote within the framework of the Premier's office

to provide support staff and temporary research. It allows us to go outside

the government for consultants, to university professors and others, to provide

information on specific negotiations relating not only internally but in our

relationships with other governments not only in Canada but in some of the discussions

we've had with our neighbouring states and provinces.

As you know, last year with the new Intergovernmental Relations

co-ordinating it, this Premier's office met with the adjacent states of

Alaska, Washington and Idaho. We had a visit from a representative from

Montana, and we had related discussions and visits with the governor of

Oregon, all on problems of mutual concern to their states and our

province. We also attended, of course, the western Premiers' conference

in Alberta and will be attending another one this spring — not the

spring we're having in Victoria and B.C. now, but the spring that's

expected on the Prairies later this year.

I would like to give you some idea of how the cost of this vote for

executive council relates to other provincial governments because these

functions are all handled by all of the other nine provinces in this

country. We have a vote of $713,648 for the executive council in

British Columbia. Starting from east to west — and this is using

British Columbia's estimates this year because we're the only province

to have presented a budget yet this year — comparing the votes of last

year for the various provinces against our $713,648, Newfoundland has a

budget of $1,260,600...

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): They've got more problems!

HON. MR. BENNETT: ...Prince Edward Island, $436,300; Nova

Scotia, $500,000; New Brunswick, $1,441,000; Quebec, $6,578,400;

Ontario, $3,494,500; Manitoba, $1,773,600; Saskatchewan, $1,175,020;

Alberta, $2,738,400; and, of course, British Columbia, $713,648.

1 think the interesting statistic, Mr. Chairman, is the cost per

capita to the taxpayers for the executive council, Intergovernmental

Relations and the Premier's office. In Newfoundland, it costs $2.25 per

capita…

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Are we getting that?

HON. MR. BENNETT: ...P.E.I., $3.61 per capita; Nova Scotia,

60 cents per capita; New Brunswick, $2.08 per capita; Quebec, $1.05 per

capita; Ontario, 42 cents per capita; Manitoba, $1.72 per capita;

Saskatchewan, $1.25 per capita; Alberta, $1.48 per capita; and in

British Columbia it's costing 28 cents per capita.

I might go on to point out just what the function of the various parts are, because they're covered in

[ Page 1074 ]

the vote...

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Are you going to pass the hat?

HON. MR. BENNETT: ...but Intergovernmental Relations, Mr.

Chairman, not only correlates our activities with other governments but

it acts as a focal point, along with the executive council support

staff, for correlating the various departments of government, a very

important function when you realize the overlapping nature in

programmes or in thrusts of government which involve one or more

departments. It's this type of cohesion that this department has

brought to government that is helping us to reduce the cost and also to

reduce some of the confusion that surrounds government programmes. It

is attempting to prevent two or three or more departments going in

different directions, trying to solve a common problem of need of a

service for our people.

The office, after just 15 months, is functioning fairly well. Last

year we found that we didn't use all the vote that was given to us,

particularly in what was called "other expenditures," which was in the

need for additional consultants and short-term staff. But we've

increased that this year in anticipation of the number of meetings with

new problem of the constitution and Confederation and the additional

pressures that will be placed on all our governments and all political

leaders in this country in dealing not just with the problem of

separatism — or proposed separatism — by Quebec, but in looking at

restructuring Canada not in a negative way but in a positive way to

build a stronger country.

We are going to try and utilize all of the ideas and suggestions

that can be provided to us as government. That means not only

suggestions from those we will bring on in a professional way, but from

the other political leaders in this House whom we expect will have

positives suggestions to make on restructuring Canada. We appear to

have three schools of thought concerning our country at this time.

In light of the many problems that we all face, whether they're

economic, cultural or whatever, there are those who would choose to

suggest that they cut and run and separate. I think that's a cowardly

way out of facing problems. That's not the answer. There are those who

want to stand around and wring their hands and say something's wrong,

but they keep looking backwards or keep talking about maintaining the

status quo. I think that all political leaders, not only in this

country, but in this assembly, should be prepared to make some new

suggestions for how we can build a strong country.

The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) was just reminding me

of one of the lines that came up at the Jack Horner dinner the other

night in Calgary. One of the lines ascribed to him was: "To heck with

looking to the future; let's get on with building the past." I think

there are many political leaders in this country today who spend too

much time looking at the boundaries and decisions that were developed

when this country was initially formed in 1867 and who are not prepared

to deal with Canada in the realities of today.

Mr. Chairman, that's just a brief outline of how the money will be

spent, how it's structured in the executive council vote. I certainly

hope I've given the members a fair picture of how this small vote plays

a vital role in the government of British Columbia.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Chairman, the

Premier makes my job much easier when he spends 12 minutes out of 15

discussing the clerical aspects of his office. It's hardly what we had

hoped for in terms of the priority or discussion of the problems that

face the people of this province. Two and a half minutes on clichés

about the future of Canada and a reference to Mr. Jack Horner's dinner

is hardly appropriate in terms of the very serious situation in which

we find this province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: But in actual fact the 12 minutes that we've

been given are really an extension of the gross mentality of this

government. It views everything on the basis of a separate

blinker-viewed approach, a department-by-department view of government

on a basis of a balance sheet, separating each department, each

category, each ministry and each

section as if somehow it were a

unique, separate, individual, unconnected part of a total government

thrust or a total government push forward.

We have 112,000 people unemployed in this province, and we get a

clerical review of the Premier's office. We have a lack of capital

investment in this province, and we get a few discussions about the per

capita costs of coffee machines in the relative offices across this

country.

We have no statement on the Anti-Inflation Board; we have no

discussion of the economic situation in this province; we have no

comment from the Premier about some rather irresponsible statements made

[ Page 1075 ]

perhaps in jest by various cabinet ministers; and

we still find no overall statements of philosophy. In 15 months we've

seen a vacuum in terms of a statement by this government as to its

philosophy, its frame of reference and its direction. We can be sure

that before the morning is over we will get a repeat performance of

blaming everything from the original cause of Easter right down to the

present economic state on the NDP government and its leader. We will

then get a rhetorical resumé of the classic arm-waving clichés about

how everything was horrible 15 months ago and it remains horrible

simply because they said it was in their own messages to themselves.

There's not much point in cataloguing the events that have taken

place prior to the last 15 months. But the Premier, in his last two and

a half minutes of comments about those who want to rebuild the past....

That's all we've had from this government — a re-writing of history

politically so the

interpretation could suit their daily purposes,

rather than one major statement talking about where they intend to take

this province for the next 30 months, or 25 months, or 20 months, or

whatever it is before they go back to the people for a mandate.

I find it somewhat incredible where we have in regions of this

province unemployment ranging as high as 20 and 25 per cent, where we

have in regions of this province business failures ranging at 15 to 20

per cent, where we have situations in this province where there is a

slowdown of private capital investment, even in the 15 months that this

administration has been in office. I find it more incredible that not

one word of comfort or guidance is given to those people who are

handicapped, who are separate and remote from any possible hope of

developing a good life because of circumstances beyond their control.

Wild and irresponsible statements made by individual members of the

cabinet have not been repudiated by the Premier. The hope, the comfort

and the leadership of the main spokesman of the government that should

be providing these people with some guidelines and some understanding

that somebody up there understands them is not there. We get the

greatly magnificent announcement this morning that it's only costing us

28 cents per capita to run his office. Well, if you really want to save

us money and heartache, Mr. Premier, why don't you just pack it all up?

Twenty-eight cents per capita to run his office is the big announcement

we've been given today. Now, if it takes another 28 cents to do a

better job, I'd gladly send over the 28 cents — and I'd like a receipt,

please — but don't put it through the ICBC machinery that your other

minister has really fouled up.

I find an absence of concern, an absence of philosophy and an

absence of statement of leadership to be an incredible insult. After 15

months of holding power that was desperately sought, that was fought

for, that every single means, fair or foul, was used to obtain, with a

conglomeration of political philosophies that said they were opposed to

democratic socialism — after all that we're offered a squib of a report

which says: "My clerks are all there at their desks totalling up the

figures, my good little office staff are all there and have their

mandatory coffee breaks on time, and gosh, folks, it's only costing you

28 cents per capita. Good news for British Columbia today."

I want to talk a little bit about the question of Confederation and

then come to the details of some of the serious problems that we have

facing this province. I think that there is enough confusion abroad

without necessarily putting forward one's own red-line drawing on a map

of Canada. The question of five regions, of course is a decision for

the Premier to make, if he wishes to espouse that, but I think

sensitivity and understanding of the changes that are already taking

place in this country, without those gratuitous remarks being made,

have been absent in his understanding.

There has been a council of maritime provinces for some years

working towards closer cooperation. There is a certain degree of

chauvinism, matched by British Columbia's chauvinism about its own

borders, in other provinces. I must say modestly that all of us display

that on occasion, especially in Santayana's reference about

politicians: "The last refuge of a scoundrel is patriotism." When we're

all in trouble, perhaps Santayana's admonition would be well worth

reminding ourselves of. Nonetheless, we are chauvinists in this

province, and for us to make the pronouncement that no one else should

be chauvinists and that we have the answer — that there are five other

regions that should be put together — is obviously a negative

contribution.

I notice that Premier Regan was critical of our Premier for having

espoused that. Premier Regan has been one of the most forceful people

in attempting quietly to overcome maritime chauvinism by bringing the

maritime council together. Premier Regan, Premier Moores, and

especially Premier Hatfield, who has had his own problems in his

province, have been prime movers both in public statements and private

correspondence. Premier Hatfield has been one of the best, in terms of

crossing party lines to discuss the possibility of bringing the

Maritimes together. But there are bitter, long-standing feelings about

bringing provinces together, and outside comments do very little to

assist in what is already a natural process in the Maritimes.

As far as the comments on Quebec, well, Mr. Chairman, through you,

perhaps the Quebec situation may indeed be the one catalyst that can

really hold this country together rather than the beginning of its

destruction. The problems that plague Quebec are

[ Page 1076 ]

exactly the same in many, many instances as those

that plague British Columbia. The only difficulty is that there are

distinct racial and religious overtones to the Quebec problems that are

not that easily defined here in British Columbia. The question of

language and language usage becomes the emotional focus point that

takes away rational and calm discussion about the real underlying

problems that upset communities, that upset towns, that upset cities

and, yes, upset whole provinces and the country.

The luxury of discussing at an emotional level the split-up of this

country would be greatly diminished if there was a national economic

policy that dealt with providing employment for all Canadian citizens.

The discussion would scale down if there was a national and provincial

policy dealing with better housing, more security in one's senior

years, a greater life potential for every Canadian citizen and, more

than anything else, the most potential social and economic problem in

this country — a lifestyle that is meaningful, that has some dignity

and self-respect for the young people of this country.

There is a severe social problem in this country that involves the

young people between the ages of 19 and 24 who are ill-equipped,

ill-educated and not available to the employment competition that

exists. A social time bomb exists in those young people who will find

emotional outlets, who will follow demagogues, who will follow a whim

or a fancy of day based on their own frustrations. None of this is new.

