[ Page 775 ]

CONTENTS

Night sitting. Routine proceedings. Committee of Supply: Premier's estimates.

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 775

Mr. Fraser — 775

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 778

Mr. Wallace — 781

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 790

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Introduction of bills.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: PREMIER'S OFFICE

(continued)

On vote 2: Premier's office, $202,100.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Chairman, on the question of the purchase of the B.C. Telephone shares and the Bank of B.C. shares, I have the record and the dates and what company we dealt through. If the House wishes I can have that photostatted and filed.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): No grizzlies tonight, Mr. Chairman.

I'm happy to take part in the debate on the Premier's estimates this evening. I'd like to touch on one subject that hasn't been raised yet today, and that's the subject of the Premier's salary. I would like to inform the press, who don't like to be informed about their errors, but who have constantly referred to the Premier's salary as being $52,000 a year, that in my arithmetic, pertaining to the Premier's department before us, his salary is a gross of $72,000 a year.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Rubbish!

MR. FRASER: Well, I'll break it down for you, Mr. Provincial Secretary. I realize your arithmetic is not very good, so I'll help you.

He gets $28,000 a year as the Premier and Minister of Finance, he gets $24,000 a year as the MLA for Coquitlam, and also in the vote we are discussing he gets $20,000 a year as travelling expenses. All I say to you is that my arithmetic adds that up to $72,000 a year gross.

I would like to make the other observation that he has six or seven very intelligent and highly paid assistants — one at $27,000, one or two at $21,000 or $22,000, and three or four at $17,000 or $18,000.

The only observation that I'd like to make, Mr. Chairman, on these is that I realize that that Premier needs this kind of help, but I don't see why the public purse has to pay for all this assistance, as they are doing now. I think that out of the enormous salary that the Premier is deriving from the public purse, part of his assistants' salary should come.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): How much of the $70,000 is expenses? You haven't looked that up.

MR. FRASER: All I know is that there's $72,000 gross available to the Premier's office.

I would say that he's the highest-paid politician on the North American continent, and exceeds the Prime Minister of Canada by quite a lot. I doubt that he earns that kind of a salary.

I would like to go back to the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) this afternoon where he referred to the account of public business. Mr. Chairman, I don't want to get into the chicken-and-egg war and I don't intend to.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, does the Member want the MLAs' salary cut in half? (Laughter.)

MR. FRASER: I didn't say that. I hope that I conveyed that the Premier of the province isn't worth three times the salary that an MLA is worth — that's what I tried to convey.

HON. MR. BARRETT: We'll cut the MLAs' salaries.

MR. FRASER: I would like to refer back, Mr. Chairman, to the Leader of the Opposition's remarks about the Premier's conduct in public business, particularly in business ventures. I still think a public inquiry is needed on behalf of the government to clear their name, for their protection as well as the protection of all the people of this province.

I want to quickly get to what disturbs me the most in the Premier's jurisdiction, and that's the operation of the British Columbia Railroad. I'm happy to see the vice-president of the railroad here this evening. I consider him a good operator, but he's operating under very difficult policies.

I would like to review the operation of that public railroad owned by the people of the province for the last five years. I will start off with the fiscal year ending December 31, 1969, when the railroad reported a net profit of $764,000-odd. In the year ending of December 30, 1970, it showed an operating profit of $896,000. In the year ending December 31, 1971, it showed an operating profit of $989,000-odd. In the year 1972, ending December 31, there was a further profit of $992,000-odd.

You will see, Mr. Chairman, that by those four years ending 1969, 1970, 1971, and 1972, this railroad showed an operating profit each year starting at the low of $764,000 and ending with a high in December, 1972, of $992,000. In other words, in each of these operating years it showed that continuing operating profit.

[ Page 776 ]

All of a sudden, Mr. Chairman, in 1973, ending December 31, which has just recently been reported, we have a sudden reversal. Unfortunately for the people of this province, it's a very sad reversal. After the four years where they made an operating culminative profit of $3.6 million, we have in the one ending December 31, 1973, a net loss — I repeat, Mr. Chairman, a net loss — of $3.3 million-odd.

What has really happened, Mr. Chairman, is that the profits they made in the four years of 1969, 1970, 1971, and 1972, are almost wiped out by the operating loss of 1973. This is very significant, in my opinion. As the Premier told us this afternoon — and reminds us every chance he gets — 1973 was one of the best economic years in the history of this province. I can't understand why this is not related and has not been related to the operations of the British Columbia Railroad.

It has been further pointed out that the accounting for the railroad hasn't changed. There's been no change there. There certainly has been some change somewhere and I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, it happened at the executive level; we definitely had a change and that was their first full year in charge. I refer to the president as the Premier, and one of the vice-presidents was the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) and still is. I suggest to you that this is the only area that changed in the public railroad. Therefore, as far as I'm concerned, they'll have to accept the responsibility for the change in picture of the operating results of the railroad.

The other alarming thing, Mr. Chairman, about this is that when the 1973 loss was reported, only recently, the executive vice-president and the man in charge of operations didn't make any excuses for that loss but further rubbed salt in the wound and said: "Expect another loss for the operating year 1974." I ask: what is going on? Imagine budgeting for a railroad that has always made an operating profit. All of a sudden it goes into a loss and now they're anticipating and giving up and predicting a further loss for the year we're in right now, the calendar year 1974.

I would like also to comment on the existing car shortage which I brought up today in the question period. It was immediately brushed off by the president of the railroad and the Premier by saying that things weren't that bad, and it wasn't their fault, and so on and so forth.

The other remark he made was the fact that they inherited this mess from the prior administration. I want to tell you that the shippers on that railroad won't buy that bunch of guff, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, Alex!

MR. FRASER: I'll admit that in 1972 and 1971 and 1970 they had a shortage of cars for a maximum of 30 days in every year — not 12 months — 30 days in every year. And it was correct. So what has happened?

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): Thirty days in every month.

MR. FRASER: Thirty days in every year. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to bring that Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) to order (laughter) or turn the lights on in this building so we can see something.

Interjections.

MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, I wish you would bring this unruly mob to order, so I can get on with the serious business of the country. (Laughter.)

Back to this rail car shortage on the BCR. At the present time there are manufactured wood products alone on the BCR line between Squamish and Prince George of 6,000 carloads. I refer to lumber and plywood, manufactured, ready to ship to markets of the world, that cannot be shipped. I don't think really, Mr. Chairman, the president of the railroad realizes that this has been going on now for 12 months, there is no immediate help in sight and, the further thing that he doesn't realize apart from the lost revenue to the BCR, is the lost revenue to all the people of this province through taxes that the industry would pay if they could ship these goods when the level of the market is at the highest.

They always can get cars on the BCR when the market — and I refer to the lumber market — is uneconomic, and as soon as it becomes economic, the railroad cars disappear. Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, there is something very, very rotten in Denmark, and as an example, in January they put all kinds of cars, empty cars, into the BCR system over the Christmas holidays when nobody wanted to work. They had all kinds of them, but the market was depressed; they caught up somewhat in January, but the market was still depressed. On February 1 the lumber market started to increase, and it has advanced, by the way, $40 a thousand since February 1, so it is a very lucrative market at the moment. But do you know what, Mr. Chairman? You can't get any rail cars at all. So what goes on?

I'll suggest I know what goes on, and I would like to hear the president of the railroad admit it. There is absolutely no co-operation from the CNR and the CPR as related to turning over cars to the BCR. It gets steadily worse and every month that goes by.

AN HON. MEMBER: We're building cars though.

MR. FRASER: I realize they are building cars, and those cars are built in Squamish; that is a good deal. And that will help us, or our grandchildren in 1990,

[ Page 777 ]

but it won't help us in 1974.

MR. C. LIDEN (Delta): Where do you want to build them?

MR. FRASER: The other thing that I would like to mention, while I am on the operation end of the railroad, Mr. Chairman, is that it was some two years ago in this Legislature that I sat here and almost voted with the opposition of that day, to change the name of the railroad from Pigs Go East to the BCR — British Columbia Railroad. But in any event it changed, about two years ago now, and the people in the Interior are quite incensed at the management of this railroad, that at their main stations — their station areas — PGE Railroad is still painted across these old buildings.

Now I am not recommending that they put on special paint programmes. This was discussed when the name was changed. It would gradually work over. But why give priority to a flatcar when you have these main station buildings in towns like Williams Lake and Quesnel, where thousands of people are driving by them every day, and look up and look at PGE, two years after we changed the name? I don't think this is good enough and, Mr. Chairman, if they can't afford the paint, maybe the Premier will donate it to them, and they will donate the labour to put it on their own buildings. But I think it is shameful that the buildings haven't been changed right now. My observations are that they have done a lot better job on changing the name on their rolling stock than they have on their permanent buildings that are located in the very focal centres of the Interior communities. It is a complete oversight of management, and I would like the Premier to bring it to the attention of the management.

Getting back to the car shortage, I want to relate a little story, Mr. Chairman, that has been going on for 12 months, and is still going on, and I refer to the.... I believe the name of the company is the North Central Plywood Operation in Prince George. They are a new plywood company in the last two or three years, and fairly successful. They are shipping a lot of product, but they can't get any cars and, Mr. Chairman, you know where they are located — on a PGE or BCR industrial site in Prince George. So do you know how they get cars? They phone the CNR for cars, and they say,"We're very sorry, we can't deliver you any cars because we haven't got any." So they say "Fine", they hang the phone up, and the CNR at Prince George phone them back and say,"Well, we've got cars, if you can bring your finished product over to our tracks on the other side of town." They say,"Why should we pay for that?", and they say,"Oh, you don't have to pay for that. We'll send cartage trucks over there to pick the plywood up and put it on the cars that are sitting here empty, to take the traffic away."

That is going on there, and I say to you, Mr. Chairman, what is going on? If they've got empty cars that will be loaded on their own tracks, why can't those empties be shunted over to the BCR industrial site for loading where the product is being manufactured? Believe me, there is hanky panky and lots of it.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): That Member for Fort George (Mr. Nunweiler) sits there and says nothing.

MR. FRASER: I only emphasize this point to show the non-co-operation that BCR is getting from the CNR and CPR.

