[ Page 755 ]

CONTENTS

Committee of Supply: Premier's estimates.

On vote 2.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 755

Mr. Curtis — 756

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 757

Mr. Curtis — 757

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 757

Mr. Gibson — 757

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 762

Mr. Gibson — 767

Mr. McClelland — 769

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 769

Mr. McClelland — 769

Mr. McGeer — 770

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 773

Mr. Phillips — 773

Mr. McGeer — 778

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Orders of the Day

House in Committee of Supply; Mr. G.H. Anderson in the chair.

ESTIMATES: PREMIER'S OFFICE

(continued)

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

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, yesterday and earlier today we were discussing the question of the loans of some $200 million for B.C. Hydro, and there are problems with respect to this loan which I believe need an airing and which have not yet been discussed so far.

First, of course, is the change in the Premier's attitude with respect to overseas money and the change in his attitude toward the source of money. Back in April of 1974 the Premier returned from Hong Kong and the headline was: "Hong Kong Money Curb Sought."

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): That was equity.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, we're now having distinctions — he is shouting "equity" across the floor at me. In case he thinks it is only that distinction, perhaps I should quote his own words of last year where he said that this money is here to protect the vast profits made by taking advantage of lowly paid Hong Kong workers in that Crown colony. And later on he talked about sweatshop labour.

In other words, he took a very moralistic stand with respect to this money, and he has now changed his tune. To quote him from yesterday, he said that we should not talk about the morality about where you borrow money from. He then went on to say who is going to establish these standards of morality, and he finally ended up with the statement that a buck is a buck.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Yes, but he said "the borrowing."

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Borrowing, that's right.

There has been an awful lot of comment, particularly from the Attorney-General and others, but the essential point is the same: we are taking moralistic judgments about from where we buy our wine; we are making judgments, as were made last year, about the nature of the money, the sweatshop-type money. To quote the Premier, we are "protecting vast profits made by taking advantage of lowly paid Hong Kong workers."

The point is this: the government has clearly changed its approach toward the source of money; therefore there are a number of legitimate questions. The argument of the Premier raised questions as to the true source itself. If we are to borrow money regardless of the morality behind it, I presume that there is no objection to money which may come from Swiss accounts or other accounts elsewhere which may, indeed, have been made in black market operations or anything of that nature. If we are to cease wondering where the money comes from, we are into a very interesting area. We are sure the Mafia and others have money to invest. I wonder if they realize the new policies of the government.

The point I would like to raise at this time.... The Premier has something to say?

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The point I would like to raise at this time is something which is becoming of increasing concern in North America and in Europe, relating to Arab loans. The Arab league has an official blacklist of some 1,500 corporations, and this blacklist is being employed to essentially discriminate against the friends of Israel. They interpret the friends of Israel in a very broad sense. Xerox, Ford, Monsanto, Coca Cola — all are companies on the list of friends of Israel. They are using their financial clout, in particular with respect to banking and major loans, to make sure that banks which have been known in the past to be friendly towards the state of Israel or, indeed, to have Jewish principals, are discriminated against — banks such as Rothschild, Warburg, Lazard Frères and others in North America as well.

On this point, because it is an important one and I think it really is the true question as to whether or not these loans are proper or otherwise, I'd like to read from the latest Time magazine of March 17, 1975, under the general heading "Economy in business," subheading "Trade." The title of the article is "Battling the Blacklist."

It starts by talking of the Arab boycott of Israel as rapidly becoming a political issue in the United States. The leaders of the B'nai B'rith have testified that more than a dozen shipping lines have been quietly cooperating with the boycott by avoiding Israeli ports.

Another charge is that commercial banks that act as agents for Arab countries have been requiring certificates of compliance with the boycott before issuing letters of credit to U.S. firms doing business.

Newsweek of March 10, in a major article headlined, "The Furor Over the Blacklist," which runs for two pages, goes on to talk about banking and underwriting.

[ Page 756 ]

Under the subheading "Squeeze" they have the following quotation:

"The new furor over Arab pressure tactics began several weeks ago, when a number of top-drawer investment banking houses in Europe were squeezed out of underwriting syndicates. Among those excluded were London's S.G. Warburg, N.M. Rothschild, and Lazard Frères et Cie of Paris, all of which have major Jewish family ownership. Lazard Frères and Co., the sister firm in New York, has also been a target of Arab pressures."

The real question here is whether or not we have been entering into deals upon which no information is given because of the possibility of subsidiary boycotts or subsidiary agreements. This problem exists. The government will give us no information as to the loan itself. As it happens to be a major subject of concern, obviously it's a subject for concern in this province too.