None of this is spectacular. It is a repeat of history, and if anyone

cares to read history similar situations did exist.

In the areas where there is unemployment as high as 20, 25 and 30

per cent among young people between the ages of 19 and 25, one could

almost see the parallel between the Weimar Republic and the debates in

the republic compared to the kind of emotionalism and destabilization

that can, and possibly will, take place in Quebec and in Ontario. So it

does little good or little service to this nation to come forward with

map-drawing lines. One is reminded of the Yalta Conference when the

three powers sat down and carved up the world like a turkey and came

out saying how wonderful they had been at solving these problems and

then labelled it with "Unconditional Surrender" on top of it. Great

political stuff. Heady decision. Great copy. But in terms of social and

economic consequences it was absolutely devastating! I do not make the

comparison with the Weimar Republic lightly. The same social conditions

and the same psychological atmosphere — i.e. the

stab-in-the-back-philosophy — exists in Canada today in Quebec in terms

of its relationship with other parts of this country. To glibly suggest

five divisions as an answer without any real thought of the social,

economic and, yes, cultural impact of those statements does not serve

this nation well.

I want to talk about the 112,000 unemployed. All of us must

ultimately be responsible for our political statements. None of us can

avoid that if we are in public life. It is very easy for all of us, at

any given time, to make grandiose statements, to make promises that we

might know deep in our own hearts cannot be fulfilled — certainly not

within a matter of hours, days or months — or even to make statements

attacking those in power as being "we know best and we know how to run

things better."

Fifteen months ago the people of this province were asked to make a

choice between one philosophy — i.e. democratic socialism — and another

one, free enterprise. I don't think the people of this province really

understood either one clearly. As a consequence, like 99 per cent of

all elections in North America, most decisions were based on emotion,

an accumulative, image-gathering process that is part of the mystique

of North American decision-making when it comes to politics. As a

consequence of that vote, 49 per cent said they opted for what was free

enterprise and 40 per cent opted for democratic socialism and the 11

per cent was squeezed into the two members who now represent some other

form of philosophy than what is presented there or is presented here.

What really happens, though, Mr. Chairman, is that the reality

forces those lines to be blurred. Once governments come to power there

is a continuum that must be maintained, not set by a previous

administration alone, but by perhaps two, three or four previous

administrations, related to the general economic condition that any

government inherits. One of the inherited factors was the public

utility field in this province.

A decision had been made in the 1960s that we would go public in the

public utility field and a major thrust of capital investment by

government was then directed to that public utility. It is a fact of

life in this province that more than $1 billion has been sucked out of

the economy of this province because of a decision made to go into the

Columbia River Treaty. Everyone can spend hours flailing back and

forth. Was it a good decision? Was it a bad decision? That's now

irrelevant. What has become a factor of life in this province, when we

discuss 112,000 unemployed and capital investment, is that the greatest

draw on private capital borrowings in the United States by this

government is competing for public utility dollars that B.C. Hydro is

currently eating up at over $2 million a day. There is $2 million a day

taken out of capital borrowings available, from our good neighbour, the

United States, essentially, and perhaps from other world jurisdictions

such as petrochemical dollars or Arab dollars, as they are commonly

known, or European borrowings. We have a situation in this province

where the private sector was touted as being the one area where new

capital

[ Page 1077 ]

investment would be coming from. But in actual fact, even as early as this morning's paper, in the Vancouver Province ,

on the business page, there is an admission by the Employers' Council

that the major thrust in the economy has to come from the public sector

and that the services will be providing the basic capital costs, and

those capital costs will be going into hydro projects.

Not one single public initiative that has not been there before is

in place now after 15 months of a new government. Hydro goes on because

of its commitments out of the Columbia River Treaty and the need to

provide power in this province; the B.C. Rail goes on because of it's

commitments — very, very coloured in terms of political decision — but

a reality of a child that is there, perhaps unwanted but nonetheless

there, and must be fed. We find these two corporate structures draining

in terms of the competition for borrowings.

In the private sector there has not been one single move of

leadership by private initiative. There has not been one major

announcement other than Crown Zellerbach stating that they're going to

go on with the maintenance that was absolutely necessary in any event.

The proof of that statement is Mr. Hamilton's own criticism of Crown

Zellerbach attempting to foist off the announcement as if it were new

dollars.

In actual fact in this province, Mr. Chairman, any leading forester,

any leading observer of the industrial scene, would tell you that it is

not a question of one exotic project such as northeast coal that's

needed but rational decisions based on the indigenous economy of this

province that need to be made and be made quickly.

We can have great and lengthy debates about philosophy — you said,

he said, I said, what said — but in actual fact there is a narrow range

of decisions that have to be made, regardless of who is in government.

The challenge around those decisions depends upon not a 28 cent per

capita review of the Premier's office but a question of leadership both

to the private sector and the public sector to make those decisions.

There is a need at this point in this province for two more pulp

mills. The private sector has not responded to that need simply because

government, because of its lack of device, intention or design, has not

challenged the private sector to deliver. Perhaps the NDP would

challenge the private sector differently from a free-enterprise

government. But in any event, the private sector is not being

challenged at all while it is lazy in its use of our resource.

There is a current happening in this province, Mr. Speaker, where

the Big Seven who dominate the forest industry are not being told that

caution, wisdom and some care must be used in using the resource

material that is available to them. There is no government philosophy.

After the Pearse report we're now given a committee to have some

comments on the committee that will have some comments on the report

that will have some comments on the committee.

Two pulp mills are needed now, and two approaches can be taken: an

immediate demand to a private enterprise philosophy that they get on

with it, or that they be challenged with some taxation method that will

force them to return the capital that they're making in profits back to

the province of British Columbia. I don't like seeing profits made from

this province going into the United States in plant facilities and in

market potentials in that country because labour may be cheaper for

that company in the States, especially the southern states. It is the

labour of this province, it is the resource of this province that made

those companies wealthy enough to take their profits and reinvest them.

If the government hasn't got the guts to demand that some percentage of

that money should be reinvested here in British Columbia, then even a

free-enterprise government has to develop a philosophy that taxation at

the end of the delivery of that product should provide reinvestment

here in this province.

With 112,000 people unemployed, the existing sawmills could be

employing two and three shifts rather than one if they could get rid of

their chips and their sawdust in pulp mills that were told you must

take a higher percentage of pulp manufacturing out of chips and

sawdust. These are known facts. It's not an NDP story or a Social

Credit story or a Liberal story. It is a fact of life that exists in

this province right now. For 15 months, since the change of government,

there has been no direction, no philosophy, no statement to the

industry of where you want it to go.

A rhetorical catechization of attacking the NDP as being socialist —

and you would have done it this way and you would have done it that way

— is totally irrelevant. I hope we're not treated to a display of bad

manners and rhetoric about the NDP. I hope we are given some statement

today of what is intended by this government to get the pulp industry

moving and to get those two major pulp mills going. We have thousands

of people out of work, and I find it incredible that even that most

obvious private sector in need of investment has not even been

addressed by any government spokesman.

Frankly, I would prefer to see a situation where we move in as a

government and say that on the price of pulp and paper an additional

$10 to $15 be put on as a tax incentive. That money would go back into

a central pool controlled by the Canadian Celanese Corp., that money to

be used as a base and, if necessary, to allow the private sector an

equalized sharing process in building two pulp mills. If the private

sector won't build those pulp mills, Mr. Chairman, then it is mandatory

for the government to

[ Page 1078 ]

go ahead with those two pulp mills.

For anyone to suggest that government doesn't have the will or the

capacity to run forest products, let us review the history in a less

rhetorical vein than an attack between the NDP and the Social Credit. A

decision was made to buy the Celanese Corporation operations in this

province, and they have been successful, albeit that they were bought

under the NDP, albeit that they have been successful under the NDP and

continue to be successful under Social Credit. The project stands on

its own merits. Governments can run indigenous economic endeavours if

there is common sense and the will to see that they are run.

AN HON. MEMBER: And no political interference.

MR. BARRETT: And no political interference. Having run those

pulp mills, having achieved that, surely to goodness that experience

alone demands, in terms of leadership to the people of this province

who are waiting for jobs, waiting for some measure of economic growth,

that the government step in where private industry is unwilling to pick

up its moral obligation.

It is not an economic risk. The very success of Can-Cel proves that.

An ironic twist on that very thing is the success of Ocean Falls —

proof again that an appeal to the productive work force that they too

have a stake in seeing that that enterprise continues raises

productivity.

Kootenay Forest Products is around, surviving and healthy. The

greatest irony of all is that the only major industrial opening

attended by the Premier in his public function of cutting ribbons was

at the publicly-owned Plateau Mills sawmill that was initiated under

public ownership.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't forget the Grouse Mountain Skyride.

MR. BARRETT: The Grouse Mountain Skyride was there before.

Mr. Chairman, I facetiously referred to the Premier's visit to

Vanderhoof and the opening of that mill as a bit of an insult in that I

understand he didn't use at least a red ribbon. One would have thought

the Premier, venturing into such a socialist enterprise to cut the

opening ribbon of that sawmill and brag about its growth, would have at

least had the decency of using a red ribbon.

All of the rhetoric, all of the argument comes down to a simple

fact: it doesn't matter whether you're in power or we're in power. It

has been a proven case that when it comes to the indigenous economy of

this province, government can step in and be a success where private

industry has been a failure.

In terms of competing for capital funds, a direct taxation on the

existing industry or incentives — if you want to go the private

enterprise way — to the industry, saying: "We will lay off in certain

areas of taxation if you redirect your profits to those two pulp

mills...." If those two pulp mills were announced and put on stream,

the direct and indirect employment would involve, very easily, 30,000

people in this province, a province desperate for economic direction

and economic growth. And we get a 28-cent-per-capita review of the

clerical functions of the Premier's office.

While this is going on, we see a government that has not had a

clear-cut statement as to its own philosophy and some discipline

related to that philosophy. We were treated some months ago to a very

intriguing commitment by the Premier to the philosophy of a guaranteed

annual income to all Canadians. That is part and parcel of a great

Canadian debate, and I think it's worthwhile that the Premier engage in

that debate. Certainly a predecessor of mine in office also had the

same philosophy in terms of avoiding the bureaucracy and adopting

really my own essential belief that one of the major problems with the

poor is that they don't have enough money. It's very simple, very

clear: one of the major problems of the poor is that they don't have

enough money.

A guaranteed annual income is an intriguing approach advocated by

economists both left and right. Friedman, who is no left-winger, has

talked about the negative income tax as a form of guaranteed income.

While this debate is taking place in the moving and shaking parts of

the bodies politic, while the political parties themselves discuss

this, we find a cabinet colleague of the Premier who is noted for his

loose lip shooting down the concept of a guaranteed annual income

before his thoughts, or anyone else's thoughts, have been given the

opportunity to grow into something beyond rhetoric. The Premier has to

tell us whether or not he fosters or agrees with the statements made by

his cabinet colleagues.

I understand the green light, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for drawing it

to my attention. We need to know something about that, not

28-cent-per-capita coffee cups.