It is about time we started playing this game with our cards on top of the table instead of everyone being mousey-mousey and mealy-mouthed and not wanting to talk about it. But all our citizens of this province, it is costing them a lot of money, and these mainlines better be brought to time. I see the Premier brought it up at the Western Premiers' Conference the other day, and I feel, Mr. Chairman, that the Premier is on the right track, but he should get on an airplane, preferably tonight, and go to Ottawa to get the Department of Transport there to drop the hammer on the CNR and CPR, and demand the turnover of these cars to the BCR. It is strangling the economy of our country when it could be in excellent condition.

The other thing that I would like to emphasize, Mr. Chairman, to the Premier, is that because of the unreliability of the car shortage — the car situation from the railroad, the BCR — big shippers in the Interior lumber industry have made other arrangements. If they put 100 empties on the spot there tomorrow, they won't use them because they can't be considered reliable — they can't be sure they will have the cars the next day. Consequently, they have made arrangements with truck firms to haul the products north out of Quesnel to Prince George, and the products out of Williams Lake south to Ashcroft. The reason they have done this is because when they get the products there, cars are waiting for them and there are customers who are waiting for the product — they can quote a firm delivery date and they can live up to their bargains.

So I say that this temporary 12 months of shortage has done permanent damage to the operation of this railroad for years to come. As a British Columbian once and always, I resent this, and I think the Premier, as the president, should move in here with all his might and get this corrected. The BCR was always a railroad to be proud of, particularly from about 1955 to 1972. The government of the day turned it from a Toonerville trolley operation into a recognized railroad, and we

[ Page 778 ]

seem to be slipping back into this Toonerville trolley operation. I resent that, due to the good people who operate the railroad and the increased equipment they have. I think that there are influences far beyond them that only the president and the vice-president can get busy and correct.

I think that's about all I want to say at this point in the Premier's estimates, except to ask a question. Are we allowed to discuss B.C. Hydro in the Premier's estimates tonight? He, I believe, is the fiscal agent for B.C. Hydro, and I have a few comments about B.C. Hydro.

Mr. Chairman, I won't be long on this. Nobody has brought up B.C. Hydro under the Premier, but I think we should. It really ties in with the forest industry again. I refer to the waste of products from the lumber industry that is going on today in our province. I refer specifically to the product hog fuel. We have a new pulp mill at Quesnel, and I am proud to say it is burning 40 per cent of the hog fuel that is produced from the mills in that area, and it is generating its own electricity and steam. Sixty per cent of this product is going to a junk waste pile 14 miles up the road, and they have a mammoth mountain there now they don't know what to do with. Fifty truck loads a day are going into it, and they don't know what is going to happen. They are dealing with the Minister of Lands and Forests through the Pollution Control Board for an extended permit, and of course they will have to have it.

My point is that B.C. Hydro has been approached to put in a generating plant to burn this hog fuel and generate electricity out of it. That great tsar that this government hired, David Cass-Beggs, said, "We don't know what you are talking about, and we are not interested." I say to the Premier, and to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams), get cracking here. We supposedly have an energy crisis, and here is an opportunity to resolve a real major problem, in transportation, energy, and everything else, and convert it to a proper use that our citizens can use. Quite frankly, the citizens aren't interested in whether that power generated from hog fuel is going to cost 10 or 15 mills. If you have a very small amount of that fuel fed into the overall Hydro system, it is not going to have a two per cent increase effect on the generating capacity of B.C. Hydro.

I suggest to the Premier, the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources told David Cass-Beggs to run the sawmill industry out of the Hydro office, and so did the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer). He is not here. I thought he was asleep in his seat, but he is not here at all. (Laughter.)

You know, I have to catch people when I can, and the Premier is here as the fiscal agent for Hydro. I leave that with you; that is one observation that I have on Hydro. With that, thank you very much for listening.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that the questions on Hydro be directed to one of board members. I'm not familiar with the particulars of the hog fuel. Is that still in British Columbia? Yes, it still is. It's still a provincial problem and it's not in the presidency or the republic of the Cariboo.

MR. FRASER: If you'll turn it back to us, we'll look after it in half an hour.

HON. MR. BARRETT: All right, Chairman Fraser of the Republic of Cariboo, we'll look into it.

MR. CHABOT: Which Minister?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Either the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) or the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer).

Mr. Chairman, I want to review our car acquisition since mid 1973. We purchased 1,000 bulkhead flats from the Hawker-Siddley Company; 800 of them have been delivered to date and the remaining are coming at eight a day. Total price was $14,800 a car. We had to buy these, Mr. Member, through you, Mr. Chairman. That's a lot of money.

Now we had 500 bulkhead flats leased from Procar on a five-year lease — 500 cars from Foss Tug & Launching, 500 cars acquired by BCR leased to shippers — and 1,800 shipper-lease cars, plus the new plant in Squamish.

Mr. Chairman, I think the government has done everything we possibly could including the construction of the new car plant.

In terms of what the Member said about the CPR and CNR, I want to say that this is the second time in the history of our relationship, through you, Mr. Chairman, that I find I'm in agreement with him. The first time was when you denounced Phil Gaglardi. That was in 1972 during the election campaign, and that saved your riding, Mr. Member. You did the wise thing; by denouncing Phil Gaglardi you got elected.

Now you're denouncing the CNR and the CPR — and when in doubt, Mr. Member, always kick the CPR. But in this instance, Mr. Member, I think you're getting very, very close to the bone. When we came to office we had agreed in cabinet that we would co-operate as much as possible with the federal government.

We had a meeting with Mr. Marchand and Mr. Jamieson. Present for the government of British Columbia were the Minister of Lands and Forests (HON. R.A. Williams) and myself to discuss northern development, the route of the BCR and co-operation with the CNR.

We signed the agreement in principle referred to by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) this

[ Page 779 ]

afternoon. I made it clear that if we weren't satisfied with the detailed terms, we would not follow through.

Mr. Member, I've had reports, verified reports, exactly of the nature that you've complained on tonight, where shippers have phoned to the BCR, have asked for cars, were told there were none available. They phoned the CNR; the CNR would say: "There are no cars available that we can put on the track, but if you ship your lumber by truck to one of our loading sites, we'll provide you with a boxcar."

Well, Mr. Member, when I first heard these reports, I had some serious doubts that this was actually taking place. But evidence gathered, despite denials of the CNR, tended to indicate that that indeed was the case, and that led to my statement you referred to at the Western Economic Conference. Now I'm extremely disappointed that I must share with you your concern. It is my firm opinion now that the CNR is deliberately withholding cars from the BCR.

MR. CHABOT: You caused the problem.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The problem, Mr. Member, has been caused, in my opinion, not because of the 5 per cent tax, because we find conversely, as much as I hate to admit this, that the CPR is co-operating at a better level than the CNR is. It's very hard for me as a CCF — NDPer to say publicly that the privately owned CPR is co-operating at a better level — not perfect, but at a better level — with the BCR than is the publicly owned CNR. It appears that the bureaucrats, Mr. Member, should not be blamed. It is the politicians at the end of the bureaucrats who must have full responsibility for either ordering or not ordering that certain things be done.

There's no question in my mind that Mr. Jamieson has been very sincere in his efforts with us, and I also think that Mr. Marchand has too. But I do not believe that Mr. Marchand is fully aware of the games that are being played by the CNR.

I want to announce tonight that if the CNR continues this type of activity with the government of British Columbia, we will not go through with the agreement in principle, because the CNR has not shown good faith up to this point.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): That's really going to hurt their feelings.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, it may hurt their feelings, Mr. Member, but they will lose an opportunity of co-operative development of this province. It means that, if necessary, we will go it alone as the Province of British Columbia. And, Mr. Member, if we do go it alone, it will be on British Columbia's terms.

MR. SMITH: You sold us out.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, we sold out nothing.

MR. SMITH: You sold us out.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Sold out what?

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): You lost us $47 million.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What $47 million, Mr. Member? There was an opportunity to gain $200 million worth of co-operation with the federal government, and I made it clear this afternoon that we would go back and ask for the money that they never gave anyway.

I still believe there is room for co-operation between the provincial government and Ottawa. I don't believe that it is the intention of the federal Liberal Party to allow this situation to develop. I don't believe that it is the conscious decision of any politician in Ottawa to place the CNR in this position of squeezing the BCR. If I thought for a minute that was the case, then I would subscribe to the old argument and the old cliché that there would be a case for western alienation.

I still don't believe that this is a deliberate federal policy. But I don't think that Mr. Marchand, after all of our pleas, understands the seriousness of this situation.

It also means, Mr. Chairman....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, I sent wires. I sent wires to Burbridge of the CP. I must say, Mr. Member, that I don't feel it's a deliberate policy by the federal Liberal Party. I don't believe that. But I just don't believe that the Minister understands the consequences of these kinds of actions.

There is the question of the Clinton-Ashcroft cutoff. The CNR wants to co-operate on that. We want to co-operate too, but we have to seriously consider, in the best interests of the Interior lumber producers, that if the CNR continues to act the way they are, as the Member reported tonight, we'll have to seriously consider either going through the Clinton-Ashcroft cutoff our self or with the CPR.

Now I'm not suggesting any threats. I'm suggesting that it's reached the point....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Member, you can interpret it any way you want.

[ Page 780 ]

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, we have to do what we have to do and the federal government has to do what they have to do. But the problem outlined by the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) is right on, and the report that he brought in tonight is not fancy. It substantiates reports that we've had as well.

We're not throwing up our hands and making a wild attack on the federal Liberal government in terms of western alienation. I say again, I don't believe this is a conscious decision on the part of Mr. Marchand, but we have seen precious little action in terms of directives by the Minister to the CN to live up to their agreements to get those cars to the BCR.

As shippers on the line, our customers have told us these incidents, and our customers also get very angry. They're B.C. residents too and they want the B.C. railroad to work well. But if they're told by a CNR official, "We haven't got a car for you, but you load up on a truck and bring it over here and we've got a car for you," then no one could suggest that would be federal policy. It must be a decision made somewhere down the line.

Well, the politicians have a responsibility to correct it, Mr. Member, and that's the point I am making.

I'm making the accusation that the Minister is aware of this and has taken no action to this date — Mr. Marchand.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Has no power to act? Well, Mr. Member, if Mr. Marchand has no power to act in terms of the CNR, then why did he sign the agreement in principle on behalf of the CNR with this government?