Did we get the loan without any subsidiary agreements concerning boycott? Were the loans offered on an equal-opportunity basis, regardless of the religion or race of the principals of the companies or banking consortiums involved? These questions obviously come to mind in the light of the blacklist and in light of the effectiveness of this blacklist which has led many companies to find themselves in violation of United States civil liberties legislation.

The Arabs, obviously, can deal with whom they wish. We would not deny them that right; it's a right they have. But when, as we find in the United States and as we find in Europe, they are using their economic muscle to create situations whereby one member of one company in the United States might discriminate against another within the United States (or the same is true in Canada), then we start getting into areas of public policy where we do question the correctness of borrowing from Arab nations and use of the petro-dollar.

The Premier is perfectly right that the money is there on the international market. Our credit rating is good; they obviously want to lend to us. But when we have discovered that this money is being used as a political weapon in the Middle Eastern war and where it has been used to influence domestic policy within countries, and company and government policy within countries, we wonder whether or not the Premier could not provide us with a bit more information than he has to date. We really don't know from where the money comes. We do know that the Arab league includes all of the nations that I can conceivably list and who might have loaned us the money. We wonder whether or not the list is being applied effectively and whether we're getting ourselves in a position where we're dependent, perhaps in the future, upon people who will use the list and the blackmail policy against us.

I'd like to end on this particular note, Mr. Chairman, by quoting an Arab official, who is referred to in this article in Newsweek.

"In Cairo, Arab boycott officials held their semi-annual meeting and they said they would keep up the pressure. Their 27-year-old blacklist was once largely a joke, but it has gained credibility now that it's backed by millions of petro-dollars.

"'The volume of screaming will tell us how much the boycott is hurting,' said one Arab official, 'and from what we are hearing now, it must be very painful.'"

I don't know much more about the blacklist than what I've read from the articles I've given you and one or two others as well, but I do feel that under the circumstances, since it is becoming a major issue, it would be incumbent upon the government and the Minister of Finance to give us more information about the deal that he has made.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): This afternoon, when the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) and I were discussing a matter which has been before the House and this committee for a few days now, the Premier, in response to one of the statements, indicated that he was very anxious — in fact he appealed to the public to bring forward any further documentation which might be available with regard to the events involving the election of the now Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) in the NDP government.

Well, the first document to arrive is a letter which was given to us late this afternoon, Mr. Chairman, after the Premier made his appeal.

I would like to read the letter — it isn't a long one — and then at the conclusion I will ask, when the committee rises and reports, that permission or leave be given by the House that the material tendered to the committee be tabled with the House in order that it may be open for viewing by all.

It is, as I say, not a long letter, addressed: Mr. Gary Bannerman, CKNW, Hotel Georgia, Vancouver, B.C. It carries the date March 7, 1975. The letter reads as follows:

"Dear Gary:

"I am not pleased that the cheque in your possession may become a public matter. In fact, until you brought the matter to my attention, I was unaware that it had left my files. I understand why you can't reveal your source. However, I have nothing to hide and I will hereby confirm the details of the transaction.

"Norman Levi, in his capacity as a social worker, provided counselling to me many years ago. I consider him to be a friend. Immediately

[ Page 757 ]

after the August 30, 1972, provincial election, I sent him a telegram offering my congratulations. It read to the effect: 'Congratulations. outrageous bribe to follow.' This was sent totally in jest with no other implications.

"On September 1, 1972, I consulted with Mr. W.C. McCallum who was working with my firm, Universal Divorce Financing Ltd., at the time, assisting with financial and accounting matters. I advised Mr. McCallum that Mr. Levi was a friend, that I had indicated a political contribution would be made and that I had heard rumours to the effect that Mr. Levi would become a cabinet Minister.

"Mr. McCallum advised that, as a cabinet Minister, Mr. Levi might be useful in the future, and, since the promise had been made, a cheque should be issued. A $200 cheque was drawn on the account of Universal Divorce Financing Ltd. and mailed to Mr. Levi. It was issued to him personally but intended solely as a political contribution. The signatures on the cheque were those of myself and Mr. McCallum, who is now in the employ of the Province of Alberta in a senior capacity. When the cancelled cheque returned, we were surprised that it had been endorsed personally by Mr. Levi, indicating that it had been deposited into a personal account rather than a political account. Sincerely yours, J.E. Hargitt."

There is a notarized statement which appears on the copy which has been given to me: "Signed and declared before me at the City of Vancouver in the Province of British Columbia this 7th day of March, 1975," and the signature is apparently that of "Horace L. Picard," notary public. Indeed, it is the standard notarized stamp: "A notary public in and for the Province of British Columbia."