There are other things that have to be raised here and I hope my

colleagues — yes, the leaders of the Liberal Party (Mr. Gibson) and the

Conservative Party (Mr. Wallace) — will raise them as well. We need to

know something about the Anti-Inflation Board. We need to know

something that says to us, as individual politicians, when we leave

this chamber and go back and talk to people in this province: "Well, we

don't agree on philosophy but at least there's some hope. The

government is trying to do this, trying to do this, and trying to do

this." Fifteen months, and all we've

[ Page 1079 ]

had is compartmentalized bottom-line thinking with

no heart, no head, no dream of the future, no understanding of the

past, and no broad concept of where this province is going. I hardly

find that answered with a 28-cent-per-capita rundown on the clerical

duties of the Premier's office.

MR. GIBSON: I certainly enjoyed the speech of the Premier,

and I enjoyed the speech of the Leader of the Opposition. I'm wondering

if the Leader of the Opposition is the inspiration for a small piece of

graffiti which is to be found on the walls of our building. Mr.

Chairman, I'm not generally in favour of graffiti, but this is written

in such a small hand, hidden away on a small marble partition in an

obscure room of this building, and it's so philosophical in content

that I thought it was not an undesirable thing.

The particular inscription starts out, in one particular kind of

penmanship and in black ink saying, "What is reality?", which is an

appropriately philosophical question for this chamber. The reply is

written underneath in a different hand and a different ink and it says:

"It is certainly not Social Credit." I was reminded of that by the

speech of the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Chairman, we have here the Premier who is responsible, in

general, for the overall thrust of the government in detail for

federal-provincial questions, and in particular, in my thinking, for

the preservation of our democratic institution. I want to say a few

words on each.

First of all, as to the general thrust of this government on the

economy, they have, I believe, attempted to adopt a generally

conservative approach on the economy. I'm quite prepared to support

that, in general. I have several problems with the details, which I'll

bring up, but in general Liberals have no difficulty with a

conservative type of economic thrust. We are a middle-of-the-road

party, Mr. Chairman, only on balance. We're to the right on economics;

we're to the left on social questions. So I have no difficulty on that

general concept. In fact, the fact that we're to the right on economics

and to the left on social policy...

AN HON. MEMBER: ...is schizo!

MR. GIBSON: ...is the perfect reason why the Minister of

Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) and the Minister of Human Resources (Hon.

Mr. Vander Zalm) are now in the right party, because they don't have

that somewhat progressive orientation on the social side of things, but

you have to have a solid economy to pay for social reform.

So the general theory of the government is right on in trying to

squeeze out fat on government spending which, I think, is correct, and

a lengthy and a difficult and overdue process. I sympathize with them

on that, and I support the government on its stand on the

Anti-inflation Board. It should be kept on in Canada, Mr. Chairman,

until the fullness of the originally specified term and it should be

kept on in British Columbia.

I've a direct question for the Premier. In the reaction to the

suggestions from Ottawa that the programme might be lifted, the Premier

hinted that British Columbia might do something on its own were that to

be the case. I would ask him: is that just a hint, or does it mean more

than that? It's feasible for a time, Mr. Chairman, for British Columbia

to go it alone if we need to. The reason I ask the Premier that

question today is that the uncertainty in this area is having a very

destabilizing effect on the economy of this province. People who have

to sit down at the bargaining table over the next few months don't know

what's going to happen. They don't know how long a contract they should

negotiate for. They don't know what the ground rules are going to be.

The Premier has the power today to tell us what's going to be the

continuing attitude of B.C. even if Ottawa goes the other way.

I want to say something about the thrust that I think his government

should have on energy costs. There's a need for conservation in our

province, Mr. Chairman, and I don't think that the government has shown

enough guts in going after it. New natural gas should be priced at full

rate to all new customers in British Columbia — not just for export.

We're not doing that. Even old natural gas, where existing users are

paying historic prices and we're sort of sucked in, you might say, by

low rates should be raised to the full value over a five-year period so

that we start to conserve this most precious resource in our province —

this resource that, I believe, the Premier had in mind when he was

talking about British Columbia's version of the Alberta Heritage Fund.

These are our irreplaceable capital assets. We have to get full value

for them, and also in terms of conservation we have to get full value

for them.

So I strongly endorse that kind of thrust and I suggest to the

Premier that he have a talk with his Minister of Energy, Transport and

Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis), because the billing procedures of

Hydro are just the reverse of that. They give a discount for heavy

volume use when they shouldn't to anything like the same extent. They

have a flat rate right off the top payment, and that is 100 per cent

wrong in terms of conservation.

The government is finally starting to make a distinction between

capital and current account. They haven't got over their deficit bogey

yet. They're concealing what used to be called deficit financing by

Crown corporations, but at least they've got around to it, and I

support that too. But as for that non-renewable resource fund, I say do

that right now;

[ Page 1080 ]

don't wait — as the Premier said earlier this year

— until we have a little bit more money. The capital should be set

aside, starting right now, even if you have to make some more cuts for

it, Mr. Premier. That's irreplaceable and that's a wasting asset.

The macro-economics of this government have not been good, Mr.

Chairman. You look at last year's vengeance. We've gone through all

that in the Finance minister's (Hon. Mr. Wolfe'

s) estimates as to the

impact of those very rough, politically-motivated decisions of the ICBC

and the sales tax and the ferries. Even this year it's no better — the

bland, unimaginative approach. The Leader of the Opposition spoke about

encouraging investment and that hasn't been done. I've advocated

exactly how to go about getting those pulp mills. I've said something

about how you can encourage investment in plant and equipment in this

province over the next couple of years by taking the 7 per cent sales

tax off that area. There's been none of this kind of initiative. In the

overall, the Premier is responsible for this approach.

In terms of economic development, this government is looking for an

elephant. It's like someone who has to feed their family. They're going

to go out for an elephant to feed them for a whole year. They're

looking for that one easy solution instead of the cautious, careful

building in every area of our economy that ought to be done. They think

that northeast coal is that elephant. I hope it is. But we sure aren't

getting the information in this chamber which would give us too much

encouragement on that. Maybe it will go. On the other hand, maybe it

will, and maybe it should, start small. Maybe it should start with

trucking some of the coal out of the Sukunka area to the BCR connection

and then down the BCR and ship it out of Neptune terminals. Maybe

that's the way to start on northeast coal rather than necessarily

looking for an elephant.

Let's get the figures on it, Mr. Premier. Above all we have to have

information in this. The Premier said: "Wait for the information."

Deals are being made — I said it the other day — with Ottawa. They're

being made with foreign customers. They're being made with the

companies. In the end, we in this Legislature are going to be presented

with a fait accompli and told: "Well, you can talk about it now, but

it's too late. The ink's all dry." Are you afraid of questions? Is your

bag so empty that this is the one big move you've got and you daren't

have anybody looking over your shoulder until it's finally tied up? I'm

disappointed in that, Mr. Chairman.

When I asked the Premier about his stand on the new Alcan pipeline proposal....

As he knows it was revised this week, in the wake of that ridiculous decision

by Judge Litt for the Federal Power Commission down in the United States, to

a point where it is no longer, in my view, as advantageous for British Columbia

because we do not get an immediate throughput of our existing gas system to

share the overhead. On balance, though, I believe that it is still advantageous.

We still get the taxation revenue from the gas that's used in the pumping

and compression. We do have a system there that is 100 per cent Canadian-owned

instead of the Mackenzie Valley system which is less than that — 50 per cent,

if that. We get the construction revenue. We get an all-Canada construction,

incidentally, even though the new proposal, in my understanding, would be 48-in.

pipe. It's a kind of 48-in. pipe which is thinner walled and could be made

in Canada because they're using lower pressure. We do get a tie-in to the

Pacific northwest grid which, in future years I believe, will be able to be

used and will give us those economies of scale in the Westcoast Transmission

system which reflect directly back to the profits of the British Columbia Petroleum

Corporation.

The government was strongly in support of the last proposal. We now

have a revised proposal which may have to be the one that comes out of

the other end of the meat grinder. So I would like to know: is the

government still in support of it? Are they going to appear before the

NEB? Are they going to intervene with the federal cabinet? What will be

the thrust of our government in this? I think it's a tremendously

important question, not just to this province but to the whole country.

I still think that that's the right route.

I have similar questions on the Kitimat pipeline. This Kitimat

pipeline was something that, in the beginning, the government

enthusiastically endorsed. Now they very properly have been backing

off. The Premier shakes his head but I have — I don't have them here —

in my files statements by the Minister of Energy, Transport and

Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) and the Minister of Economic

Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), saying, as long ago as last April:

"We're all for it." In any event, you've now backed off and that's

good. What I want to know, since the Minister of Energy has guaranteed

a stand with the federal government on behalf of the province, will

you, as Premier, guarantee that that stand, first of all, is one that

takes into account all of the west coast input opportunities? In that

sense, you're going to have to discuss it possibly with some of your

counterparts in some of the west coast states. Will you also guarantee

that in the formulation of that provincial stand, in the interest of

British Columbia — which is not necessarily the same as the national

interest in this case — there is a public input for British Columbians

at some stage? One of those stages is certainly the location at Kitimat

and another one is the lower mainland, which is the other danger of

Cherry Point.

Mr. Chairman, those are all economic questions. I wa'nt to turn briefly to the social side, which is the

[ Page 1081 ]

great failing of this government and where we

seriously

part company. Expenditures in Human Resources have been cut

beyond all equity. There can be no clearer case of this than the fact

that the Neumann case is still not resolved. That gentleman on welfare

was given a criminal injuries compensation award — which is certainly

an award to be technical — in the nature of capital — wear and tear. He

was beaten up; he got a criminal injuries compensation award. It was

not in the nature of income, yet it was deducted. That to me

illustrates the whole approach of this government on the social side

and the attitude to seniors — throw them a bone.

The real attitude of this government towards seniors was revealed by

the Minister of Energy in his capacity of being in charge of the

ferries, when he said: "Oh, senior citizens might joyride on the

ferries." Imagine, joyriding on our ferries! Then he cut them back so

they couldn't ride on the ferries free on the weekends either. And in

Health we're going to have a high deductible on Pharmacare. We're going

to have no denticare for kids. That one is even lousy economics if you

look at the SPARC report.

Mr. Chairman, the initial thought of the former government was one

of a fair share, a generosity of approach, but unfortunately, in my

opinion, there was not enough concentration on production. This

government, to my mind, is just the reverse in its economic and social

stance. I say to the Premier that he does no favour to this province or

to his own principles if that failing, that lack of social sympathy,

re-elects the government that he just defeated.

There is a need to raise the human spirit in your social programmes,

to put the trust in individuals, to pay attention to the disadvantaged

of our society, the poor and the undereducated, underemployed youth, to

women in terms of their equal rights, handicapped people like the

example I just gave, and native peoples. You've got to pay more

attention to the individual.