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Member, I say to you that the CNR does have a responsibility and I am hopeful that Mr. Marchand will meet that responsibility by telling the CNR to live up to it.

They are jeopardizing the co-operation that we want to have in northern development.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I believe the CNR is an instrument or an extension of the federal government. No publicly owned corporation should act autonomously from the government and no corporation should be left to its own devices. Any federal government or provincial government that said that was the way it would be, ad infinitum, is not meeting its responsibilities.

The responsibility of the Minister is to determine whether or not the complaints from the Government of British Columbia and the Interior lumber operators are valid or not. When we get reports that Interior producers can phone the CNR and have a truck come and pick up their lumber and put it on the CNR boxcar, but that boxcar won't be turned over to BCR, then that feeds the flames of western....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Will you table the telegrams?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, I'll table the telegrams and information, Mr. Member, certainly.

So, Mr. Member, that's the second time I am in agreement with you. Once when you renounced Gaglardi and now when you've pointed out the problem with the boxcars.

In terms of operating costs, when we face the cost of interest and depreciation on the Fort Nelson extension, our operating costs will rise dramatically. That Fort Nelson extension was authorized by the previous administration and we think it's a good one. But let's face the fact: once making that commitment, there will be interest and depreciation because there won't be that much revenue immediately on the Fort Nelson extension.

The argument used by the former government is the one that we accepted when we voted for every single bond issue for the BCR — PGE as it was then — that it is an economic-development railroad and the money put into the railroad was good for the Province of British Columbia. So when we face those costs, those costs are valid on the basis of an argument we had and agreed with in opposition, and we agree with while we are in government.

Now in terms of painting, Mr. Member, it was the policy of the former administration to say that because of the costs they would gradually catch up on the painting. Well, Mr. Member, I will ask the new vice president to speed up the painting, especially in the Cariboo.

MR. FRASER: Of the buildings.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Of the buildings. Especially in the Cariboo, because no matter what you may do, we will still be known as B.C. inside the Cariboo — through the railroad.

I want to say also that yes, the Member for Fort George (Mr. Nunweiler) sent an extensive letter to Mr. Marchand on the boxcar shortage and Senator Perreault said he was going to look into it and correct it. As a matter of fact, Senator Perreault announced after he looked into it that 1,000 bulkhead flats were on their way. Those are the ones that we bought. I had to phone Ray Perreault and tell him. It's not the first time I had to help Ray. I tried to give him advice in the leadership race, I was wrong. I told him to hang on. He's better off than the bunch of you right now.

[ Page 781 ]

MR. G.B. GARDOM (West Vancouver–Point Grey): Order! (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, excuse me, judge. (Laughter.)

So, Mr. Member, we'll try and contact Mr. Marchand.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Now we know.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Before I sit down, I would like the House to recognize Mr. Mac Norris, who is the new vice-president of operations. Mr. Norris came to the railroad some years ago after 24 years experience, some of which was with the CPR. He was the regional manager of operations with the PGE and latterly with the BCR, then the general manager of operations, then the vice-president of operations, and now is the new vice-president of the railroad. He is a professional railroader, and most of us here are amateurs.

MR. WALLACE: I enjoyed the Premier's comments. In debating the estimates of the Premier and Minister of Finance, I don't think we should rehash the budget debate although it is important, I think, to recapitulate the general philosophy of this party in relation to the budget. I heard the speech from the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) today and it just reminded me exactly of the speeches he used to make when the former administration was in power. It was the same speech.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Same budget.

MR. WALLACE: Different government. But anyway, the fact is there should be no mistake that we are either overtaxing or under spending. It is just that simple. There are enormous surpluses of funds and I am not in any position to confirm or deny the figures that the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey put forward. It is quite clear that the style of the present Minister of Finance is not very different from the previous Minister of Finance.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Shame.

MR. WALLACE: I might say that the Minister of Finance this afternoon in one of his responsive speeches to the opposition said that if we have enough surplus next year, "Sure, we'll look after the people in the nursing homes." All I have to say, Mr. Chairman, is that he was making that speech in 1970. Four years ago, when he was here in the opposition, he was saying that the money was already in the coffers and that the Social Credit administration was ignoring people in their elderly years who were going broke paying $600, $700, $800 a month in a nursing home.

Don't give me that stuff, Mr. Minister of Finance. You've got all kinds of money in the coffers right now, just like the former administration did, and your sense of priorities is all wrong. If you have $25 million to buy a piece of a pipeline, surely you have a few millions, a few crumbs, to spend on behalf of people in their elderly years who can't look after themselves.

You are always telling us how pious we are over here. Well, I'm saying you are rather pious and hypocritical.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Twenty-five million would do the job.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Pious.

MR. WALLACE: We don't need $25 million. I am trying to remain objective in my seat over here. I try to look at things in a fair, objective, critical way and I try to be constructively critical. If that is being pious, as the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) says, well, I'll accept that criticism.

All I am saying is that we are not going to rehash the budget. But I hope for the very last time, could I make this plea to the Minister of Finance: could he dip into that large surplus he has?

Finally out of the library I have some of the speeches the Premier made when he was in the opposition.

Yes, they are from Hansard, January 25th, 1971; partial Hansard — throne speech and budget speech. There we have Mr. D. Barrett, Monday, January 25, 1971, talking about the Sandringham Hospital. I think, Mr. Chairman, the same Premier might recall that I supported him by seconding his motion on the order paper that something be done both about the employment of people working in the hospital at less than minimum wage and the problem of financing chronic hospital care.

We went on and he debated this and made a great play on the need to correct this situation, I know the Premier and the Minister of Finance as a humanitarian, and he believes these people should receive better treatment. All I am saying — and I hope, Mr. Chairman, for the very last time — is let's have some action now that the Minister of Finance and former Leader of the Opposition does have his hand on the money bags; let's get in there, Mr. Minister of Finance.

I'm completely in favour of culture and physical fitness and a few other very legitimate goals which the Minister has supported in his budget. But, Mr. Chairman, can there be any more deserving cause in our society today, any more single deserving cause than the elderly citizen who becomes disabled and

[ Page 782 ]

has no financial support from this government whatever.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: And, as the Member on my right hand says,"I promise not to talk about the budget," so I'll leave it there. I've covered the subject repetitively.

In the whole question of the Minister of Finance's function in this House, one of the points which has been overlooked to a degree is the fact that there's a considerable amount of revenue which is to be raised after this House prorogues. Maybe I'm just rather simple on these matters but it was always my impression that parliament met to discuss revenue to be raised and money to be spent.

I have to repeat, before we get onto other elements in the Minister's department, that we are to have money raised from mineral royalties. The Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) is looking up at the heavens as though he's looking for some inspiration, and God knows he needs it. (Laughter.) We seem to have the raising of revenue which might — I say might for the Minister himself said it could probably be anything from zero to 700 per cent.... We have agreement from the Minister of Mines that their estimated revenue from the Mineral Royalties Act could be out by as much as 700 per cent.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that all?

MR. WALLACE: The Member says,"Is that all?" Well, all I know is that the Minister of Finance has said we can expect $20 million from the new royalties. We have the industry saying it could be $140 million, and we have the pink-shirted Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) agreeing, "Well, it might be that." It might be anything. If we have a Minister of Finance who can be out by that much, we certainly have to take a very long look at the efficiency of his whole administration.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Do you know the price of copper?

MR. WALLACE: The price of copper, I believe, is about $1 a pound, is that right?

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): $1.04.

MR. WALLACE: What might it be next year, up or down?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. Would the Hon. Member address the chair?

MR. WALLACE: The Rt. Hon. Minister for Dewdney (Mr. Rolston) tells me it's $1.04 a pound.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Where? Canada or the London Metal Exchange?

MR. WALLACE: Anyway, Mr. Chairman, the point I'm trying to make is that this is revenue which we cannot realistically debate because the bill hasn't even been debated. I can see you're getting very restless, Mr. Chairman, so I'll move on to the next subject.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's not being restless; he's falling asleep.

MR. WALLACE: We also have the Task Force on the Forest Policy carrying out investigations from which, no doubt, there will be very substantial changes in the fees and licences for the timber leases going back to 1909, or some such prehistoric year.

AN HON. MEMBER: Today is March 4. When are you going to table the report?

MR. WALLACE: I see the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams). pricking up his ears and beaming benevolently in the obvious anticipation that there's maybe another $20 million, maybe another $100 million, maybe another $140 million coming in from the forest industry.

All I'm saying is that the Minister of Finance comes into this House and asks us to debate financial matters when, in point of fact, at least half the ball game hasn't even been told.

If you want another example, and I'm sure you do, there is the whole area of education. We've had the Minister of Finance tell us that millions of dollars have been allocated to education. But what we really discover is that the government knows full well — and that expression certainly reminds me of somebody (Laughter)...

MR. GARDOM: The dear departed.

MR. WALLACE: ...that in fact it has not allocated enough money for the legitimate needs of the Department of Education. So, once again, when we finally put the bar down at the door for the last time and we all go home and the press shower their paper all over the floor, the Minister of Finance decides to what degree he'll dip into his big money bag and fork out some more money for education. It might be $2 million, it might be $20 million, it might be $50 million. Who knows? But here we are as supposedly responsible legislators sitting in the Legislature in Victoria supposedly debating the affairs of the Minister of Finance when really something

[ Page 783 ]

approximating 50 per cent of the ball game has been revealed to us.

Apparently while this present government in opposition castigated the former administration for its educational policies and its financing attitudes and the need for referendums, et cetera, they prefer to go on to the policy that it's the squeaky wheel that gets the grease. In other words, once we all go home, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) will decide in their own discretion and wisdom that the school boards which make the biggest fuss will get more money.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): The Egg Marketing Board will give a seminar on how to approach the Premier.

MR. WALLACE: Now, this brings us to the next point, Mr. Chairman. Regardless of all the verbiage and all the long speeches we've had in this House, we unquestionably have in this province today an interfering Premier. I'm putting it no more or less than that, Mr. Chairman. I've listened to the egg and broiler thing and I've read the press reports and I've read Hansard. When the Premier tells me he said or did not say a certain thing, that's fine with me. I accept that and that's my attitude to this dispute.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: It sounds like "Gullible's Travels" to me.