What has been added to the copy of the letter, which I hope I can table later, is a note at the bottom of the letter with the initials which I believe to be those of Gary Bannerman, and it reads in full: "Note — original bears seal of Horace L. Picard, Notary Public." Faintly showing on the Xerox copy, which I have, is what would appear to be the standard embossed notary seal. I am sure that that would appear very clearly on the original which, for a number of reasons, remains in Mr. Bannerman's possession.

I am not pleased to bring this letter to the committee or to this House, but, again, in spirited comment over the past few days the Premier has said: "May we have whatever there is available in reference to this matter?" — or words to that effect. Bring it forward. That is what I hope to be able to do when the committee rises and reports.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, will you please tell the House what you are alleging by reading that letter? That is already public knowledge and confirms what the Minister has said. I am not clear on your motive in bringing the letter to the House. Will you please inform the House how you interpret that letter?

MR. CURTIS: I am going to table it without further comment but, Mr. Chairman, through you, again to indicate that this afternoon in this committee the Premier asked for any material relating to this subject to be brought forward. That is what I am doing tonight.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Would you tell the House what you interpret in that letter that's brand new to the case?

MR. CURTIS: It's not for me to interpret.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): He's practising reading.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, that's fine; I'm glad to hear that. Thank you very much.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I asked some questions earlier about a loan. It's not a minor loan; it's $200 million. Even in terms of Arab petro-dollars that's a sizeable amount of money. I want to know, if possible, what the terms were with respect to any subsidiary deals.

I want to know whether consortiums of other banks, despite the racial or religious origin of their principles, bid for British Columbia business. I want to know whether we in turn are barred or have any understanding that we will not deal with certain companies which are known to be friendly to Israel. I would like some assurances that the loans involved were totally without strings attached and that the efforts of the Arab league and the boycott are in no way involved in this particular deal.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Chairman, I'm on a different point. I wouldn't want to move on to that point if the Premier plans to answer this question, which I think is an important one.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the Member please continue?

MR. GIBSON: The Premier doesn't seem ready to answer that question now. We hope he is later.

I want to follow up the point that was being made

[ Page 758 ]

During the time I'm talking, I hope I might be able to be a little help to the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips), since the Premier wasn't able to tell him the projected natural gas rates that the $230 million revenue forecast was on. I think, Mr. Member, I may have worked out a little bit on some numbers which you might find useful.

I want to start out by saying that the B.C. Petroleum Corp. was a good idea — there's no question about that. I want to say, too, that the maximum price for British Columbia natural gas is not only a good idea but an absolutely essential idea. It has to be brought about as quickly as possible, with the right timing, bearing in mind all of the interest in British Columbia, including our interest in selling lumber to the United States and other things of that kind which provide a great deal more employment to this province than natural gas does.

It's a question of timing, but the Premier's timing is election timing — that's what he's up to in natural gas. It doesn't have anything more or less to do with than that.

How do we get the revenue estimate that the Premier arrived at of $230 million for the coming year from the B.C. Petroleum Corp.? There's a melded gas price right now of about 82 cents a thousand cubic feet. I hope that the Premier will check these numbers; they're all taken from public documents. They may not be exactly on, and where they're off he might be kind enough to tell us. But our gas in British Columbia is melded roughly two to one. Roughly two parts exported — that's when we're producing the gas that we've contracted to export (something like 800 million feet a day) — to one part domestic, which is roughly 400 million feet a day.

For the purposes of this calculation, I'm going to suggest we just use the rule of thumb of 400 billion cubic feet of gas a year. We know that the average selling price of the gas is 82 cents a thousand. We know, at least according to federal figures, that it's something like 25 cents a thousand transmission cost to Westcoast Transmission, bringing the net value of the gas down to 57 cents a thousand. We know that the average cost of the gas from the producers is something like 22 cents a thousand, which would imply a net revenue of 35 cents a thousand to the B.C. Petroleum Corp. at the moment at present domestic prices, at present foreign prices.

We know as well — and I'll get on to this in greater detail later — that the provincial government has agreed that the B.C. Petroleum Corp., a provincial Crown body, will remit to the federal government the equivalent taxation — something like 30 per cent or something like 10 cents a thousand cubic feet. That brings what you might call the net to the province — to the B.C. Petroleum Corp. — down to 25 cents a thousand. If you multiply that by 400 billion cubic feet, you get in the current circumstances in the magnitude of $100 million a year.

The Premier has projected $230 million. How would he arrive at that? That $230 million requires — and I have to work backwards on this, Mr. Chairman — an additional net amount of 33 cents, additional to the 25 cents now. Working back on that and giving the federal government their 30 per cent means, on the net basis, you have to get an extra 47 cents. This is on all the gas, not just the export gas.

Remember, we aren't going to get this over a full year; we're going to get it over about three-quarters of a year. Let's say the Premier's successful in making a deal that will probably start July 1. We'll get it out of nine months of the coming fiscal year. That means we have to get up to 63 cents right there.