Now I want to move on to federal-provincial affairs. I want to

insist from the Premier on an answer in respect of the strange case of

the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer), who described his view of

federal-provincial affairs in this House. He was not speaking off the

top of his head but was reading from a document I have here. I will

read those words again. This is in respect to the division of powers in

our country:

"Let us have the provinces agree, in consultation with the

federal government, upon those powers and programmes upon which complete consensus

can be found. Those properly belong with the national government. Then let us

discover those policies and programmes on which there is not national agreement

and place them securely in the hands of the provinces, along with the fiscal

powers that support them."

Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Education had just returned from the

province of Quebec. He had spent a bit of time fulsomely praising the

Parti Québecois Minister of Education. He is a learned man, our Minister of Education. I assume he knows the platform of the Parti Québecois.

Let us go through the current responsibilities of the federal

government and see how many would be left if we followed the suggestion

of the Minister of Education. The Department of Consumer and Corporate

Affairs would be gone. The Department of Indian and Northern Affairs

would be gone. The Treasury Board would be gone, except in a very

slight capacity. The Department of Justice would be gone. The

Postmaster-General might be left under contract. The Ministry of Public

Works would service only defence establishments. The Ministry of State

for Fitness and Amateur Sport would be gone. The Department of

Industry, Trade and Commerce would be gone. The Department of Manpower

and Immigration would be gone.

The Department of National Defence might remain on a contract basis; it's unclear from the PQ programme. In Mr. Lévesque's

1968 book, "Option Quebec," he suggests that they would rationalize and

regroup their own establishments within the province of Quebec, so even

that might not be left.

The Minister of State for Science and Technology would be gone. The

Solicitor-General, which is corrections, RCMP and so on, would be gone,

as the minister ought to have known at that point because he was in

Quebec at the time that the RCMP had been asked by the government to

completely get out of Quebec.

The Department of Supply and Services might be left a little bit.

The Secretary of State for. External Affairs, of course, would be gone.

National Health and Welfare would be gone. The Department of Transport

— gone. Fisheries and the Environment — gone. Regional Economic

Expansion — gone. Veterans Affairs would presumably still be left. The

Department of Finance would really be gone because what would be left

of Canada would have no taxing authority. Small Business ministry —

gone. The multi-cultural minister would be gone. Department of Urban

Affairs — certainly gone. Secretary of State — certainly gone.

Communications — certainly gone. Agriculture — also certainly gone.

In other words, Mr. Chairman, just about nothing would be left. Is

that the concept of our government of British Columbia of the way the

national government of this country ought to look? Do they think we

would still have any kind of a country whatsoever left if we followed

that exact formulation of the Minister of Education? I've said it

before and I'll say it again: that was a separatist statement that

minister made in this House. I call on the Premier to

[ Page 1082 ]

repudiate it on behalf of his government. Until then, I say that that minister was speaking for that government.

I want to call to the Premier's mind some of his own statements,

because I'm not sure how important a problem he thinks this is. He went

down and talked to the Canadian Club in Toronto, Mr. Chairman, and he

said this: "Let not this country be diverted from the real problems

facing us by the spectre of separatism, which I do not feel exists."

"...the spectre of separatism, which I do not feel exists."

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): That is incredible.

MR. GIBSON: It is incredible. Now perhaps the Premier will

stand up and tell us that is an improper quote. It's written by

Marjorie Nichols who is a careful journalist as he will recall from her

days in the Legislature here. She studies her work. Perhaps,

alternately, the Premier will tell us that he's had a change of view in

the meantime, because I think separatism is an important problem in our

country.

Then what else is he doing? In the budget he's replacing

equalization in our country with the negative income tax. Well, I went

through that with the Minister of Finance. It just shows a lack of

understanding in the way our country works. The other day he was

amalgamating the Maritimes — very generous. Solve the problems of

British Columbia before you try and fix up the Maritimes, Mr. Premier,

through you, Mr. Chairman. I'm a little bit in despair of that.

Mr. Premier, you are doing a good job on one thing. You're going

after the federal government for money. Keep it up. I will support you

in every way possible. We ought to have the money on the British

Columbia ferries, and I want to give you one more suggestion to go

after. Prince Edward Island just got $12 million and Nova Scotia just

got $63 million as federal grants for the conservation of energy,

specifically by the insulation of homes. The theory for giving it to

those maritime provinces was that they were dependent upon imported oil

and therefore had a special claim. But, Mr. Chairman, as you well know,

even if British Columbia doesn't rely on imported oil, every drop of

oil we use here is something that can't be sent down to the Maritimes

or Montreal, so it comes out to exactly the same thing.

I suggest to the Premier that we in British Columbia deserve the

same kind of federal grant in respect to insulation of homes and

conservation of energy as those maritime provinces deserve.

Incidentally, according to the federal Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr.

Gillespie), the payback on this kind of investment is tremendously

high. It's paid back in about two and a half years, if those figures

are to be believed. I ask the Premier to go after that one.

Now I want to make a specific suggestion to him on the constitution.

In my view, Mr. Chairman, there is far too much time wasted in

bickering on the constitution at the moment. Furthermore, the bickering

is going on about the wrong things. The questions are what the powers

of governments should be. The people don't care what the powers of

governments are. All they want to do is have government organized so

that if serves them most efficiently and at the lowest cost. Yet what

do the governments wrangle about? Naturally, they wrangle about the

protection and expansion of their own empires.

I think we need a new constitution for several reasons. We need a

new constitution to get it home. You can say that's just a silly,

emotional matter of pride, but I think we should have control of our

constitution in our own country. We need a new constitution so that we

finally have an agreed formula on how to amend it, because we can't

even do that now without unanimous consent, which is stupid. We need a

new constitution to re-divide powers in this country. We need a new

constitution — and this is tremendously important — to entrench a Bill

of Rights, because at the moment our constitution just talks about the

division of powers between governments. It gives no rights to the

people whatsoever, and the fundamental purpose of a constitution ought

to be to protect the people from the conceivable power of a tyrannical

government. As the Premier knows, we have no such protection in our

constitution.

We should bring the constitution home, or rather rewrite it, to ease

recognize the aspirations of the west. My personal belief is that the

principal grievance we have lies in the field of tariffs. We should

have another look at the constitution because it's a 100-year-old

contract — 110 years. Every 100-year-old contract needs a re-opener

clause, surely to God. The fathers of Confederation built well, but

they did not build that well that they don't need a bit of amendment

after that length of time.

So if that is agreed, how should it be rewritten? First of all, let

me suggest how it should not be rewritten. It should not, under any

circumstances, be rewritten by the federal and provincial governments.

They all have axes to grind — their own axes, not necessarily the axes

of the public they represent — and we can certainly see this in the

continued bickering over powers.

Furthermore, the rewriting of a constitution is a tremendously

important and time-consuming process. It will, if done by the

governments, detract from the business they have been elected to do.

Perhaps most importantly, Mr. Chairman, not one single government in

this country has a mandate to rewrite

[ Page 1083 ]

the constitution, including the government of the

province of Quebec, which specifically excluded that from its mandate

during its election campaign. There is not one government in this

country that was even elected by a majority of the people on the voters

list. There are only two or three even elected by the majority of the

ballots actually cast. None of them has the mandate for such a

fundamental thing as redrawing our constitution, so how should it be

done if it is to be done?

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: No. I disagree with that suggestion, Mr. Member,

that was recently made that it be done by a committee of experts. I

think it ought to be done by an elected constitutional conference,

which is hardly a novel device in the history of the democratic nations

of this world.

MR. WALLACE: You mean it would take another 100 years. That's what you're saying.

MR. GIBSON: I ask our Premier to keep an open mind on this. I

was delighted to see that the Prime Minister of Canada said that this

process would be acceptable to him if it was acceptable to others. An

elected constitutional conference would be very different from an

elected parliament. People would be elected for this specific reason —

to reform, to rewrite the constitution. They would not, I suggest, Mr.

Chairman, in any way be elected along party lines, but if you were

worried about that you could put a condition on it that no one who is

serving in this conference could serve in the ensuing governmental

forms that come about for the next 10 years. You can get around that if

you're really worried about it.

The community would send its best and they would meet wherever they

met. Lock them up in a room for as many months or years as it takes.

Give them the benefit of advice of federal and provincial appointees to

this body who would carry the views of the several governments of the

country and in the end, when the tensions of the various parts of the

nation and the various powers that be are worked out in a final

document, put that document to a referendum in this nation. Then, Mr.

Chairman, you have a constitution. In the meantime, you have the

subject being dealt with in a way which ought to be acceptable to

Quebec separatists or western separatists or centralizing bureaucrats

or whoever they may be. It's not a novel idea. The United States

started that way. It's still done in various states of the union on a

contemporaneous basis. It works well.

Mr. Chairman, another specific question for the Premier, for the record and

for this conference, if it ever comes to pass: When will we have a definition

of what our Premier means by "flexible federals" when he talks about

a new division of powers? I would like to know in some specificity, if that

is a word, what exactly "flexible federalism" means.

AN HON. MEMBER: I like the word.

MR. GIBSON: I want to go on and talk very briefly about

democratic institutions, which to me is the most sacred trust of this

or any other Premier. Democratic procedures in our Legislature must be

improved. The system is negative, as that Premier knows. He has sat on

both sides of the House. On one side of the House there is absolute

power, and absolute power corrupts. On the other side of the House

there is absolute lack of power, and absolute lack of power corrupts

equally because there is a lack of responsibility that goes with it.

However individuals may try they are sucked into the negativism of the

system, and you see the confrontation.

MR. C. D'ARCY (Rossland-Trail): It applies to you?

MR. GIBSON: It applies equally to me. It applies to every

member of this House. There is an unavoidable, pervasive atmosphere

because of the way the system works. I'm asking the Premier if there

isn't something he can do about that. I believe there is. It certainly

isn't the kind of contempt for the House that was shown by the

appointment of the Bawlf housing committee which had not one single

opposition member on it. Rather, it's a trusting in the ordinary

committee system in this House: for oversight into the activities of

the public service by the regular reference of estimates — the public

accounts committee isn't the vehicle for that; for investigation and

inquiry into public opinion; for control of the Crown corporations,

which should be required to report on a regular basis to some kind of

legislative committee — not one that would run them but one that would

at least have the right to ask questions and that would be able to call

in Bob Bonner and say: "Why did you raise those rates that way?" Nobody

else in this province has the right to ask those questions, it seems.

We need freedom of information legislation in this government that

says that anything for which there is not a solid reason for keeping

secret must be disclosed on application by any citizen. We need

electoral reform, Mr. Chairman, and I know the Premier will speak with

some eagerness in answering this question because it was one of his

election promises. We need a transferable ballot. I'm sorry, a

commission to study it was one of your promises. I'll be precise there.

[ Page 1084 ]

HON. MR. BENNETT: Big difference.

MR. GIBSON: We need a transferable ballot. Power should go

only with a genuine mandate, and that is not necessarily what our

system provides. I refer you to 1972 in British Columbia and to 1976 in

Quebec. In 1972, British Columbians, in my opinion, were not voting for

socialism, and in 1976 in Quebec, in my opinion, Quebecers were not

voting for separatism. If they want socialism, fine. If they want

separatism, fine. But make sure the voting system is one that makes

sure that's what they really mean. To me, electoral reform is required

for that. There are other constitutional measures that I think we have,

on which I will elaborate in more detail at another time, such as the

initiative and the referendum and the recall system which, as you will

recall, Mr. Chairman, was one of the ways in which the voters of

Wisconsin almost got Tailgunner Joe when he went too far, back in those

days.