MR. WALLACE: What I do not accept is that, even with the best of intentions, the Premier had any right to get into the middle of that fight in the first place. It's quite obvious from what the Premier has said, from what the Minister of Agriculture has said, and from what many opposition Members have said, this marketing board situation has many shortcomings and is not working well.

Far be it for me of all people to suggest that the Premier and the Minister of Finance should have some greater degree of patience. I readily admit I'm not the most patient person myself — but then I'm not the Premier.

MR. H.S. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): Do you have many patients?

MR. WALLACE: I've got lots of patients spelt with a "ts" but not "ce." I just suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the Premier has shown a lack of judgment in getting into some of the situations which really are avoidable, unnecessary and undesirable. With all the goodwill in the world, the Premier should not agree to getting himself in the position he has got himself in with the egg and broiler people, or the turkey-hatching egg people, or any kind of agricultural people.

I just happen to believe the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) has that responsibility. I think he is quite capable of dealing with it. In fact, I have developed great respect for the Minister of Agriculture since the last spring session of this House. While I agree that the Premier felt he was probably bringing some sanity into the situation, let us, in leaving this debate, hope he has learned that often the most well-meaning individual is the guy who gets you know what.

AN HON. MEMBER: Make the reference to the marriage counsellor.

MR. WALLACE: Well, I'm sure the Premier knows what a frustrating business it is to indulge in marriage counselling. I've tried that on occasion too as a physician. Everything seems great when you're in the office, but the next day one or the other party phones up and tells you she got a black eye last night. You realize that your counselling really didn't make too much progress.

In education, again regretfully I'm quite convinced we have an interfering Premier. I just happen to believe that the idea of creating dialogue with the public on education was just a tremendous idea. I hope very sincerely that it continues. But if it was going wrong or if the direction was drifting or if the Minister of Education was losing confidence in the commissioner, then the Minister of Education should deal with that situation.

We have what one commentator has described as "the foot-in-mouth style of governing," where the Premier runs off at the mouth making statements on television, while the Minister of Education is in Montreal, with somewhat unfortunate results. He almost gets into another Minister's area when he talks about the Royal Bank plan for financing credit terms for ICBC premium payments.

I think, Mr. Chairman, that we have to recognize that the Premier is an interfering Premier. I give him enough objective criticism that he thinks he's doing the right thing and he's helping the situation, but he's just getting himself in a mess, and I hope that these events will not be repeated in the future.

In debating the Premier's department, I think we must, inevitably, discuss something of the federal-provincial scene. While I can't agree with the Premier's philosophy, I think that at the energy conference in Ottawa he was certainly the most clearly defined Premier of all the 10 provinces as to what he stood for. Nobody at that conference could have been in any doubt as to what Premier Barrett was saying at that conference. I don't claim that you could say the same for the other nine, including some of the Conservative premiers.

If that, at least, is a clear definition of where this province stands, I think the Premier deserves credit

[ Page 784 ]

for being, to that degree, straightforward and clearly understandable.

The Premier mentioned Mr. Marchand. I've always tried to make it a principle in this House that one never talks about personalities, so I won't single him out, but after my first experience at a federal-provincial conference I must say that the very obvious arrogance and exalted attitude which exudes from federal cabinet Ministers has to be seen to be believed.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Are you just waking up to that fact?

MR. WALLACE: No, I'm just unfortunately proving the fact for myself by my own experience. I don't happen to have been at federal-provincial conferences before. But the grandstanding, autocratic, superior, bombastic attitude of federal cabinet ministers is something that has to be seen to be believed. I'm just like the Premier; I'm just a country boy.

In that atmosphere I think there must be many other citizens in British Columbia who wonder, as I did, why we have so much difficulty understanding each other at the federal-provincial level.

I used to read press reports and comments from various news writers, and I couldn't believe that things were so complicated when the actual avenue of approach and the simplistic nature of some of the problems seemed so capable of solution if federal and provincial people would sit down and talk. But after that first parting of the veil I can assure you, Mr. Chairman, that I now know why federal-provincial relationships are a very difficult matter to develop in a productive way for this province.

I think, as I said earlier in a debate, that the people of British Columbia have not really been told the very serious nature of the imminent rise in prices on oil and gasoline. It's all very well to say, "Oh, yes, we should have a uniform price across Canada, with the exception of transportation costs, "but one element which was very clear at the energy conference was the fact that the Maritimes have already suffered in a very serious way from the rise in prices which has already occurred on petroleum products.

First of all, let me say that it seemed to me that, with the exception of the Premier of this province, everybody was fencing at the energy conference — just dancing around saying a lot of words that didn't mean a great deal. That conference wound up, in my view, in complete and total failure with the exception of the decision that the price freeze would continue until the end of March. That's the only positive constructive decision that came out of that conference.

Donald Macdonald spent a whole day of everybody's time talking in generalities and vague suggestions about modest fractions and more modest shares, and a piece of this and a portion of the next thing, and then released the precise figures to the delegates to the convention at 6:30 that evening so that they could sit down and squabble overnight and come up with a decision in the morning — such absolute insult to all the provincial Premiers of this country.

I really feel that it is about time the people of British Columbia were told what really went on at that energy conference. Naturally all the provincial Premiers want to be considered as statesmanlike in their approach, and I don't criticize them for that.

I think that any one of the 10 of them would have been quite justified in telling Mr. Trudeau that they were insulted as to the machinery of the meeting and the very contrived way in which the federal government chose to put the provincial Premiers right on the spot. If that is federal-provincial co-operation, I have another name for it. I call it political gamesmanship, and I think the people of British Columbia should know that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. WALLACE: Mind you, Mr. Chairman, the problems exist, as the Premier well knows. I see right in the Sun tonight that Premier Lougheed of Alberta and Premier Blakeney of Saskatchewan have been off doing their separate wheeling-dealing with Prime Minister Trudeau. Now, what was the point of the energy conference if a few weeks later Trudeau chooses to sit down with Premiers individually and make separate deals? Where does British Columbia stand in all this? I would like to know, and I'm sure the Premier will answer.

Has this Premier had any individual communication with Prime Minister Trudeau regarding the prospect of extending the price freeze until the end of June? There have been press reports that this kind of settlement has already been reached. We have Premier Lougheed reportedly saying that all he wants for Alberta's citizens is a fair return for the value of his resources.

AN HON. MEMBER: His resources?

MR. WALLACE: I'm sorry. I shouldn't have said that. Premier Lougheed has said that he asks a fair return for the value of producers' resources. I must correct that — they were not his resources.

That, of course, raises the point which the Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) mentioned. It isn't the producers' resources either; it's the people's resources.

MR. P.C. ROLSTON (Dewdney): Who takes over at the end of March?

[ Page 785 ]

MR. WALLACE: That's what I'm trying to find out.

His version of a new pricing system for oil, according to press reports based on the telegram, calls for higher price for Canadian industrial consumers and a lower one for homeowners and car drivers.

I think we should all be aware in this province, Mr. Chairman, of the statement of Prime Minister Trudeau, and I quote again:

"Last week, ahead of the meetings and setting the stage, the Prime Minister warned Alberta and Saskatchewan that Ottawa is prepared to take 'very radical and drastic measures, if necessary, to end the country's oil pricing problems.'"

I don't think any of us should be under any illusion as to the serious nature of the energy problem in this province. Granted, we have the energy sources, but the question of transmission and pricing in relation to international prices is of fundamental importance.

Having asked the Premier if he's had any contact with Prime Minister Trudeau about extending the price freeze, I would also like to ask the Premier in passing, Mr. Chairman, whether the Government of British Columbia has made any specific application to the National Energy Board to further increase the price of natural gas.

There was some discussion on natural gas prices this afternoon, and one of the Members asked why there should not be a lower price to the B.C. consumer compared to the price for exported products. This again drew some attention at the energy conference. It is my understanding that economists just do not believe that it is a wise use of resources to have a two-price system and that the domestic price should at least approximate the international price. It is my understanding that the Premier of this province agreed to that general statement in principle.

But the fact is that the price of gasoline is about to go up in this province, certainly if the price freeze ends at the end of March. This province is committed to participating in subsidies to keep the price as close as possible the same across Canada, with the exception of transportation costs.

I think the Premier would serve a great purpose tonight if he would outline for the people of British Columbia just exactly where the Government of British Columbia stands in its policy towards these challenges and what the financial commitment will be by this government.

I think we should repeat that while the agreement with what was originally El Paso was that the price existing domestically, we also have regulation 11A of the National Energy Board Act, which gives the National Energy Board the discretion or the right or whatever word you want to use — the opportunity — to set different prices from domestic price compared to exported price. I wonder if the Premier can tell the House whether at any time this government has suggested to the National Energy Board that it utilize the provisions of regulation 11A.

One area that deserves some critical appraisal is the whole question of the fundamental attitude of the Premier and Minister of Finance in regard to public ownership. He stated on more than one occasion that the solution to the energy crisis is the public ownership of her natural resources. In fact, in a moment of bravado, the Premier stated that if the federal government would accept that principle then he would gladly make the resources of British Columbia available under an umbrella of public ownership on a national level.

I think, Mr. Chairman, that it's timely to emphasize this whole philosophy of public ownership. At a convention in Toronto in 1971 a certain outline of NDP policy was spelled out and debated, and it's my understanding that the Premier of this province supported that manifesto, as it was called. I think that at this time in the history of British Columbia it's very important for all the people of British Columbia to recognize what was included in that manifesto and supported by the Premier of this province and by several other cabinet Ministers on these benches over there, and to compare the actions and the legislation of this government with the outline of that manifesto.

Mr. Chairman, with your permission I'd like to read a few paragraphs from the manifesto:

"As democratic socialists, we must present a radical alternative to the shambles of free enterprise and the colonization of Canada by American corporations. We must commit ourselves to the democratic ownership and control of all major economic institutions by the people.

"Without large scale public ownership, discussion of other basic socialist goals like income redistribution, rational economic planning and workers' control becomes Utopian. Without control of the key sectors of the economy, an NDP government will be the reformist housekeeper of a society dominated by capital both foreign and domestic."