That is assuming that the price of domestic gas is bumped up the same amount. The Premier hasn't said anything about bumping up the price of domestic gas, but let us assume that. Then we will arrive at the lowest figure we can possibly get at to reach that revenue estimate. The lowest possible figure we can get is an increase of 63 cents per thousand cubic feet. That is why I say that it is an election issue.

The Premier is going to go to Ottawa and demand that amount. If he doesn't get it, he is going to come back and have an election. If he decides that he really wants to have an election, no matter what economics say, he is going to go and ask for $1.93 or $2. He is going to ask for something that he thinks he can't get, if he wants to have an election.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Don't you think we should get the most? You just said that.

MR. GIBSON: If he doesn't want to have an election, he is going to settle for whatever he can get. That is what is going to determine it, Mr. Premier. That is what is going to determine it. I wish that what was going to determine it was going to be the best economic issues of British Columbia. But I am afraid that it is going to come down to "should there be an election or not," in the Premier's mind this coming spring. Now I would ask the Premier to tell us what he thinks is the fair price for the coming year. He shakes his head, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'll tell you.

MR. GIBSON: The Premier is going to tell us what? I'm going to suggest the reason he is not prepared to tell us that price now is that he hasn't made up his mind yet whether or not he wants an election.

[ Page 759 ]

MR. LEWIS: You're speculating. Wild speculation.

MR. GIBSON: I am speculating, says the Hon. Member for Shuswap. Mr. Chairman, we have to speculate. We get so little information that we have to speculate, so we make the best guesses we can.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Sit down and then I'll tell you.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Premier, I will sit down in a minute. I just want to lay that little foundation because that is not the real question; that is just a kind of a little sideline. The real question is the question of the bargaining position of British Columbia and western Canada on this whole issue of natural gas.

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Economic Development): Don't be cynical, Gordon.

MR. GIBSON: "Don't by cynical," says the Hon. Minister of Economic Development. How disappointed he must be when he has the responsibility in that cabinet, right after the Premier, for maintaining the economic place of British Columbia in Confederation. How disappointed he must be that we have seen our natural gas bargaining lever frittered away by the Premier.

HON. MR. LAUK: I am disappointed in what the federal government has frittered away.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Minister, I hope you will stand up and take your place in these estimates, because you said you were going to talk about these things adequately on the budget, and you didn't. You didn't. It was a good speech but I was disappointed in that part of it. It was a great performance, but the substance wasn't there.

What should be the western bargaining position? Alberta is trying to strengthen the western bargaining position right now.

HON. MR. BARRETT: By an election. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBSON: Partly by election, Mr. Premier — which makes you think a little bit, too, doesn't it? But partly by not giving away their bargaining position the way you did. There is an oil and gas marketing commission in Alberta, oil in particular, which is like the B.C. Petroleum Corp. Let me read a little description of it:

"The commission takes all the oil output from Crown-leased lands, representing about 85 per cent of the province's average daily production of about 1.5 million barrels of oil and byproducts, and sells it to domestic and foreign purchasers."

Does that sound familiar? It's just like the B.C. Petroleum Corp. — a good idea.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Did you vote for it in our House?

MR. GIBSON: I didn't get a chance to vote for it, Mr. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What did your colleagues do?

MR. GIBSON: Ah, but it is a good idea, Mr. Premier.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: That is the group I joined, Mr. Premier, and I am proud to be a part of this group. It is a fine group, a group of people I admire, not just in this House, but all around the province.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That is their problem. They are the ones who need a leader.

MR. GIBSON: This is said by a man who is proud to be here.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): You've got to have something to lead if you want to be a leader.

MR. GIBSON: Let us go on with what this commission does. It collects all the proceeds from the sale of Alberta oil and each month pays the producers the actual value of their output, less the provincial share of the production — about 40 per cent of the gross wellhead value of $6.50 a barrel which it transmits to the provincial treasury.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Why would they go through this kind of tortuous, roundabout route, Mr. Premier?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Because they don't understand socialism. They have to go around the back door to do the same thing we have done up front.

MR. GIBSON: They don't understand socialism, indeed, but they do understand federalism a little better than you do...

HON. MR. BARRETT: No! No! No!

[ Page 760 ]

MR. GIBSON: ...because they haven't conceded the right of the federal government to tax the Crown provincial, and that is what you gave away. Let us get into this a little more deeply.

The Alberta oil marketing commission is forbidding the Alberta oil producers to report to the federal government how much of the value of that oil goes into the provincial treasury. Why? Because they say it is none of the federal government's business. Because they say: "That is our oil! You oil companies never owned it, not for one minute. You are strictly our agents in its production. All you did was pump that oil out of the ground on our behalf and you gave us our share of the oil, and the federal government has no right to tax that because it never left Crown-provincial hands." It never had any chance to tax that because it never left provincial hands.