These are a few comments on, first of all, the general thrust of the

government, and secondly, on the specific area of federal-provincial

relations, and lastly, on the most sacred trust — the democratic

process. I would much appreciate any response the Premier might have to

make.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I would have to have a lot of time to

discuss some of these areas. I'll comment first of all on the remarks

of the Leader of the Opposition. I see he's not here. I would say that

sometimes his words and his actions are not compatible. I can remember

being in this House and being part of a British Columbia in which he

was the head of the government. The words he speaks today are not

compatible with the actions they took at that time. As such, what

advice was contained in his remarks to the House is taken at face value

when trying to relate what he says now and what he did then, the state

of the economy and the state of the province.

There were some questions, though. He did raise the question of a

guaranteed annual income through the negative income tax. It was also

touched on by the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson).

Yes, I do advocate it as a method by which we could strengthen that

part of the federal system. In attempting to give income support

programmes to provincial governments and have everyone play king with

the handout of the dollars, you have the tendency of some provincial

governments to act responsibly and others to play "shovel it out of the

back of a truck." That isn't an equal distribution of money. That isn't

meeting the concept of the best use of the taxpayer's dollar, nor does

it do much to help those in genuine need, nor does it bring equity

among Canadians.

I'd just like to mention, Mr. Chairman, that the concept of a

guaranteed annual income scheme is essentially a system whereby

government ensures that the income of any predefined family unit does

not fall below a certain minimum. That minimum is usually defined in

terms of a level of income below which a family is regarded to be

suffering from unacceptable poverty. The minimum income level therefore

is known as the poverty line. The most pervasive type of guaranteed

annual income proposal is the.... A method of distributing the

guaranteed annual income is through a negative income tax or through a

direct payment, but using the income tax system. A reporting system may

be the most easily applicable in regard to the federal government. It's

actually simply a government subsidy administered through the tax

system to all families and individuals whose incomes are below the

guaranteed income line.

What we have in this country now, as the members of this House know,

is a myriad of programmes of income support. Some of them are

federal-provincial programmes, others are programmes developed by the

provinces themselves, such as British Columbia guaranteeing against

higher costs. I say those programmes must be rationalized. They were

brought in at various times in our history from the late '30s on, and

in those areas we should have a rationalization of those funds.

Another suggestion I've had is that added to those funds that are

already identified as being tax dollars for income support, we should

phase in those payments now that are paid in equalization to

governments. I say this because there is a strong body of opinion now

that, in analysing equalization as it is taking place in this country,

says it hasn't done the job. We still have the same inequality between

individuals that we had before. What we have done, in many cases, is

send dollars to governments where the money has gone for various other

purposes than that for which it was intended, and that is to bring

equity amongst Canadians.

I'd like to quote from a paper by Richard Simeon, Institute of

Intergovernmental Relations at Queen's University, that he gave to a

seminar on federal-provincial relations in Ottawa on December 6,

dealing with regional redistribution of the benefits of Confederation.

But part of it dealt with income. On one page, if I may be allowed to

quote, he says:

"Moreover, a redistribution of income which is

positive from a regional point of view may be perverse from some other

point of view. The clearest example concerns measures to alleviate

poverty. Should one equalize across regions by transferring, as does

the fiscal equalization programme, from taxpayers of all provinces to

governments of the poorer provinces, or should we equalize across poor

persons, no matter where they live? The argument for the latter might

note, for example, that there are

[ Page 1085 ]

probably, in absolute numbers, more poor people in Toronto than

in the Atlantic region.

"In addition, the fiscal transfer involved is not only

a transfer from rich to poor regions, it is a transfer from both low-

and high-income persons in, say, Ontario or British Columbia to both

low- and high-income persons in, say, New Brunswick. Thus, the transfer

from rich to poor provinces also involves an element of transfer from

poor to rich individuals. Equalization of incomes across regions is

different from equalization of income among persons in each region of

Canada as a whole."

A. Milton Moore strongly attacks the whole concept of inter-regional

equalization. He said that equalization involves arbitrary income

transfers between families with similar incomes who happen to live in

different regions. What is needed, he suggests, is a national income

redistribution policy — in other words, equalize people, not territory.

That's the inherent unfairness in the equalization programme we have

today, because there are large numbers of poor in the so-called "have

provinces," but under equalization between regions we're redistributing

their money as well — the money that belongs to them — to the rich and

poor of other provinces. So we say the nationalization of the existing

programme and phasing out the equalization to regions and adding that

pool of capital will bring greater equity to Canadians.

I realize, along with all other members of this House, you couldn't

just do away with the equalization system as we know it today. It would

be disastrous for governments, particularly those governments in the

Maritimes where perhaps 80 per cent of their total income comes from

the equalization fund. But should not our concept of Canada be that of

a country for the people? And should not our concern then of income

support and income programmes and aid to people be made clear to

people, and should not that money go directly to the people? I hate to

admit it, but here I agree with what is an old statement restated in

this House today by the Leader of the Opposition, saying the answer to

poorness is to give people more money. That's what they lack. What

we've got to do is take a rational look, then, at how we can take

existing dollars that are already identified for social needs and give

them the best possible use. That can't be achieved under the present

system.

I throw this in not as an answer to separatists, but it also is a

role that can be played solely by a federal government; in fact, the

prime responsibility of a federal system is to bring equity among

Canadians. But to force-feed regions for the sake of maintaining a

historical population base to me is folly. The idea of a country is the

free movement of people and the opportunity of free movement within

that country and not to penalize the growth areas or the areas that

reflect the economy of today or the potential growth of today but, in

fact, to recognize that it's easier to allow people to move to where

the action is now than to try and maintain them where the action was 50

years ago, 75 years ago or 100 years ago. That's the folly of using

equalization through regions and governments.

A distribution system on an income level, then, for individuals in

this country is a far better means of guaranteeing equity than the

system we have today. Of all countries in the world, Canada is perhaps

best equipped to bring in such a programme. We have the basis of the

series of income-support programmes now that, say, are not available to

our neighbours in the south, the United States. We already have

identified a large pool of capital in what we already call

equalization, which is unique in the world. So that capital is already

there, provided by the taxpayers as a base of social capital that's

available not to solve the job.

It's unfortunate that in the studies done in the United States that

have four community areas in different regions of the country where

they are also studying the negative income tax or the guaranteed annual

income they have found that the greatest opponents of the guaranteed

annual income system and negative income tax are not the very wealthy,

not people who would be called upon to pay the bulk of the taxes to

deliver such a system, but those whom we hire in the field to help the

needy and the poor, because the very people we call upon to provide

solutions to the needs of people are the people who are professionals

and work in the field and who also, in making such a decision, would

actually be deciding many of them out of a job, because they're the

people who now distribute the benefits or the so-called benefits. If

we're to have income transfers as simply and efficiently as possible,

it means a large body of bureaucracy would be eliminated. Yet these are

the people we ask for advice on how best to deal with the needs of the

poor and the disadvantaged in our province and our country. It's one of

the problems they've identified as being a major problem in selling the

concept of a guaranteed annual income.

Secondly, the studies that have been carried out in the United

States — and some in Canada — would be for the social impact of

providing dollars. Would a guaranteed annual income encourage people

not to work? Studies have been going on since the late 1960s in four

areas of the United States, and in all cases — and these areas are

different and the people have different backgrounds, so they reflect a

diverse cross-section of the people — they found that the old argument

that a guaranteed annual income would encourage people not to work is

wrong and that, in fact, in two of the four cases, I believe, there was

actually an increase in work opportunity for families

[ Page 1086 ]

involved in this guaranteed annual income experiment.

If the United States believes that the guaranteed annual income or

the negative income tax is a good idea whose time has come, it's even

more immediate here in Canada, because we are better prepared now and

better equipped to deal with this fairer method of income distribution.

I only point that out as we say that there are also side benefits in

Canada because also meeting the needs of people would help strengthen

what I consider to be the federal system.

Some areas touched on the B.C. Cellulose Corporation, which touches

Can-Cel, Kootenay Forest Products, Ocean Falls and Plateau Mills. It

was suggested by the Leader of the Opposition that there was no

political interference in these corporations. I can't agree with that

statement. You can never guarantee that governments don't protect their

own. To try and further guarantee that we wouldn't fall into the trap —

because they're owned by government and the government of the day

becomes accountable for them and accepts the responsibility for them —

we moved them away from the Minister of Forests' (Hon. Mr. Waterland'

s) responsibility. It's my responsibility to explain these companies to

the Legislature. The Legislature was advised last year of this change.

I'm prepared to deal with your questions on B.C. Cellulose and the

various corporations that are touched by B.C. Cellulose which are, of

course, Kootenay Forest Products, Ocean Falls, Plateau Mills, and

Can-Cel, which is not a Crown corporation as such but a corporation in

which the Crown owns 79 per cent of the shares of Can-Cel outright.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Some are held by the government that were....

AN HON. MEMBER: It's around 80.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I've got it in my books and I'll provide

that information to the House in a moment. My advisers here are spread

all over the desk. These advisers are on a seven-day week, 24 hours a

day.

The member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) mentioned our

proposed heritage fund. I'm sure we expect unanimous agreement in the

House that out of our non-renewable resources we should be allocating a

fixed percentage for future generations in this province.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: A fixed percentage — not the whole of it.

No, some of it goes. The present generation has some value in that too;

it expects, and has the right to, the value of some of those resources.

But some should be put aside for the future, and we will be providing

such a fund.

I was surprised, though, by the suggestion from the member for North

Vancouver–Capilano that we should start such a fund now when he's

criticizing the government for not spending in certain areas. When we

have a proposed balanced budget, does he propose that we borrow and

charge a debt to those future generations to set up a fund to guarantee

some continuity of service for those generations?'

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, on the contrary, it's got to be the

direct allocation of those funds. We in this province today will have

to deny ourselves some of the benefit of those dollars. Right now we're

not doing that. All of those dollars are going to existing services.

You questioned some of the cutbacks that were made, and this is the

sort of attitude. Everybody talks restraint and they don't want to pay

any more in tax dollars. You want more and more services and you want

this fund set up. It's just that somewhere over the line we've run out

of money.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: We've run out of money.

MR. BARRETT: How about some restraint for the millionaires?

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: That restraint belongs to everybody, The

greatest restraint should have been practised by the last government

that spent like millionaires. But it was other people's money, and

that's the difference. It was other people's money. They went out and

wanted to play millionaire with other people's money, and that's why

you're no longer government.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. R.L. LOEWEN (Burnaby-Edmonds): You don't look so well, Dave.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Now, the member for North

Vancouver–Capilano also brought up the question of pipelines and the

new Alcan proposal. Quite frankly, I haven't had a chance to analyse

it, but it certainly isn't in the British Columbia interest, as the

first Alcan proposal was.