Later on in the manifesto, it states:

"The choices for socialists are clear. As long as corporate domination of the economic and political system continues, there will be a waste of resources, both human and material, continued social inequality and the destruction of the environment.

"Public ownership is essential if profits are to be spent in the much needed improvement of social services, the elimination of regional disparities and the creation of the jobs and

[ Page 786 ]

housing which Canadians so badly need, rather than for capitalist investment and accumulation.

"Public ownership is essential if we are to break the monopoly of power presently held by foreign and domestic corporations and build a socialist society based on popular control.

"Yet another area where private ownership exists in contradiction to people's needs is that of industrial decision-making. The limitations of traditional" — the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) should listen to this — "collective bargaining are becoming increasingly obvious. As long as industry remains in private hands, the speed of work, the use of new technology and critical decisions about plant layoffs and shut-downs will be determined by capitalists, not by the men and women they so drastically affect. Public ownership is an essential precondition for true industrial democracy."

The manifesto goes on to outline the basic principles as follows:

"As part of its political programme, the NDP must commit itself to the immediate nationalization of resource industries and financial institutions including banks and trust companies."

lnterjection.

MR. WALLACE: You don't like this, eh? This is the NDP manifesto, my friend. Yes, that's right, and they were thrown out, right? But your Premier signed this manifesto.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member please address the Chair?

MR. WALLACE: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I apologize for not addressing the Chair, but we have a disturber up here on the left.

I was talking about the nationalization of resource industries, Mr. Chairman, and I continue to quote:

"These two areas are the key to breaking corporate power in Canada. Their public ownership will pave the way for nationalization of other sectors.

"The NDP commits itself as its long-term goal to the public ownership of major corporations in the manufacturing, resources, financial, transportation and commodity distribution sectors of the economy. Compensation for nationalized enterprises shall be made through low-interest, long-term bonds. Corporations which obstruct nationalization by economic sabotage or other undemocratic means will be expropriated.

"Workers' control shall be established in all public enterprises within the context of socialist planning at the national, regional and community levels."

Finally, Mr. Chairman:

"On a local and provincial level we must begin extra-parliamentary activity around unemployment, plant layoffs and shut-downs, polluting corporations, and reactionary labour and welfare legislation. It is essential to organize mass meetings of its own membership to back socialist demands put forward by our legislative representatives."

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I think this paragraph is most significant:

"The era of consensus politics is ending...

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) says, "Hear, hear!" You don't believe in majority rule, Mr. Attorney-General.

"... and the Canadian people are beginning to fight back against the forces which oppress them. The alternatives are clear: we can ignore them and be doomed to irrelevance, or we can join them and together create the kind of radical people's movement capable of building an independent socialist Canada."

Now, Mr. Chairman, I've read sizeable fractions from this manifesto because our Premier supported that, as did many Members of this government. I think that in fairness one can look at the actions of this government and much of its legislation, and it is certainly off on the path which leads to ever-increasing public ownership.

Now, I want to be fair and say that the manifesto contained many other things such as the problem of bilingualism and the difficulties in integrating women into the labour force and many other subjects. I just happened to have chosen the section dealing with public ownership because the Premier and I across this floor have often agreed to disagree.

The big difference between the Conservatives and the socialists is an ideology regarding the role of private enterprise vis-à-vis public ownership. I respect the Premier's right to believe what he believes, and I've tried to spell out by quoting the manifesto what the Premier believes. I happen to believe in the incentive to the private individual and to the private sector, provided there are adequate regulations and controls on the private sector.

I know that the Premier will get up and defend his point of view, which is absolutely the way it should be. But I do think that when we get to this debate, where we are discussing the Premier's office and the Minister of Finance's estimates, the people of British Columbia should be given an opportunity to know very clearly what they are choosing between — the

[ Page 787 ]

philosophy and the policies which flow from the philosophy of the socialist party, or the philosophy and the policies which would be adopted by this side of the House.

The Premier has talked about the repatriation of the economy. We are all in favour of that to the degree that it does not deny certain disadvantaged people in our society the help they need right now — not next year, or five or 10 years from now. It's all very well to wave the flag and say that we have repatriated part of Westcoast Transmission, but there are people in our society today, particularly the elderly and the sick, who are not receiving their fair share of the provincial pie. I'm just as happy and eager as any other B.C. citizen or Canadian citizen to see our economy being repatriated, but there has to be a clear definition of priorities. If our services to people have some glaring gaps, as indeed I believe they do have, then I have to say regretfully, through you, Mr. Chairman, that the Premier is a little ahead of his time in putting the money into the acquisition of companies while human beings in this province are being left out in the cold.

I was rather interested in the Premier's comments I heard on the speaker in my office today on B.C. Tel and the fact that it is a monopoly. I only have to say: what about Autoplan? It's a monopoly too. It happens to be state-owned, but it looks as though we will have much of the same problem with Autoplan that you could reasonably say we have with B.C. Tel. You've no system of comparison, Mr. Premier. Two or three years down the road, when the car insurance rates have gone up by X or Y or Z per cent, we've got nothing to compare them with.

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Saskatchewan's went down.

MR. WALLACE: Manitoba just went up 13 per cent, my friend, so don't talk about Saskatchewan. Saskatchewan is as flat as a pancake. B.C. has got other geographical problems. So let's not compare apples and oranges. Why don't you just go back to sleep? You looked so peaceful a minute ago.

Mr. Chairman, I know you are going to call me to order because we have a disturber up here and I can never resist the needle.

Seriously, Mr. Chairman, I think this is a factor which should be taken into account. You can't argue for a monopoly on the state side of the fence and argue against a monopoly in the hands of private enterprise. We just happen to believe that no monopoly is a good thing.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): What do you suggest?

MR. WALLACE: We suggest competition.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a magic word — competition.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, it is a magic word. We just happen to believe that individuals function better, produce better, achieve more, and strive harder when there is competition. After all, we teach our kids to get out on the playing field and run around a track and try and run faster than the other guy. We get them out of the....

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Now we get the disturber suggesting that you might kill yourself with exercise, Mr. Chairman. (Laughter.) I don't think that's a danger that he is running, actually.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, there are quite a few, I guess.

HON. MR. BARRETT: How many are operating in B.C.?

MR. WALLACE: One. Yes, I agree, that's a monopoly. I'm not saying it's desirable. The point I'm trying to make is that I don't accept that a monopoly is good for the consumer.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: Is it better if it is public or private?

MR. WALLACE: As long as there is competition, my feeling is it is a great idea if you have both public and private, and then the best man wins. Anyway, I don't mean to belabour that until the cows come home, but we just don't believe in monopoly.

AN HON. MEMBER: What have they got now?

MR. WALLACE: Well, we have monopoly and the Premier said today that he is not happy with it. I don't think, frankly, that I'm all that happy with B.C. Tel either. So maybe if there were some way in which we could have two companies instead of one, we could call on the competitive element to produce the better service.

Mr. Chairman, to get back to the Premier's office and the Minister of Finance, I don't think we should overlook the interesting example that the Premier set when he went down to Quebec to court Réné Levesque, who basically supports the separatist idea. It seems to us to be a contradiction to the Premier's avowed dedication to Confederation.

I think it is interesting, Mr. Chairman, that when the Premier was down there in Montreal, he was

[ Page 788 ]

interviewed. In The Vancouver Sun of November 27, the Premier is reported as saying that he realized that separatism posed a serious problem in the province of Quebec, but he suggested that there was also an element of inherent separatism among the populace of B.C. I'm quoting the Premier, Mr. Chairman, on November 27, 1973:

"'If you think that in the Province of Quebec you have historical, emotional pressures for separation,' he said, 'then you should meet some British Columbians. We don't have the cultural, but we have the north-south pressure.' Barrett said he feared that the withdrawal of Quebec from Confederation would mean the transformation of British Columbia into another California.

"His appeal to Levesque to remain within Confederation was 'based on purely unselfish motives.'"

I think, Mr. Chairman, that at this point in the leadership that the Premier is giving this province, and a lot of it is very good, I would suggest that we should be aware....

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, I manage on my own, thanks very much. I don't need help from them or you or anybody else.

I think that it is very interesting that the Premier should attempt to strike a liaison with the leader of the party that gained 30 per cent of the vote in Quebec.

"'For those socialist policies held out by that party, I say to that party, intellectually and emotionally, there may have been a need to argue for separatism, but practically and economically you don't have to separate. Join with us from Quebec right across to B.C. — join a socialist Canada.' Barrett said the diversity offered by the Parti Quebecois would serve to strengthen the country, not divide it."

I just think that it is timely, Mr. Chairman, that we should recognize some of the statements which the Premier made in Quebec. I would suggest that anyone who could consider that Rene Levesque's fundamental goal in politics was not to achieve separatism must be overlooking what is very obvious to the rest of Canada. While he may have socialist goals in his philosophy, I think it is pretty obvious to the great majority of Canadians that his overriding and primary goal is to take Quebec out of Canada.

I would, with respect, suggest to the Premier that it is very dangerous to flirt — and I use the term in the context that the Premier talked about making love to Quebec — with a politician in another province who can wrack up 30 per cent of the vote and whose primary goal is to take his province out of Canada.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you think that is really his primary motive?

MR. WALLACE: I do indeed think that the primary goal of Rene Levesque, without any question, is to take Quebec out of Confederation.

Again, when I criticize the Premier for interfering in agriculture and interfering in education, with the greatest respect I would suggest that he is interfering with Confederation too and that his good intentions to spread understanding involve some very real dangers that he himself shall be misunderstood.

I don't think some of the interviews I have quoted which the Premier made in Quebec in any way mitigate the danger that the Premier of this province is willing to ally himself with another Premier whose primary goal is separation from Canada.

I have another subject that I would just like to mention briefly. Back in October of last year, when we were faced with serious potential problems regarding the supply of natural gas, the Premier of this province prepared what has been called, accurately or otherwise, the emergency powers bill. While this bill was never tabled in this House, it was a subject of concern, simply because, rightly or wrongly — and I hope the Premier will put the facts straight when he answers questions — it was compared to the federal legislation which was brought in to the federal House at the time of the kidnapping of Pierre LaPorte.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: The Conservatives supported that.