However, what has happened in British Columbia? We haven't taken that tack in British Columbia, Mr. Chairman. Oh, no! No, in British Columbia we won a great victory. We know we won a great victory because there's a press release of January 22 which tells us it's a great victory.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Right!

MR. GIBSON: "Time for release: immediate."

HON. MR. BARRETT: From my office.

MR. GIBSON: From your office, Mr. Premier. "Subject: natural gas tax agreement. Major step forward for B.C."

You see, Mr. Chairman, even getting more hints than you get on 20 questions, they still don't understand.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: There's a crest on it, Mr. Premier. It's a pretty crest. But that doesn't make the content any better because the fact of the matter....

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, attacking the Queen! Attacking the Queen now!

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: Who's attacking the Queen? The person who is using that stationery for this purpose. I think that's unsettling. Send a note to Her Majesty apologizing.

What were these great victories? Here was point No. 1. "The provincial government will make tax rebate payments directly to the federal government." "The provincial government" — I want to underline that — "will make tax rebate payments directly to the federal government."

HON. MR. BARRETT: Make the oil companies open their books.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, the Premier says it will make the oil companies open their books. Mr. Premier, don't you understand that under the Income Tax Act of Canada you've always had that right?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh! And they told me that I couldn't read their books.

MR. GIBSON: Don't you understand that? Don't you understand that there's a section in that Act that says that on the request of the provincial Minister of Finance to the federal Minister of National Revenue you can get access to those books? Of course you have to have that to collect corporation tax.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: Well, now, you had better read the Act, Mr. Premier. All I'm saying is that you can get the information.

HON. MR. BARRETT: But I can't give it to you.

MR. GIBSON: No, but you had access to those books. Do you deny that? You had access all along to those books.

Interjections.

MR. GIBSON: Are you going to tell us that you're going to give confidential information to this House now from companies? Stand up and tell us that now.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: The Premier just told us this was justified so he could have access to those corporations' books. But, Mr. Chairman, he's always had access to those corporations' books. It's a lot of nonsense. It's a lot of horseradish! Horsefeathers! The Premier should be ashamed of himself, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I should have gone to St. Louis.

MR. GIBSON: Because the fact of the matter is that all he's done is establish the principle that the Province of British Columbia, the Crown provincial, is ready to remit taxes to the Crown federal. And I say, Mr. Chairman, that is wrong! That is a sellout of British Columbia's bargaining position and of the bargaining position of the west that Premier Lougheed is trying to uphold, that other western Premiers are trying to uphold — those other two NDP western Premiers. And who sold it out? The Province

[ Page 761 ]

You know why that's unfortunate, Mr. Chairman?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I can prove you've got bad goals. You want to be leaders too.

MR. GIBSON: What's unfortunate about that, Mr. Chairman, is that our powerful negotiating weapon, our most powerful weapon, has been taken away from us. I agree with the Premier that British Columbia should be prepared to share her natural endowments with the rest of Canada. I think that's right — when the rest of the deal is fair. And, Mr. Premier, you know the rest of the deal isn't fair. You published the statements in the back of your budget address. You published the statements about the B.C. Ferries and the subsidies that aren't coming to British Columbia. You know the details. You're the president of BCR.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I can't believe it.

MR. GIBSON: You know about the subsidies over the years that haven't come to British Columbia on the BCR — millions and millions of dollars that the former Premier was never able to get because he just believed in loggerheads with Ottawa.

HON. MR. BARRETT: How come you're still a Liberal?

AN HON. MEMBER: He could never get it.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I don't understand this.

MR. GIBSON: I'm a Liberal, Mr. Premier, because I believe in fighting for British Columbia's rights with the federal government, and winning — not giving away our position..

HON. MR. LAUK: Don't you think that's slightly inconsistent?

MR. GIBSON: That's what I believe in.

So there's a question of subsidies. And then there's the question of tariffs in this country of ours. You know about tariffs, Mr. Premier. You know that the tariff structure in this country is costing British Columbia on a direct basis at least $300 million year. That's just the customs and excise duties we pay; that doesn't count the higher prices we pay for merchandise from central Canada, which is protected by that tariff. Mr. Chairman, the Premier's applauding that statement.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You bet.