The first Alcan proposal still would have allowed British Columbia

to make some demands for that pipeline if it had run through our

province carrying

[ Page 1087 ]

American gas to American consumers — in effect

using our province as part of a land bridge — but the new proposal is

not of the same intent. It doesn't give us the higher use of our own

line; it doesn't give us greater throughput. It's being analysed now,

and I can't make a comment until we've had a chance to analyse it. But

it is certainly not of the same economic advantage, certainly not to

the degree that the first Alcan proposal was. It may not even be worthy

of support of the province of British Columbia. We have to analyse

that. Our departments haven't had a full opportunity to complete their

study and give advice to the government.

You mentioned the proposed Kitimat pipeline. I'd just like to

question that this government has never given enthusiastic support to

that proposal. My statements have always been that the proposal is

before the National Energy Board and that the province of British

Columbia will be an intervener at such hearings. It involves more than

our own interest because, quite frankly, I can't see a provincial

benefit to the Kitimat pipeline in this proposal at all, unless it's

taken in not only a Canadian view and a northwestern view, such as the

member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) said, but the Canadian

government has got to be involved. I presume it will be discussed when

the Prime Minister visits Washington — a North American view on energy

use. Primarily British Columbia's oil supply comes from Alberta.

Obviously all of us are concerned with tanker traffic off our coast.

It's one problem we have that I discussed with the Prime Minister when

I was in Ottawa. A message that British Columbia expects him to take to

the United States is to speak out strongly against the tanker traffic

over which this province is very concerned but over which we have no

control — that is, American ships carrying American oil to American

ports. It just so happens that Cherry Point is in a very fragile area

for not only themselves in the United States, but for British Columbia

as well.

In the past in this Legislature, two governments ago, a private

member — I think it was Dr. Howard McDiarmid — sponsored a resolution

that this Legislature go on record against the tanker traffic off our

coast in those waters. It was endorsed 100 per cent. We still have the

and dealing with the government of the United States to make such

representation on our behalf to keep the tankers out of Cherry Point.

It's not comforting to us that there has been an apparent change in

opinion by the governor of the State of Washington.

MR. BARRETT: What is your position as an intervener? What's the point of intervening if you haven't got a position?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. The Premier has the floor.

HON. MR. BENNETT: What I'm telling the House is that we're

studying the proposal, not only through our own agencies and

departments that give advice to government, but we've initiated and

involve what information they have as being interveners to help us

develop the British Columbia position. We haven't got our case prepared

for the National Energy Board hearings yet.

It's quite easy to do what the former government did, strike an

opinion and then gather such evidence discriminately that will support

the opinion you've already arrived at.

I've said that right now the Kitimat proposed pipeline appears of no

interest to British Columbia at all and that it has no benefit. Initial

reports said it has no immediate benefit to British Columbia. It may

have benefit when all the studies are in if it is more acceptable. The

reports are not in as to whether it would be better if we had Kitimat

with the guarantee that Cherry Point and Port Angeles and other

proposed ports would not go ahead. That would be part of an

in. That's why we have to take a North American view, a Canadian view,

a B.C. view, and a northwestern view. It needs the agreement of our

national governments and it needs the agreement of the government of

British Columbia, along with the governments getting that supply —

particularly Washington state that has an industrial base built up on

those refineries that originally depended on oil from Alberta. That's

what those refineries were started from. It was because of the policy

of Canada that they had to look for another source to keep those

refineries busy. That's why our intervention will be based on the

advice that's given to us, after assessing all the advice and the

consultation with the additional advice we've sought from the research

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): You've an open mind on the pipeline — at both ends.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member for North Vancouver–Capilano

mentioned the anti-inflation programme. I will reiterate our position.

Any suggestion that controls are coming off this year — and the type of

it — has created an uncertainty over the bargaining that's about to

take place in this province of about 65 per cent of the agreements. Our

total forest industry, transportation, government, Hydro — all of these

areas are negotiating agreements. It's created concern on both sides.

We made strong representation to the federal government when we

[ Page 1088 ]

were in Ottawa that they should come out with a

strong statement on the control programme. We believe that, while it's

been controversial, its effects are starting to work. What's happened

now is they could throw all this away with the uncertainty they've

thrown over this province at this critical time. They must bear some

responsibility for British Columbia as well as the pressures they are

receiving from other parts of Canada.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: We are already studying what options are

open to the government in a legal way to step in. We've said that the

control programme will continue and that this province will devise a

programme to supplement the federal programme or to take its place to

guarantee the restraint that we've asked for in this year and next

year, to allow the restraint to take place in the private and public

sector.

AN HON. MEMBER: You've already said that. That's your policy.

HON. MR. BENNETT: That's our policy.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

MR. MACDONALD: On the Kitimat pipeline, I find it very

surprising that the Premier still hasn't got a position on something of

such importance and urgency to the province of B.C. If ever I've heard

a weak statement of a non-position, it was your statement on the

Kitimat pipeline. You're going to intervene but you don't know what

you're going to say there after all these months. You know, this is not

a new issue.

AN HON. MEMBER Hear, hear!

MR. MACDONALD: But I want to refer to some other things right

in the Premier's office. On February 1, 1977, the Premier answered the

former Premier in these words. Are you listening, Mr. Chairman?

MR. BARRETT: Supplementary to the Premier: has anyone in your

office ever forwarded a blacklist of names of public servants to any

minister identifying them by their political sympathies?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The answer is absolutely no.

Now that was not a full.... As a matter of fact, it was a false answer, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

MR. MACDONALD: Of course it was. I mean, whether you call the document a blacklist or not, you play semantics with that word....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. That is unparliamentary. Will you kindly withdraw?

MR. MACDONALD: Is there a point of order?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Withdraw.

MR. BARRETT: Withdraw what — your answer?

MR. MACDONALD: I say that that was not....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, that is unparliamentary. Will you kindly withdraw?

MR. BARRETT: His answer?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, the first member for Vancouver East....

MR. BARRETT: His answer wasn't true.

MR. MACDONALD: All right, I'll withdraw the imputation that

the Premier.... I didn't mean to say that the Premier was lying. I am

saying that that was not a full, candid answer on a matter of

importance, and that at a subsequent date in the Legislature....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you on a point of order, Mr. Premier?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I object to the statement that it was not a

candid answer. That member is dealing with his own definition of what

he considers to be, as he likes to describe it, a blacklist. It is not

a blacklist. There has been no such list and, as such, my answer was

correct.

MR. BARRETT: Is it a greenlist?

MR. MACDONALD: The Premier is playing semantics with one word

in his answer by saying that the document that went out from his own

office identifying public servants by their political affiliation did

not constitute, in his view, a blacklist. But it was a document that

went out from your office identifying people as NDP and Social Credit.

The Premier should have corrected that answer fully and fairly to the

Legislature as soon as he read that document. It's easy to put your own

meaning on a word, Mr. Premier, and say: "No, I didn't give a…." Then

what do you do?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you kindly address the Chair, hon. member?

MR. MACDONALD: What did he do, Mr.

[ Page 1089 ]

Chairman? Instead of investigating the cause, the

offence, the fire, he investigated the leak. He set up a plumbers unit

to investigate the leak.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: The RCMP, if necessary.... I took down the

words: you ordered the Attorney-General's (Hon. Mr. Gardom'

s) department to investigate the leak of the document. If I had been the

Attorney-General I would have refused such an order, Mr. Chairman. I

think it's totally demeaning to your Attorney-General to ask him to

investigate how the thing came to light without investigating the real

fact of what happened in the Premier's office to Dan Campbell. That is

demeaning. The fact that it came to light is something that all people

in British Columbia should applaud.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. MACDONALD: You know, it's fine for somebody like Ken Raines to be libelled by being called an NDPer....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Al Raine.

MR. MACDONALD: Al Raine. He was accused of being an NDPer,

eh? In some eyes, that's next to being libelous. It's all right if he

and Mr. Sector, who is still a public employee.... It's all right if

the thing is secret. Only "Oil Slick" knows, and those he may talk to

at a cocktail party very confidentially. But reputations were damaged.

It was through the Premier's office, but he has not yet even suggested

that there should be an investigation of his own office and the

activities of Dan Campbell. I don't deny that it was smart politics.

I don't know who suggested this to the Premier on that day — maybe

it was his own innovation. When this came to light, that from his own

head of intergovernmental affairs a list had gone out about public

servants in the province of B.C. identifying them by their political

affiliations, it was smart politics — and I don't deny that for one

minute — to order an investigation into the leak.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

MR. MACDONALD: You didn't do it with the purloined telegram, I know that. It's a double standard, Mr. Chairman, that we're seeing.

MR. BARRETT: Where did you get the telegram?

MR. MACDONALD: That's history, eh? During the election

campaign, "Bennett crowed proudly in Merritt last week when he waved

the telegram before a crowd of supporters," and then he had the

monumental gall, two days later, to demand a judicial inquiry into

government leaks. You put the accuser in the box and don't investigate

the offence. The Attorney-General's department should not have been a

party to that kind of thing. It's one investigation too much.

As I recall, when I was a minister, a leak was good for the body

politic. Sometimes it was the only way I could find out what was

happening in my department. (Laughter.) That's right. What this

government needs is not just a leak, but a real blow-out. Things are

going on....

Now here's the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy). Keep it quiet, eh? Shh! Mrs. McCarthy, according to The Province ,

expressed to reporters the government's embarrassment and concern over

a leak of a confidential memo — not the memo. Let not those people in

the universities know that they're not going to be allowed to have

governmental positions as consultants or to help with programmes. Don't

let them know. Investigate the leak.

That letter should have been public knowledge not only within the

university community. The Provincial Secretary's letter expresses very

succinctly the anti-intellectual, anti-cultural bent of this

government. They're afraid of anybody who might have a university

degree because they might be to the left of Genghis Khan. Very

suspicious. And the chief source of these kinds of McCarthy-like

activities has been stemming out of the Provincial Secretary's office

and the Premier's office.

You've lost some of the best men already that this government ever

had. You've lost them because of this. They understand very clearly

that there is no career open in the B.C. public service for

imagination, innovation, culture and economic positions if they don't

happen to be pre-Keynesian or if they're not pre-Cambrian. They might

not really have approved of the fall of Babylon. This is the

anti-intellectual bent of this government. What you do is try and keep

it quiet. Investigate the leak. You've lost Hogarth; you've lost

Neilson. Some of the best people in government are not going to stay on

this basis.

I say this: when that memorandum went out from the Premier's office....

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, John Hogarth is going — one of the best

people that ever happened to B.C. — and Bill Neilson's gone back to

teaching. They recognize that this is a Philistine government and that

its economic ideas belong back in the early 1920s. That's where you

are, and you don't want university people around. They're very

suspicious. Am I wrong about the early 20s? My knowledge of history

isn't that good.

[ Page 1090 ]

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: He's doing some work, but he's gone back.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would you kindly address the Chair?