MR. WALLACE: The feeling was that this government was apparently prepared to bring in legislation to this province which contained some very far-reaching, autocratic type of power over the rights and freedoms of the individuals in this Province of British Columbia.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Which the federal Conservatives supported.

MR. WALLACE: The federal legislation, Mr. Chairman, was brought in in an atmosphere of extreme urgency and apprehension regarding an event that was rather peculiar to the life of the Canadian people — namely, a public kidnapping and threat to the life of a prominent cabinet Minister in a certain province.

While the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) chirps up and yaks about the federal Conservatives supporting that bill, I would suggest that that kind of situation, compared to the price of natural gas, is a little different. I just want this whole

[ Page 789 ]

House to know, when we are talking about this kind of legislation, that we happen to place a very high regard on the freedom and rights of the individual.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: Now you show me; I don't happen to live in Quebec. He has wakened up again, I notice.

We happen to live in British Columbia, and we don't happen to have the FLQ in British Columbia. And we don't happen to have the violence and threats against the life and survival of public figures. The evidence that was presented federally at that time, to which the Minister of Public Works refers, contained a great deal of force to the effect that there might be a very serious threat to the life and health of many people in the province of Quebec and, indeed, a threat of anarchy.

All I say, Mr. Chairman, is that that kind of threat, which was very serious...and it is always easy to be smart in retrospect. Okay, maybe we can all smartly turn around and say that Prime Minister Trudeau overreacted. To this day I am not sure of the facts, whether he did or he didn't. But it is very easy to be smart in retrospect. All I am saying, Mr. Chairman, is that the Premier of this province has admitted that he prepared a bill which involved the conferring of substantial powers.

I would quote him, Mr. Chairman. He was asked why it wasn't introduced when he had prepared it. He said that the situation had changed, but that such legislation must be seriously considered — and I am quoting him now from a newspaper clipping: "It" — the legislation — "must be seriously considered, perhaps next session, in a much calmer atmosphere."

I think the Premier of this province owes it to the House to tell us whether he intends to pursue this particular policy and introduce a bill of this nature providing the kind of powers to government which are somewhat foreign to the basic concepts, as we understand them, of the democratic system of government.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, we have had a great deal of discussion about government competing in the private sector and acquiring various companies and industries to compete with private enterprise. I think again it is only fair to say that competition is only fair when you are all following the same ground rules. If you are running a race, the rules should apply equally to each competitor in the race.

I would have to suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the Premier, in encouraging increasing public ownership in the acquisition of Kootenay Forest Products, or Dunhill, or various other companies which the Premier has encouraged the government to take over.... It is all very well if you are contesting as an equal, but if you happen to be the referee as well, it makes it rather a lopsided contest.

To be more specific, Mr. Chairman, I am talking, for example, about the fact that Plateau Mills has been sold by B.C. Cellulose to the government, so that Plateau Mills will not pay federal income tax.

The Premier is frowning, but I am quoting from one of his own press releases.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Sold from Columbia Cellulose?

MR. WALLACE: This is what was stated in a press release. So maybe the Minister, when he replies, can correct that.

MR. CHABOT: A Crown corporation to set it up.

MR. WALLACE: But to take a more specific example, Mr. Chairman, the government decided to acquire Dunhill. Again the Minister of Finance can correct me if I am wrong, but the information which has been publicized is to the effect that the government insisted they must have 90 per cent of the shares. Again, I understand federal legislation is such that if the government of this province owns 90 per cent of the shares, it does not pay federal income tax.

Now this business of competition is just great. I would be willing to go into business and compete with a whole raft of people if they had to pay federal income tax and I didn't. It makes the situation, Mr. Chairman, just a little unequal, I would suggest. I hope, if I am wrong, that the Minister of Finance will correct the misunderstanding. But it seems to me that this is the situation that is developing as the government acquires more and more of the private sector.

On that same theme, I think we should all take note of the speech that was made by the Member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) in Kelowna, where he...and let me interject to say that the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) has made it quite plain that the Member for Alberni was not quoting government policy.

But that Member for Alberni happens to be chairman of the Select Standing Committee on Forestry. I think, Mr. Chairman, again, that the people of British Columbia should not be fooled by the fact that the Minister has said he was not describing government policy when he said — and the headline is here — "Private Forest Firms Second to Government."

Here again is the government supposedly competing with private industry. I would suggest from the kind of comments that were made by the chairman of the Select Standing Committee on Forestry, that we should wake up and realize very clearly that this government believes in a certain type

[ Page 790 ]

of competition, where there is just a certain advantage to the government.

I have tried to describe it in terms of income tax, and I think that the Member who is the chairman of the forestry committee has also described it in terms of service to the industry.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I would just like to talk again about the whole question of federal-provincial co-operation. The Premier has just returned from a meeting of the western premiers, and I would just like to say how much I appreciate one of the statements which was made after that conference. I am quoting The Vancouver Sun, Friday, March 1.

"All the premiers emphasized that the provincially run scheme is intended to complement rather than bypass federal planning efforts."

I think that as long as this is fundamental to efforts by the western premiers to act in co-operation, we have a real hope not that we would endanger Confederation, but that the western premiers would indeed be able to get greater respect and better progress at national provincial conferences.

I hope that the Premier will perhaps touch on that aspect of the conference, and that aspect of the aims and goals of the western premiers vis-à-vis Confederation, when he answers these questions.

HON. MR. BARRETT: (Mike not on.) ...Mr. Chairman, is a very wide-ranging speech by the leader of the Conservative Party (Mr. Wallace), in my estimates, some of which I will try to respond to and others I will suggest be raised with other Ministers.

First of all, the comments about the national energy policy, or lack of it, by the federal government. I agree with the Member who did come down and did stay for the whole conference, as did the First Member for Victoria (Mr. Morrison) and the second Member (Mr. D.A. Anderson).

MRS. JORDAN: Did you stay for the whole conference?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, I stayed for the whole conference, but your leader didn't, Madam Member.

I'm glad that the Members took advantage of the opportunity. It was the first time in the history of British Columbia that opposition Members have been asked to any conference.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We went to the western one.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, the western one as well. That's the second time and I hope that it's the beginning of a tradition that lasts as long as this House lasts.

I want to say that there was a direct result of the Premiers' energy conference. All the Premiers are new within the last few years. There has been a dramatic change in personnel in the last few years.

In the past, the annual conference of the provincial Premiers was essentially a social event, with a very limited formal agenda and very little formal discussion on issues that concerned us. I've seen that change in my limited time, but the toughest time in terms of agenda and working together came at the energy conference.

Now, I share your comments about the energy conference per se. Just a few weeks before the energy conference, the Prime Minister was quoted as saying that it was the single most important federal-provincial conference; the future of the country was at stake. When we arrived at the conference, we were asked and we did state our positions, and we expected a response from the federal government.

What the Member has described is absolutely correct. The Minister of Energy, Mr. Macdonald, came in with a proposal about a half hour before the meeting adjourned. It was a complex proposal, and we were expected to respond overnight. As a matter of fact, the very fact that we criticized its appearance at the last minute was treated with disdain by the federal spokesman as, "Well, what more did they expect?" Of course, the conference was totally ill-prepared by the federal government. They had no policy.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, I don't think so. I don't think that any politician could intentionally ball a thing up the way they did.

MR. WALLACE: Well, they did.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, they didn't do it intentionally because they are so separate from giving orders in terms of what they want spelled out as a policy, from what finally comes out of the cranking machine, that they're incapable of translating a position to a policy.

One Member got up here tonight and talked about the number of my staff. It's absolutely ridiculous. I'll have to have another person to help with the mail, because I'm answering mail now. That was never done before. Last Monday over 1,000 single pieces of mail came into the office. We're getting a lot more and we intend to answer it, whether it's good or bad.

Mr. Member, when you see the many, many people backing up the federal Ministers, you would expect that there would be a clear-cut statement. Even little P.E.I., through Premier Alex Campbell, had a statement and a position, and so did British Columbia. But the federal government did not come prepared with a single statement about an energy

[ Page 791 ]

policy whatsoever, and this was two weeks after the Prime Minister had stated that this was the most important meeting in terms of future Confederation.

The Liberal Party in my opinion is not a political party; it never has been and it never will be. It was once described by a political historian as an alliance for power. And that is exactly what it is — an alliance for power.

It has no further support in the west. If there will be any gains by the Liberal Party it will be mainly the fault of the Conservatives, because they're scrambling for a policy too.

MR. McGEER: Don't leave the NDP out of it.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The NDP has been the balance of power and kept the Liberals there, extracting a number of commitments that they thought were worthwhile. That's a decision I think is certainly valid in terms of the situation of the federal policy makers.

MR. SCHROEDER: Now tell us what you really think.

HON. MR. BARRETT: As for the federal Social Credit Party, where are they? Poof! With a French accent, because there's not even enough out here to go "Poof".

MR. PHILLIPS: Poof! Poof! (Laughter.)

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, well that's what we're coming to. The position I took was not supported by any other Premier.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Chairman, I didn't go back to the conference to take a position that I didn't believe in. I went back to state honestly, as the Premier of this province, exactly what I believed in. I said so, and I didn't dodge the issue. You're free to disagree, but at least I didn't beat around the bush. I stated honestly exactly what I feel, and I said again that I believe that all of the natural gas and oil in this country should be publicly owned under federal control. I believe that.

After having said that and acknowledged at the conference that I had no other support, I acknowledged that. But I stated my position openly and honestly.

I went on to suggest that the second best alternative, in my opinion, was the establishment of a national petroleum corporation to monitor and control marketing. It appears that the federal government is moving in that direction in terms of a public corporation.

I think it is the responsibility of any politician to state what his policy is. I'll stand or fall on that policy, and I'll tell you that if the federal government were to say tomorrow, "Okay, Mr. Premier, we accept your offer and we're going to call a national election on your offer," I would call a provincial election and say: "Okay, this is the issue. The issue is that I am prepared to have this party stand or fall on the policy that the resources of oil and gas belong to the people of this country and that we will share them with all Canadians if they're publicly owned."