MR. GIBSON: I'm proud of him for that. But then why doesn't he do something about it, Mr. Chairman? Why did he give away the largest single negotiating weapon we have, which is, namely, the right and the freedom of the provincial government of taxation on her natural resources from the federal government?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GIBSON: Why did he give that away, Mr. Chairman, all in the guise of saying: "We don't want those wicked companies to launder and shrink the extra money they'd get in"? What does he mean: "launder and shrink"? It's a pretty phrase, Mr. Chairman. But you could see exactly what went in, Mr. Premier, and exactly what has come out. You could Sanforize the whole project.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, you've got to be kidding.

MR. GIBSON: That's right. Do you mean to tell me, Mr. Premier, that our public service and our tax collection branch isn't smart enough to watch just a few oil companies, and watch what goes in and what comes out?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Standard Oil of British Columbia hasn't paid income tax since 1965 to 1971, and every bureaucrat from here to Ottawa couldn't stop them....

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, just to make sure that Hansard records that, the Premier just said that Standard Oil of British Columbia didn't pay corporate income tax from 1965 to 1971 to British Columbia.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): You didn't even know that either and you're up there speaking.

MR. GIBSON: I wanted to quote the Premier correctly, Mr. Minister of Public Works.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I ask the Premier: if that's the case, why hasn't the Premier brought in a corporate income tax department for this province so that we can properly look after that kind of thing? He's the Minister of Finance. What's the matter with him? Is he defaulting in his duty, that he sees these things going on and does nothing about it? It's not good enough to stand there, Mr. Premier, and point the shaking finger and say: "Isn't this disgraceful. You're in charge now. You can't blame other people any more.

Interjections.

[ Page 762 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Your problem is that you found half of your dad's old envelopes — not the whole works, just half. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBSON: I'm still looking for the other half, Mr. Premier. When I find it, watch out.

Mr. Chairman, that's essentially the point I wanted to make: this natural gas business may be the Premier's way of trying to build up to an election. I think maybe he's pulling back a little bit right now.

He's trying to launder his own image a little bit around the province, I notice, in saying kindly things about not making takeovers or acquisitions of any kind. He's saying things of that kind so he may be pulling back.

He's been building up to this kind of an election issue, and, unfortunately, en route what happened is an important principle for British Columbia was sold out: namely, that we have conceded the principle that the federal government has the right to reach into the British Columbia Petroleum Corp., which is a Crown corporation, and say: "We will take that money away." I say that that is shocking, and I'd like an account from our Premier as to why he has done that.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I have tried very faithfully with some humour and compassion to follow your tortuous route, Mr. Member. I've come to the conclusion that you're against Ottawa.

MR. GIBSON: No, I'm for British Columbia.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh! First of all, some of the allegations you made were that the former Premier had been at loggerheads, to use your exact gesture, with Ottawa over subsidies on the ferries.

AN HON. MEMBER: Unproductive loggerheads.

HON. MR. BARRETT: And we had the whole performance. Unproductive loggerheads. That means: do not have unproductive loggerheads; have productive loggerheads.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. BARRETT: That means, if we were a Liberal government in power in British Columbia, we would get what we want from Ottawa.

MR. GIBSON: No, it means you should get....

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, yes, it does mean that. You mean to say that the Liberals would get something that Social Credit didn't get, that the NDP didn't get, but the Liberals would get because they have a magic formula with Ottawa — namely, partisan politics?

MR. GIBSON: You should get it.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You're absolutely right, I should get it; but they don't give it to me. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBSON: Well, you should do a better job then.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, what am I going to do about it if they don't give it to me? We had a better chance when they were in a minority position.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right.

HON. MR. BARRETT: We had a better chance then. That's when we had the great conciliation. We had the Western Economic Opportunities Conference. Do you remember that? I remember. I'll never forget the gavel at the end of that love-in: "Bang," said the Prime Minister, through the gavel. "Thus ends the first and only and last Western Economic Opportunities Conference." Down closed the coffin and away they went. All the bureaucrats took a planeload and a trainload back to Ottawa, while we hitchhiked home, we western Premiers.

AN HON. MEMBER: Ahhhhh!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Because we got taken again — taken again! Do you remember somebody slipped that line in the federal throne speech saying: "We're going to have a western economic conference"?

When was alienation discovered? After the 1972 election, when the Liberal majority melted. When was western alienation buried? After the 1974 election, when the Liberal majority spawned itself back, ouija board and all, into Ottawa.

What happened? Quebec gets what it wants; the Maritimes get a heavy-water plant with a heavy debt. They got that great big ship with a hairline crack in it on shore, the only landlocked museum designed for the sea. They bought a submarine with a leak in it; they painted the Bonaventure. How much would they pay to paint the Bonaventure? They flew the Arrow.

And then you've got the gall to come in here and say that we shouldn't be at loggerheads with Ottawa. But on the other hand we shouldn't give in to anything, which means love but not hate, care but uncaring — typical kind of doubletalk. What are you after, Mr. Member? You are so mixed up. You're after nonsense.