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, it was shortly after the

memorandum, when they fired Mr. Terry Ison from the Workers'

Compensation Board, even though his resignation was there, even though

he hadn't been consulted, even though he was an esteemed public

servant, and the Ross report had not been commissioned — or it

certainly hadn't been received — they were raising a warning to all of

the public servants of B.C.: "Watch out. We're very suspicious, we

people, that you might have modern, progressive, innovative ideas.

Watch out!" That's the heavy hand of this government so far as the

public service is concerned. And I say it is a disaster for the

province of B.C., and it stems right out of the Premier's office.

When that memo went out with this attached to it from Dan Campbell,

it was not just from a clerk in the Premier's office; it carried a

heavy message. Dan Campbell — he was involved in the purloined telegram

too — campaign leader, Social Credit Party hack, and hatchet man within

the government, not just another clerk.

When that went out with identification of these people on it —

somebody is NDP, somebody is Social Credit — that was a green light for

those who were Social Credit within the public service; it was an amber

light for those who didn't get any mention one way or the other; and it

was a red light for those who got mentioned as NDPers. It bore the

imprimatur of the Premier's office and all the weight of authority of

that office. It was meant to be acted upon. And you denied that and

passed it off in the Legislature by saying: "We're going to even call

in the RCMP to say who brought this thing to light." I say again, Mr.

Chairman: that was not a full, fair, candid answer made to the

Legislature on that date...

MR. BARRETT: You get yourself in order.

MR. MACDONALD: ...and I want to ask the....

MR. BARRETT: What's wrong with "full, fair, candid"? Nothing's wrong with that. Stand up and ask him to withdraw it, then.

MR. MACDONALD: At least there should be an apology to this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, as you're fully aware, you cannot rephrase an allegation made which was ruled to be unparliamentary.

MR. MACDONALD: I'm asking the Premier to stand up when I sit down and apologize to this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you're fully aware that you cannot

rephrase a statement that was previously ruled as unparliamentary. I

would ask you to withdraw.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, no. I said an accusation of lying, which

I did not make, is unparliamentary. But I'm certainly entitled to say

that that answer that sits on Hansard

was not a full, candid and fair answer made to this Legislature. Are we

entitled to the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, or

are we entitled to a smart political trick where you make off and put

the accuser in the dock?

MR. BARRETT: Shame! Shame!

MR. MACDONALD: Now people were injured there, but I'm asking

the.... And the thing was marked when it came from your office, Mr.

Premier, in terms of his heavy imprimatur that it bore — strictly

personal and confidential — and that's very significant. And anybody

receiving that memorandum and anybody within your government, or

anybody being told about it, would certainly act as it was intended

action that should be taken upon it. There's no question about that.

So, Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the Premier: what's he done about an

investigation into his own office? What have you done about Dan

Campbell, who is not just another public servant, but who, on that day,

didn't just pass it on? He had a month to think about it. It came in

December and he released this in January. He first passed on a letter

of Ohlemann. The letter was dated December 22, but it was passed on in

January.

HON. MR. BENNETT: That's when it was mailed. When was it received?

MR. MACDONALD: Well, I don't know that, and I don't think it matters, does it? Well, he passed it on pretty quickly, eh?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Five days.

MR. MACDONALD: He had five days to think about it.

MR. BARRETT: You know it was five days. You know more about it than you say. He didn't know anything about it but he knew it was five days.

[ Page 1091 ]

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, that's right. That's the kind of investigation we need. Five days. That's right. Was it two days?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The hon. first member for Vancouver East has the floor.

MR. MACDONALD: Maybe we should ask the Attorney-General's department to investigate that, eh? One more in-house investigation.

MR. BARRETT: Five days. How much do you know about it? Keep talking. You're really letting us know more than you want to, eh?

MR. MACDONALD: Well, anyway, what I'm saying is that you

should have investigated what was happening in your office, Mr.

Premier, and you should have corrected what you said to the

Legislature...

MR. BARRETT: What's Dan got on you anyway?

MR.MACDONALD: ...and the people. This was not just another

passing on. The thing was doctored. The organization chart was doctored

in the Premier's office by the addition of political labels. Then it

was passed on by his right-hand man to the Minister of Environment

(Hon. Mr. Nielsen) with all the indications implicit in that action

that it was to be acted upon, and that's not something for

investigation, eh?

MR. BARRETT: And he knew it was five days.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): And how many other ministers got similar documents?

MR. MACDONALD: Well, I think you know, quite frankly. To

answer the member for New Westminster.... These are not my estimates,

but I'll answer questions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: In answering the member for New Westminster, hon. member, would you kindly address the Chair?

MR. MACDONALD: You know, from the Provincial Secretary (Hon.

Mrs. McCarthy) — who looks so beautiful sitting over there — from your

office has gone a stream of memorandums asking whom you employ. Are

they maybe left of Ghengis Khan? Yes, oh, you bet there has been. Your

little letter to all cabinet ministers about the university people — a

very dangerous bunch who....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we are on the Premier's vote. Would you kindly... ?

MR. BARRETT: Oh no, she wants to confess.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): The first member

for Vancouver East has just made an accusation that there is a stream

of memos emanating from the Department of the Provincial Secretary...

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: ...that mention "left wing" and whatever.

If the member will not withdraw that remark, I will ask him to file

immediately any memos that have that kind of accusation in them. Will

he withdraw the remark, Mr. Chairman? I ask him to withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you must accept the Provincial Secretary's....

MR. MACDONALD: You accept my statement, I'll accept yours. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member....

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I ask the first member for Vancouver East to make a complete withdrawal of an accusation he has just made against my office.

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I'm not saying that anything

went out from your office which identified people politically. What I

am saying is that your office has been very busy inquiring in the

departments as to what people have been hired, and I happen to be

suspicious about it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, all you have to do is accept the

hon. Provincial Secretary's statement. There is no need to withdraw. Do

you accept that statement?

MR. MACDONALD: I accept the minister's statement.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

MR. MACDONALD: But I say, Mr. Chairman, that the attitude of

this government reminds me of the slogan of the French Foreign Legion:

"Down with intelligence! Long live death!" (Laughter.) Is that what

they used to say?

[ Page 1092 ]

MR. BARRETT: No one is going to check it out. It's okay, Alec. They don't read books anyway.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The first member for Vancouver East has the floor.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, this again was a leak, eh — this

letter of the Provincial Secretary's, Mr. Premier? And she says: "Oh,

it's a bad thing that maybe university people might be getting a per

diem."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we are not on the Provincial Secretary's vote.

MR. MACDONALD: I'm asking the Premier this question: if you,

too, Mr. Premier, object to what is called double funding, what do you

think about Robert Bonner, who is drawing a $60,000-a-year pension from

MacMillan Bloedel, and now you employ him at $50,000? If that isn't

double funding, what is?

Oh, it's all right to put people like that on as consultants.

MR. BARRETT: What about Dr. Pat? He went to school.

MR. LOEWEN: How many socialists work for free?

MR. MACDONALD: Oh, Digger! Digger, Digger, Digger!

MR. COCKE: Was that Digger?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Premier, I was going to mention the...

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I'm not getting the attention of the House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, perhaps if you would address the Chair you would get their attention.

MR. MACDONALD: Here is what one of our public servants said,

Mr. Sector, who was named in the letter: "Sector said he believes the

letter isn't a blacklist" — so he supports you on the semantic point —

"but the result of a voluntary action by Ohlemann. However, he and his

staff consider it abominable for a civil servant to send such a letter

about co-workers."

Mr Premier it is abominable It is contrary to all of the traditions

of a public service, which should be non-political — 9 to 5 at least,

and after that it's a different thing. You didn't investigate that in

your own office. Here we are two months later. Have you reprimanded...?

I ask you specifically, because you've hurt people with this

memorandum. I don't know whether they are hurt worse by it being kept

secret and not leaked, or out in the open. My feeling is that things

like this should be out in the open.

MR. COCKE: Hear, hear! Let the sun shine in!

MR. MACDONALD: Let people who are going to be hurt by gossip internally at least be able to rebut it.

I am asking the Premier directly: have you reprimanded Dan Campbell

for passing on — after the adding of political labels — that

organizational chart, and passing on the Ohlemann letter, with the

imprimatur of your office and the full force of your office behind it?

MR. BARRETT: No answer. Do you approve Campbell's actions?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: You approve Campbell's actions. Okay.

MR. C.S. ROGERS (Vancouver South): It's a pleasure for me to

follow the intellectual wit of the NDP caucus. I thought that the

Kitimat pipeline was going to be discussed under the estimates of the

Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications, but since we are

discussing it here this morning under the Premier's estimates, there

are a few remarks I'd like to make about the Kitimat situation.

Essentially, the oil coming from Alaska, going via Valdez to Cherry

Point, comes under the historic Jones Act of the United States

government, which requires at least that the vessels be American-owned,

American-crewed, and meet the standards of the United States Coast

Guard. They are considerably, more rigid than those of Monrovia in

Liberia, and Panama. What concerns me about Kitimat, especially for

vessels carrying oil from Valdez to Kitimit, is that they won't be of

Canadian registry, nor of American registry, but they will be of some

flag of convenience.

There is ample documented evidence in tankers coming from the Middle

East to the eastern United States, and coming from Venezuela to Maine

and other places, that the quality of the tankers is, to say the least,

despicable. It would concern me if vessels flying flags of convenience

were to be travelling from Valdez to Kitimat. It is true that they

would have a Canadian pilot boarded on them at the point of entry into

Canadian waters, but that is not really good

[ Page 1093 ]

enough because they don't have the sophisticated

navigation gear on board — and in recent incidents in the United States

west coast it was proven beyond a doubt that most of them don't have

even the rudiments of proper navigation gear on board.

You can imagine what would happen if we allowed the oil that was

going to Cherry Point to be offloaded, say, at Roberts Bank, which is

only five or six miles away as the crow flies. Vessels again going from

Alaska to Roberts Bank could be flag of convenience carriers. While the

regulations of the United States Coast Guard don't 100 per cent

guarantee that we won't have oil spills, certainly the regulations of

Liberia and Panama are much looser. So my concerns are those of the

Premier, I presume, and certainly I wanted to voice them.

I don't see too many benefits for British Columbia in the Kitimat

pipeline other than jobs, and that's only during the construction of

the pipeline. I see an awful lot of disadvantages. I appreciate the

fact that the energy problems of North America are ones we have to

face. It's unfortunate that we didn't consider earlier on bringing the

oil from Alaska down through the Alaska pipeline as opposed to, I

should say, coming down the Alaska Highway and using the overland

route. The ULCCs and the VLCCs are carrying these quantities of oil,

both from the Middle East and Alaska, through our waters to set a

really dangerous situation. I think we should give it some very serious

consideration before we consider building an oil terminus in Kitimat.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Chairman, I want to

give the Premier an opportunity to answer one or two of the questions

that were asked, particularly the questions that were asked about the

blacklist. I know that we don't like that word. Most of us find that it

is a word that elicits all sorts of things in our imaginations. But any

time a list occurs, whether it's in the corporate structure talking

about a person's past, talking about a person's beliefs or any other

situation such as that, and a person's progress is impeded by virtue of

that list or by virtue of the fact that someone has confided in people

in authority that someone has particular beliefs and as a result of

that his progress is impeded, then I would suggest that that kind of

thing should not be endorsed by the government in power.