I would fight a provincial election on that issue if the federal government said that's the direction they wish to go, because it would be the responsibility of all British Columbians to have a voice in that change of policy.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: For Hydro I proposed, Mr. Member, a national power grid to exchange power, and I went further. I said as long as there is no net export of power, we should have a north-south grid — coming from an NDPer. Yes, I said that we should have a continental energy grid, as long as there's no net export of power. I said so publicly, and had you stayed there, Mr. Member, you would have heard me say that, as the Member said over there.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I can understand the Liberal Party's embarrassment. How do you have to interpret the statements of the Prime Minister of this country, who after we left the conference, then said that we will get together again? I'll read his telegram.

Before I finish that I want to answer the one question raised by the Member concerning that conference. That is that I do believe there is a benefit out of that kind of conference. I see us growing all the time. There is developing a greater understanding between the provincial Premiers, as witness the visit of Premier Moores to the Province of British Columbia today to talk about a particular concept. We will continue those discussions. He's a Conservative; I'm a democratic socialist.

In terms of our policies and our Conservative neighbours in Alberta, let it be clearly understood that without the emotionalism around the world "socialism", Peter the Red, as I kindly refer to him in Alberta, has copied exactly our Petroleum Corporation. And more power to him! It's a good idea, Mr. Chairman.

It isn't bad because it comes from a socialist, or it isn't bad because it comes from a capitalist. If it

[ Page 792 ]

makes sense for the people of a jurisdiction, then by all means buy it and implement it; and that is what Peter the Red has done.

He is a good man. He is a Tory. I find that I even get along with Regan of Nova Scotia, who I thought was very, very blunt and critical of his own federal party — and he is a Liberal. If you are suggesting, Mr. Liberal leader, that he was only tough because he's got an election at home, I don't believe he is that kind of man. But it reflects your Liberal cynicism to even suggest that particular approach.

Now, Mr. Member, the Prime Minister said....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: They are fine men, both of them. They are fine men and they are fine democratic socialists. Mr. Member, I was pointing out the fact that we cross party lines at these conferences and that we do get along very well. The primary aim is for something better for Canada — not for the re-election of the Liberals; and you can't seem to get that through your head.

I understand the federal Liberals have now not only hired one PR firm, but they have retained the firm they had last time and now have hired a consortium. The approach is to spread it all over, hit every possible base and let's establish a policy contrary to the last one, the slogan "The Land is Strong."

They're trying to sell cheese, Mr. Chairman — the land is strong. What will we get next time? You ask these questions. I'll read you all these telegrams I received from the Prime Minister after the energy conference.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Tell us about your policy again, Dave.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, my policy is consistent and I know you are opposed to it. I say it again if you want to hear it. I believe in public ownership of the gas and oil in this country by the people of this country.

I want to quote from The Toronto Sun, an editorial in a Conservative daily — and the title? — "And It's Not Even Socialism." This is the schizophrenia that happens in our community around the word "socialism."

"If the federal government were to suddenly get into the oil business, setting up a Crown company to compete with Imperial Oil, Shell, Gulf, et al, we suspect there would be a sigh of relief from Canadians from coast to coast. At least it would be action instead of words, and it wouldn't be socialism. Why? — because of the spectre which haunts many Canadians who look at the inhumane record of so-called socialist countries of the world and shudder."

That's why it wouldn't be socialism — because the word is unpleasant. But the idea is okay; therefore it's no longer socialism. I go on to quote:

"It seems only to make common sense. So did Medicare, but there was a time when that was dangerous socialism too. It seemed to make common sense. In fact, one could make an argument that the government has an obligation to enter into the oil business, setting up gasoline and fuel outlets to compete with private enterprise."

The Toronto Sun; better that the government make the profit than the oil companies. It goes on to say:

"Surely everyone must be offended at the news that Exxon, the world's largest oil company, increased its profits last year to $2.44 billion, equivalent to more than the full provincial budget — up 60 per cent. Imperial Oil of Canada, an Exxon subsidiary, did even better percentage wise, boosting its profit by 69 per cent. That's too big a profit. It smacks of gouging.

"Governments can run hydro and telephone services quite adequately without wrecking the free enterprise system. The way these oil giants expand and wield power, holding back oil, generating crises, manipulating and confusing, does not serve the public interest."

That's not the Waffle Manifesto. That's The Toronto Sun.

"They serve only their own interests and it is the people who pay."

I can see the letters to the editor stamp marked "Moscow" and saying,"Welcome comrades." It goes on to say:

"The only way Canadians will ever get a break is if the government takes over or competes with the giants. Otherwise the people will continue to pay more. The politicians will get richer. The oil companies will get richer faster and the politicians will generate even more hot air."

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, it's The Toronto Sun. Oil company profits for oil companies operating in B.C.: Imperial Oil, 1972 — $157 million. You support those big companies over there. You do, every one of you over there. In 1972 — $157 million, and then $228 million in 1973. Imperial Oil in B.C. — an increase of 45 per cent in one year. Taxes? Mr. Member, the oil companies don't pay any income taxes. I wrote Mr. Stanbury and I'll get to that letter too because the Member is interested. I also wrote to the oil companies and I will read you some of their replies, too.

[ Page 793 ]

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Sacrifice? It's coming. Just be patient. Be patient. It's coming.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, they even got tax deductions on the ads that they had attacking the government. I say to the oil companies: "You've got to have the best PR companies going to help the NDP. You keep on buying ads like that and you will re-elect us right across this province." Standard Oil, Social Credit, Liberals — you're all the same.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You bet your life. I'm for Standard Oil keeping on pumping that gas in the polls.

Gulf Oil of Canada, 1972 — $64 million; in 1973 — $ 100 million — an increase of 58 per cent.

Texaco of Canada — $42 million — these are increases in profit — 31 per cent.

Imperial Oil of Canada.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, Mr. Chairman, how sweet it is for us to hear those great defenders of the major oil companies cry tonight.

They don't like to hear this bad news.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Why, it says nothing here about Bill Clancy.

What is the income tax picture of these companies? Why the huge windfall profits? Doesn't the public have a right to know? I asked the Minister, the federal Minister, when I was at the conference: will you have a public inquiry on these oil prices? I got support from the Minister of Finance from the Province of Ontario and from other provinces as well.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, Mr. Chairman, they are all crying because they all can't be judges. Don't worry. After the election, if the federal Liberals are still in, you will have a chance. But I want to tell you if there is anything lingering in your mind, jump now partners. It may be the Tories' turn at the trough and you guys will be out in the cold.

But for us there will always be room for a few token socialists. They always find room for a token quota of socialists on these appointments, so we make out all right. For the rest of you guys, you had better hustle now because your time is coming close to an end.

MR. BENNETT: You sure do in B.C.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Now the Socreds can insult everyone, cause they ain't going nowhere. I said that we'd hire one if we could find one with any competence.

And the poor Leader of the Opposition! You know, Mr. Chairman, I want to say this about that. They must not pick on the Leader of the Opposition. When you consider the rag-tag, bobtail group he inherited, peace be with him! That most undisciplined group of chauvinistic separatists who were going upside-down, sideways, backwards and forwards; he didn't know what he got.

He's trying to figure out how his daddy handled that group all these years. It was simple. Just take the hammer and thump them, man. (Laughter.)

Mr. Chairman, this is a telegram I received on January 28, 1974, from the Prime Minister, and I want to quote:

DEAR MR. PREMIER:

"AT OUR CONFERENCE ON ENERGY WHICH CLOSED ON JANUARY 23, WE AGREED THAT THE FREEZE ON CRUDE OIL PRICES SHOULD CONTINUE UNTIL MARCH 31, AND THAT FROM APRIL 1 ONWARDS THERE SHOULD BE A SINGLE BASE PRICE FOR CRUDE OIL IN CANADA.

Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.

AN HON. MEMBER: Read it all.

HON. MR. BARRETT:

WE ALSO AGREED THAT CLOSE CONSULTATION WOULD BE REQUIRED DURING THE COMING WEEKS.

Let's read it all. (Laughter.)

WE AGREED THAT CLOSE CO-OPERATION WOULD BE REQUIRED DURING THE COMING WEEKS IN ORDER TO WORK OUT ALL THE DETAILS OF THE ARRANGEMENTS WHICH WOULD HAVE TO COME INTO PLACE ON APRIL 1 TO GIVE ASSENT TO THE ONE-PRICE CONCEPT.

We all agreed on that. You wanted me to read it.

ON THE QUESTION OF CONSULTATION, I GATHER OUR RESPECTIVE OFFICIALS HAVE ALREADY DISCUSSED TENTATIVE ARRANGEMENTS FOR OFFICIALS FROM ALL GOVERNMENTS TO MEET TOGETHER ON AT LEAST TWO OCCASIONS PRIOR TO THE MEETING OF THE MINISTERS OF ENERGY AND FINANCE. I BELIEVE IT IS ESSENTIAL THAT THE FIRST OF THESE MEETINGS OF OFFICIALS TAKE PLACE AT THE EARLIEST POSSIBLE DATE, AND I HOPE THAT IT WILL BE POSSIBLE TO

[ Page 794 ]

HOLD THE MEETING OF THE MINISTERS OF ENERGY AND FINANCE DURING THE WEEK OF FEBRUARY 25 AT THE LATEST.

That's gone, brothers and sisters.

MY COLLEAGUES, HON. DONALD MACDONALD AND HON. JOHN TURNER, WILL BE IN TOUCH SHORTLY WITH PROVINCIAL MINISTERS IN THIS REGARD.

We're still waiting.

IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THIS MEETING OF MINISTERS COULD RESULT IN AN AGREEMENT ON FUTURE ARRANGEMENTS, OR THAT SUCH AGREEMENT MIGHT BE REACHED AT A SECOND MEETING A WEEK OR TWO LATER.

IT MAY ALSO BECOME APPARENT, HOWEVER, ON COMPLETION OF THE FIRST MEETING OF MINISTERS THAT THE AGREEMENT ON THE ARRANGEMENT OF THE PERIOD AFTER MARCH 31 COULD ONLY BE CONCLUDED AT A MEETING OF FIRST MINISTERS. I WOULD SUGGEST, THEREFORE, THAT WE KEEP FREE THE TWO DAYS OF THURSDAY AND FRIDAY, MARCH 14 AND 15, IN CASE THE HOLDING OF A CONFERENCE OF FIRST MINISTERS AT THAT TIME SHOULD BE NECESSARY.