Do you support the position that we should have subsidies for our ferries?

MR. GIBSON: Yes.

[ Page 763 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: "Yes." Reason No. 1 why he should leave the Liberal Party. (Laughter.)

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Let me finish the quiz. If you pass, you can rectify your political history and quit the Liberals tonight.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the speakers please address the Chair?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask him: does he believe that we should get a per-mile subsidy for the construction of railroads like other jurisdictions? Yes or no?

MR. GIBSON: Absolutely.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's No. 2.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): When are his estimates going to be over? (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: Pretty soon. He's doing pretty good on the quiz so far.

Do you think that British Columbia should have more MPs?

AN HON. MEMBER: Rep by pop.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes or no?

MR. GIBSON: But more Senators.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes or no on the MPs?

MR. GIBSON: I'll talk about that later.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes. That depends on whether or not he's a candidate. (Laughter.) Question mark. He's got a limited number of questions because he'll never make it as a judge. (Laughter.) But so far he's not doing bad. What are you doing in that party? You've got a handicap of heritage.

MR. GIBSON: It's the right place to be.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please address the Chair.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: He's embarrassed? I'm embarrassed for him!

MR. GIBSON: And I for you, dear Brutus.

HON. MR. BARRETT: We're both too chubby to be Cassius. (Laughter.)

But I want to tell you, the Five o'clock Shadow has a tough job wheeling with the night. (Laughter.)

Anyway, aside from the classics....

Art not without ambition, but without illness that should attend it, Mr. Chairman. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: That's Calpurnian logic.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That was Calpurnian logic? I thought the lady did a pretty good job for her husband, but he crashed in the end. After all, it was one of Alex's relatives.

The point, Mr. Member, is that we have a valid dispute with Ottawa. Ottawa has shown no interest at all in resolving these basic claims made by the former government and by this government. To stand up and say that it's my fault, when they never responded to the former government and they don't respond to me....

MR. GIBSON: You gave away the taxation.

HON. MR. BARRETT: We're coming to that. You raised the subsidy so I have to deal with that.

You say that it's my fault because they didn't respond to the former government. When they don't respond to me, that's my fault.

MR. GIBSON: We expect more from you.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You expect more from me, that's right. I travelled to Ottawa; the other guy (Hon. Mr. Bennett) gave up and had the empty chair at the conferences. Maybe he knew something I didn't know.

I go down there and I wonder what the point is because I get the same results. He didn't show up; he had an empty chair down there and everybody ridiculed him back here in this House. I remember them: "Ya didn't go down there — what d'ya expect? Ya don't go down talk to Ottawa, you're not gonna get nothin'."

So I went down with love. I said: "Here I am. I'm from B.C.! I have a little overnight bag and two civil servants." Immediately I made a mistake — they had 50 waiting in the station to hold my bag! (Laughter.)

They've got more civil servants per acre there than Saskatchewan has of wheat crops. They line them up in the railroad station right down to the Chateau Laurier. The Chateau Laurier has had civil servants locked in their rooms, collecting bills for years! They just took the money. It's a rival to Egypt's pharaohs in the Chateau Laurier. I'm sure if they open the doors in the top three floors they'll find civil servants and a couple of horses left over from Petawawa. (Laughter.)

Anyway, to carry on with my experiences with

[ Page 764 ]

I even said "Bienvenu!" when I walked in the lobby. (Laughter.) That's going pretty far! It took me two hours on the plane to remember that one. "Bombvenew, Bombvenew" — I kept on saying it. They said: "What's he talking about — a bomb?"

Okay, so I go there sincerely. What happens to me? I learn the Ottawa game. How does the game work? We do not have open meetings in Ottawa; we have conferences. This is how it works, in case some of you go down there.

You go into a room and you close the door and you bring your two civil servants, and there are 50 Ottawa civil servants. You spend two hours in there talking. Then you go out and you have an agreement that none of the politicians say anything. You go out for lunch, and you keep your part of the agreement and you say nothing.

Then you come back and the radio reporter puts a microphone right in your nostrils and says: "We've heard from a high official source that you said so-and-so and such-and-such at the meeting."

I say: "Where do you hear that?"

"Oh, from a high official source."

So I go back in a closed meeting and say: "Would the high official source please stand up?" They don't introduce themselves. (Laughter.) This is a fact!

So next day I go in and we have the closed meeting and we discuss things and I come out again — same experience. This time they're not quoting a high official source. They say: "Someone high up in the government."

So I go back there and I say: "I want to apologize to High Official Source. Would Someone High Up In The Government please stand up?" All they do is laugh. They think I'm funny. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBSON: So do we.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, and do you know what? You think I'm funny; they think I'm funny; and I'm still looking for the high official source.