I'm not sure that the Premier had anything to do with that. As a

matter of fact, I would suggest that he likely didn't. It looks to me

like the fine hand of Dan Campbell, whom I have sat opposite from in

this House. I listened to him talk about the teachers one time, years

ago. Do you remember the statement about "art, music and all those

other airy-fairy things"? Sometimes he doesn't really think things out;

I suggest he didn't think things out this time.

But you know, he has a very high office in this government. His

position is one of authority, I'm sure, among the rest of the

ministers. While he doesn't have the clout of the Premier, I'd suggest

that he has more clout than any other minister in the new government.

I'm not sure that he shouldn't be spending a little more time dealing

with the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) than he

does with other ministers.

But in any event, I think the Premier should stand up in this House

today and suggest to us that what he has done in trying to get other

people to take their eye off the ball, and that ball is a blacklist....

He should stand up and suggest to us that what he would like to do now

is withdraw his contempt for those whom he says leaked the document and

start to see to it that no other lists are circulated that might in any

way hamper civil servants or appointed members' progress in the service

of the people of this province. So let's hear him do that, Mr. Chairman.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, in dealing with the Premier's

estimates, I suppose the more general approach that would seem

appropriate would be to evaluate the job that the Premier has done

since he took on that role in December of '75 and to look at the

leadership, or lack of leadership, as the case might be. I think one

thing that has become very clear is that the so-called pendulum

politics we talked about are being perpetuated. It has been too

simplistic to say this, Mr. Chairman, but it does emphasize — and this

debate has already pointed it out — that if we had an NDP government

that had a heart but no head, we've now got a government that leaves

the impression that it has a head but no heart. I know that is an

exaggeration, but the pendulum nature of politics in British Columbia

shows no sign of changing appreciably.

The Premier and the performance of the government have certainly

created the attitude of a rather arithmetical type of government where

figures and dollars and balance sheets are the overwhelming priority,

and if, after they've got these details settled, there's money to do

things for people, then that's fine. There doesn't seem to be any kind

of concept by the Premier that really the first responsibility is

people and that you find the means and the initiatives and the

incentives to provide the services to people. Unfortunately, it seems

to be putting the cart before the horse to say that we can only do

things economically. To that extent we will then see what we can do by

way of providing services to people.

I think the Premier's performance is a mixture of good news and bad

news. There's no question about that. There are many very good and

useful steps which the Premier has taken.

Mr. Chairman, if I could digress for a minute, I do hope that the

new Workers' Compensation Board will really do something about the

protection of hearing

[ Page 1094 ]

for workers, because if the member for

Burnaby-Edmonds (Mr. Loewen) isn't roaring in my left ear during

speeches, he's thumping on his desk while I'm speaking. I really must

get an ear protector for my left ear.

Now, let me see, where was I?

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): By your speeches I thought you'd been deaf for five years now, Scotty.

MR. WALLACE: And then, of course, the whole House is deafened by the silence.

The good news is that the Premier has taken initiatives to build

strong bridges with the Ottawa administration. It only makes sense that

if we believe in trying to keep Canada united, surely the first way to

begin doing that is to have the strongest and most frequent lines of

communication with the central government. We might argue about how

much power the central government should have and how much power the

provinces should have, but unless there's some pretty frequent and

constant and sincere dialogue, then I see little hope that we can

preserve Canada amid the present atmosphere of emotion and ignorance

that seems to prevail in many of the statements that one reads.

National unity is indeed a popular topic these days, and everybody

seems to have their own particular wisdom to cast on the waters, hoping

that somehow or other if we all just keep making our comments,

everything's going to be all right. Well, everything isn't going to be

all right — and that's one of the biggest flaws, as I see it, in a lot

of the comments that political leaders have made. Each one tends to be

sitting back making comments, but what's actually happening in any

positive or active way to try and take initiatives on whatever

misunderstandings there are between Quebec vis-à-vis the central

government and vis-à-vis the other provinces? What's being done even by

way of any kind of initiative from this province, or any of the other

provinces, to sit down and discuss, for example, some of the things

that we've been discussing this morning? Should there be an elected

body to review the constitution, or come up with the new constitution?

There are all kinds of proposals being thrown around, but there doesn't

seem to be any specific, positive, active measure being taken by the

provinces to try and put that into action.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

I think the speech made by John Robarts, the former Premier of

Ontario, is particularly useful. We should all read it. He talks about

the fact that there's a tremendous amount of ignorance and unawareness

of what the problems are, but even more importantly, of what the

consequences of separation would be. He finished up his statement in

his speech by saying: "The great sin would be to lose by default." He

says:

"Let us proceed to involve ourselves in the necessary

examination and debate so that when we have a chance to express our

opinion, as undoubtedly we will, we will be informed and aware of what

we are doing, how we propose to do it, what our objectives are, and

what are the costs we are prepared to pay for the benefits we will

receive."

I've never read a better summation in so few words as to exactly

what should be happening in Canada today in tackling the problem of

national unity. So I very much appreciate, and I would commend, the

Premier's initiatives in dealings with Ottawa.

He mentioned some of his uncertainties or doubts about equalization

payments. In passing, I just want to mention that Mr. Trudeau, in a

statement in the federal House on December 7, made a very short

statement about equalization payments and quickly went on to the larger

debate which took place on the transfer of tax points. He did say that

he had presented the provinces with three options regarding

equalization payments. Maybe I could just quote exactly what he said.

It was on December 14. I'm quoting Prime Minister Trudeau:

"I would add before discussing that…"

This was another aspect of his speech.

"... that we covered a series of subjects,

notably the equalization payments, and our discussion consisted of

putting before the provinces three options whereby these equalization

payments could be continued by the federal government."

But then he doesn't go on to say anything about what the options

were. He just goes on to say that the provinces agreed to choose one of

these three options. I think it would be interesting to know what the

Prime Minister was referring to. What were the three options, and did

we continue with the option that we were already exercising prior to

the first meeting of the Finance minister?

One of the areas of federal-provincial bargaining, however, that

really has me puzzled, Mr. Chairman, is this whole question of ferry

subsidies. I think the Premier is absolutely right to make the argument

that he's made. One of the reasons Confederation is in jeopardy is that

the ground rules don't seem to be applied equitably to all the 10

provinces. As far as ferry subsidies are concerned, while British

Columbia is one of the three "have" provinces and acknowledges and

respects the equalization payment system, I don't think we should have

to pay twice. If we're going to equalize standards across the country

by having equalization payments from the central government, then I

think that if the eastern provinces receive ferry subsidy then, indeed,

so should the west. I think that's a very valid and rational argument.

But what really puzzles me is that in this House

[ Page 1095 ]

the other day the Minister of Energy, Transport and

Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) answered the member for Mackenzie (Mr.

Lockstead) by saying that he had met with the federal Minister of

Transport (Hon. Mr. Lang) and six other cabinet ministers and that the

federal government knew our position exactly and he expected a response

within two weeks. Then, just yesterday, there's the amazing statement

by Otto Lang's assistant, Mr. David Cuthbertson. I'm quoting the report

in the press. He said: "It's not even clear yet what type of

cost-sharing programme there will be, if there is to be a cost-sharing

programme, and there really have been no concrete discussions about

money."

Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Chairman, that sounds an incredibly opposite

kind of comment from the assistant to the federal Minister of Transport. I think

it bears repeating. He said: "It's not even clear what type of cost-sharing

programme there will be, if there is to be a cost-sharing programme, and there

really have been no concrete discussions about money."

Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Premier would care to comment on that

question because the minister in this House gave the impression that a

settlement was somewhere not too far down the road — probably within

two weeks. Yet the federal minister's assistant states that they

haven't even talked about money. The Premier has been quoted as saying:

"We figure that $16 million would be a reasonable subsidy to the B.C.

Ferry system."

All the press reports have left the impression — maybe not

intentionally — that a settlement based on that kind of ballpark figure

is probably about to be reached within the next two weeks. I'm pleased

to see that our provincial Minister of Transport has just come into the

chamber. I think there's a lot of evidence from statements he has made

in the House that he has misled us by suggesting that very soon there

will be a cost-sharing agreement on the ferry system reached with

Ottawa. According to the minister's own words, in response to the

member for Mackenzie, it will be within two weeks.

Now, somebody on this issue is either unintentionally misleading

this House or they're being misled by Otto Lang. It seems to be one or

the other. I don't know whether Otto Lang is telling our provincial

minister that there will be a decision soon and then forgetting the

whole issue or whether Mr. Lang has not, in fact, given us the degree

of confidence in a settlement that has been transmitted to this House.

I wonder if the Premier would care to tell us, as a result of his most

recent visit to Ottawa, what was his impression about the real prospect

and possibility of getting a subsidy to ferries on the B.C. coast. It's

very difficult for opposition members to remain non-suspicious when you

get such conflicting statements on something that's of great importance

to people in British Columbia using the system and, of course, to the

whole question of the tourist industry in the months ahead.

I would also like to say that while the Premier is doing a very

useful and commendable job in building understanding with Ottawa, I

would have to suggest the Prime Minister is being something less than

altruistic in his commitment to economic development in British

Columbia. It's no secret that the Liberal Party at the federal level

has almost written off British Columbia as far as their fortunes are

concerned at the next federal election. It's very interesting for me to

read some of the statements and press reports that emanated from Ottawa

during the Premier's visit there.

I'm quite sure that while the Premier had his eye on the economic

stakes of British Columbia, the Prime Minister of Canada had his eye on

the political stakes. I suppose that's the realism of politics.

Communicating parties on the federal-provincial level have their own

respective motives — and I wouldn't in any way blame the Premier for

attempting to get our fair share in British Columbia for the

development of infrastructure to make our coal project feasible. But I

think we would be less than practical if we didn't recognize that the

stakes that Prime Minister Trudeau is concerned in are the political

ones in British Columbia at the next federal election rather than the

question of whether we're getting a fair break under Confederation.

One of the areas in which I think the Premier's leadership has been

less than we had expected and less than the people of British Columbia

expected is in this area of choosing priorities and deciding that

having a balanced budget is not the sole responsibility of a modern

government. I keep wondering why, in the face of such larger examples —

of President Carter in the United States who has decided that tax cuts

are a means of stimulating the economy — the Premier still adheres to

this very rigid belief that we balance the books with what money is

available and then do the best we can in the way of services.

It's rather ironic or sad, I suppose, to look back over some of the

statements the Premier made when he was seeking election in 1975. One

of the first promises broken was that this party, if elected, would not

raise taxes. The Premier makes the point that when they got into

government, the financial situation was much worse than they suspected

and he was left with no choice but to raise taxes. Well, to try and be

fair in this whole issue, I think the Premier did find a deficit when

the Social Credit Party took over, but I think the degree to which he

imposed hardship on the people of British Columbia by trying to sol