I've got both dates open. I booked them when I received this telegram. I told the other Ministers: "Don't leave town. Even if the forest companies buy your tickets — don't leave town." (Laughter.)

I GATHER THAT ALL ARE AGREED THAT THE MEETING OF MINISTERS SHOULD BE CLOSED TO THE PRESS.

I never agreed to that, but that's typical of the Prime Minister. He talks to two or three Premiers, and comes back and says: "I gather we are all agreed." That's how I found the agenda was changed that next morning. I talked to Premier Bourassa and he agreed with Trudeau. I wonder why.

INSOFAR AS THE POSSIBLE CONFERENCE OF FIRST MINISTERS IS CONCERNED, I WOULD BE PREPARED TO HAVE IT EITHER OPEN OR CLOSED, AND I WOULD APPRECIATE RECEIVING YOUR VIEWS ON THIS.

YOURS SINCERELY,

HON. P.E. TRUDEAU, PRIME MINISTER.

Telex to the Prime Minister, January 28, right after I received it:

MY DEAR PRIME MINISTER:

"THANK YOU FOR YOUR TELEX SETTING OUT YOUR PROPOSED MEETINGS ON ENERGY. THE DATES YOU PROPOSE ARE GENERALLY ACCEPTABLE TO ME, BUT A CONFERENCE OF WESTERN PREMIERS IS PLANNED FOR FEBRUARY 27 AND 28, SO I TRUST THE MEETING OF MINISTERS OF ENERGY AND FINANCE SCHEDULED THE WEEK OF FEBRUARY 25 CAN BE SCHEDULED SO AS NOT TO CONFLICT. THE MARCH DATES ARE ALSO ACCEPTABLE.

I AM AGREEABLE TO THE MEETING OF FIRST MINISTERS BEING OPEN TO THE PRESS, BUT IF THERE ARE STRONG OBJECTIONS ON THE PART OF SOME FIRST MINISTERS, I WOULD NOT PRESS MINE.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: All right, I'll table that.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Okay, bring it back if you don't want to read it. Do you want to read it, or don't you? I don't care. It's all right, Hansard — I'll make copies to mail to all the Liberal membership in British Columbia. Mr. Chairman, February 21 — this was after I sent the wire on the 28th:

DEAR MR. PRIME MINISTER:

THANK YOU FOR YOUR COMMENTS ON THE TENTATIVE SCHEDULE FOR MEETINGS ON ENERGY MATTERS OUTLINED IN MY TELEX OF JANUARY 28. SINCE SENDING MY TELEX I HAVE RECEIVED PREMIER LOUGHEED'S MESSAGE OF JANUARY 29. YOU RECEIVED A COPY FROM THE PREMIER.

I HAVE GIVEN CAREFUL THOUGHT TO THIS SITUATION AND HAVE COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES IT IS BOTH NECESSARY AND DESIRABLE THAT PREMIER LOUGHEED AND I SHOULD HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSIONS IN ORDER TO CLARIFY OUR POSITION. I HAVE ACCORDINGLY PROPOSED TO HIM THAT HE AND I SHOULD MEET VERY EARLY IN MARCH IN AN EFFORT, IN WHICH ALL FIRST MINISTERS ARE INTERESTED, TO ARRIVE AT AN UNDERSTANDING THAT SHOULD BE DONE WITH A TEMPORARY RESTRAINT.

IT IS MY INTENTION TO KEEP YOU INFORMED OF THE DEVELOPMENTS ARISING WITH MY PROPOSED MEETING WITH PREMIER BLAKENEY AND PREMIER LOUGHEED.

IN LIGHT OF THE NEW SITUATION, OUR MINISTERS AND OFFICIALS WILL PROBABLY NOT NEED TO MEET TO PLAN FOR THE TIME BEING ON MULTILATERAL MEETINGS, AS ENVISAGED IN THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF THE JANUARY 28 MESSAGE.

I SHOULD THINK, HOWEVER, THAT FIRST MINISTERS WILL WANT TO GET TOGETHER PRIVATELY, IN ANY EVENT, BEFORE THE END OF MARCH.

Get together with who?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Whom.

[ Page 795 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: There is no federal policy; there is no energy policy. It changes day to day. I wished my very good friend, the Conservative Premier from Alberta, bon voyage and bon chance, but I said: "Watch out, brother. The last time you had private meetings, the decision was made before you even got out of the room." This is no way to run a national government or an energy policy, Mr. Member, and I agree with you completely on your observations on that conference.

First of all, come to a meeting, then don't come. We have a policy; we haven't got a policy. All they've got in mind, as far as I'm concerned, is some way out past June 28, so they can have a federal election and put off the energy policy decision until after the federal election.

MR. WALLACE: Has he asked for a freeze until June 30?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I have no objection to the freeze. He has not asked me. I made a note of this question.

MR. WALLACE: Has he asked you?

HON. MR. BARRETT: No. We have not received a formal request for an opinion of the Government of British Columbia on whether or not the freeze should continue.

Now that you have asked me, I will give you my answer. It is: yes, we think the freeze should continue. And when you see the Prime Minister....

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): He doesn't talk to him.

HON. MR. BARRETT: If you get a chance, pass him a message.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: He only talks to you.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, he comes out on that great big jet and spends $6,000 on fuel to come out for a Liberal fund-raising meeting — $6,000 fuel for that jet to come out for one night. Mind you, the Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) was happy. He got to see him in a parade the next day. (Laughter.) It was a kiddies parade, as I understand it — that's why the Member was there. (Laughter.)

Now the question of the 11A discretionary power — and I hope, Mr. Member, I have enough time to answer all the questions you asked — 11A is the discretionary power of the National Energy Board. We had asked on numerous occasions that they use section 11A, and it was denied us. We had to make our own moves then with the petroleum corporation.

Now, Mr. Member, you also mentioned the Waffle report and public ownership. I think it is important to share some philosophy and some views.

First of all, I want to repudiate the statement made by the Attorney-General of the Province of Alberta, Mr. Merv Leach, who said it was okay for governments to void contracts.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's what a Conservative Attorney-General said. Now, I want you all to sleep well tonight. Remember, it was a Conservative who said it, not a socialist, so don't have any nightmares. He went on to say that the Queen can do no wrong. Forgive him — he's a Tory, one of those radical, dangerous fellows who somehow think that the people have a right to their own government to determine what the laws should be. Forgive him, for he does not know what.... What is it, Harv?

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's right. (Laughter.) And the War Measures Act — you boys all voted for it.

MR. FRASER: You're filibustering your own estimates!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, Mr. Chairman! They ask me questions, I give them answers they don't like, and they cry! I can't understand it. First of all, they say "answer questions," and when you answer, they say "don't answer them." Schizophrenia! (Laughter.)

Columbia Cellulose. Now, Mr. Member, what is the situation? There is only perfection in the abstract. We agree on that. Once you place an Act there it is no longer perfection, because human error and human faults come into play. I think we can agree with that as a philosophical base. I don't believe in an absolute socialism, just as you don't believe in an absolute free enterprise.

But when you stand back and start talking philosophically and you want me to respond philosophically, Mr. Member, the first thing that comes to my attention, through you, Mr. Chairman, is the sympathy I feel for the illogic that you must bear being a Member supporting free enterprise.

You make the most rational, sensible appeals for a public ownership of the private hospital field. That's socialism, Mr. Chairman. And how do you define where socialism should be applied, and where it shouldn't be applied? I suggest to you, Mr. Member, that there are practical decisions on public ownership and free enterprise that all governments must make. We've made some, and what have they been based on?

[ Page 796 ]

MR. WALLACE: The health field.

HON. MR. BARRETT: We've made some in the health field, but we've made some in the economic field.

MR. WALLACE: You can't pick and choose to be ill.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, you can't pick and choose to be ill. Neither can a company pick and choose to be ill. Neither can a community pick and choose to be ill. But when the community is ill because of economic malaise, then it is the responsibility of the rest of the community to come to the rescue. We did that at Ocean Falls, and you voted for it, Mr. Member.

The community of Prince Rupert was ill. It was suffering from corporate boardroom thick-headedness — absenteeism. They were thinking of closing that pulp mill in Prince Rupert.

MR. SMITH: Then along came the knight in shining armour.

HON. MR. BARRETT: We made a decision to purchase that pulp mill. It's been very successful. It was right socially and it's right economically — a great, lucky combination.

Now, Mr. Member, our philosophy has been all along, as democratic socialists, to make each decision based on the need of the region and the people in that region. You have understood....

MR. WALLACE: You signed the manifesto.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I signed the manifesto and I said at the time I wanted it discussed. When was the last time the Tories discussed Edmund Burke? (Laughter.) You know, Adam Smith. The socialists have had George Bernard Shaw; we've had others. You've had great ones too...yes, they have.

The Tories have brought forth great thinkers...in the 16th and 17th centuries. (Laughter.) But at least they had a history. That bunch over there is a hysteric. (Laughter.)

Can't you see Solon Lowe going down as one of the great pioneers of intellectual thought or Blackmore? Do you remember Blackmore that great believer in freedom? And then there was...

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: ...then there was William Aberhart. Oh, don't forget flat-earth John. (Laughter.) He was another philosopher that was a mark of that party. But you've had a philosophy....

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, Mr. Member, that's up the down staircase. (Laughter.) We have a philosophy.

MR. PHILLIPS: I've never seen such a defence in my life.

HON. MR. BARRETT: We have a philosophy and the philosophy is that the public good must come first.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: And, Mr. Member, we have modeled that philosophy to the best of our ability. In terms of the elderly, we've made a major shift in housing, and there's an increase from $4.5 million to $10 million. So, Mr. Member, there is a contradiction in terms of your abstract theories in the application of your vote. We're glad you've got that contradiction, because you have a sense of understanding in terms of making these decisions.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: But, Mr. Member, this is the kind of debate that I think is valid in this House. You've presented your point of view; I've presented mine. The testing ground is among the people. It's a step up from the mindless kind of clichés and euphemisms we've had in this province for years. I'm glad you came to the conference, I hope you come to further conferences and I hope you contribute in the same positive, critical manner that you've done all along.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports progress and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. MacDonald; files answers to questions 124, 123 and 101.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald files the first annual report of the B.C. Energy Commission for the year ending December 31, 1973.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:54 p.m.