Then we go out of the meeting, after we come to these non-agreements, and I comb my hair. I do the whole thing. I'm waiting for the press, along with the other Premiers. We're all waiting, and the press all runs by. At the Finance Ministers' conference they're zipping right by, and who are they talking to? The man with the plastic comb — John himself. John Turner. And he says "Well, So-and-so said this; So-and-so said that; but I whupped him this way and I said that." By the time we're through with 15 minutes of that finesse, we come staggering around the comer and say: "Hi, I was at the conference."

What do we get? A smooth, beautifully handled, Liberal media manipulation. That's why I've asked that those conferences be open. I don't blame it on the press. They are forced into role-playing in that situation in Ottawa, and they suffer with it because they have been forced to stay in line in that game. Instead of refusing to take comments from high official sources, instead of refusing just to take their remarks from the Minister, the press of this country has not demanded that they be present at these meetings. As a result, the press is fed purely the federal government's position.

MR. GARDOM: Are you going to invite them to a B.C. Hydro meeting?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, I'm going to invite them to a conference out here and turn the lights on.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, you asked me what's going on. I've given you my version. You don't like it, go back there and find out.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, come on.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Do not ask a federal cabinet Minister....

Interjections.

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

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, I ask you not to check with a politician, but with a high official source. They'll tell you the same thing. That's how the game is played. Anybody who has worked in the Ottawa press gallery, who will consciously think about that whole scenario, will recognize that what I am saying is essentially the truth. That is exactly how it's handled. The press is massaged, professionally, by that federal Liberal government.

I have asked time and time again that the conferences be open — those federal-provincial conferences dealing with energy matters that affect the lives of every single Canadian that are closed. I will predict to you that come the conference on April 8 and 9 we will be allowed to give our opening statements publicly, then the meetings will be closed, then right after — at lunch hour — Don Macdonald and the senior bureaucrats in Ottawa will hit the microphones and the television and they'll say what went on in the meetings. The media will dutifully report it, and the message will be the federal Liberal message. I've gone through it time and time again in

[ Page 765 ]

Would you tell me, please, what is the logical reason why British Columbia cannot have a ferry subsidy? I'd like the answer. Please tell me. Is it because of my manner, or my predecessor's manner? Are you trying to tell me that a government would make a policy decision on whether it likes somebody or not — or do they make it on what's fair? If you're saying that my attitude, or my predecessor's attitude, however unpopular or popular in Ottawa, was the decisive factor in making the policy, then, sir, you are making the worst condemnation one could make against a national government.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): Hear, hear!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Whomever the people select to fight for them, or represent them, is the people's choice in that jurisdiction. When it was W.A.C. Bennett as the Premier of this province, did they make a decision because they didn't like W.A.C. Bennett that they didn't get ferry subsidies or railroad subsidies? And is it, sir, your inference that because they don't like Dave Barrett...?

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No. The question is: what is right? It is right that British Columbia should have a ferry subsidy, and we don't get it? It is right that we should have a railroad subsidy, and we don't get it? There is no logical explanation against that other than politics, yet you still go on, under that party.

Now your points on natural gas. (Laughter.)

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, you talked about the ferries. You raised these other things. I'm telling you there is no justice in the federal government's position. They cannot justify denying these things to British Columbia. They can't. Have we not asked? Sir, we have asked repeatedly. As a matter of fact, I've even mailed to all opposition Members copies of what we've requested. You haven't read it?

AN HON. MEMBER: We've read it.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You've read it. Then you know I asked.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: And I've made two trips down there as well.

HON. MR. BARRETT: So, if it's on personality....

MR. GIBSON: No, it's not on personality.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, what is the reason then?

MR. GIBSON: Competence.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Competence?

MR. GIBSON: Competence in putting B.C.'s case.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh! Can I ask you to tell me what is lacking in this argument? Tell me where I am incompetent.

My predecessor said that other provinces received ferry subsidies. Can we have the same ferry subsidies? Was that incompetent? I took the same argument to Ottawa. Was that incompetent?

I can't believe that it's not a question of anything other than politics. Absolutely, absolutely politics.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm quite convinced that what you mean by competence is that neither of us were Liberals.

MR. GIBSON: Have to use B.C. muscle.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, okay. Now the gas thing. If you recall, last September the federal Energy Minister announced a new increase in gas and told us in writing — told the whole world in writing — exactly what he expected British Columbia to do. And we did it. You recall the words. I think the paragraph started: "In the case of British Columbia the funds will wholly accrue to the British Columbia Petroleum Corp." — in effect, saying that we hope (in his words) that the petroleum corporation would pass some of this on to producers to stimulate exploration. We did: signed contracts; freely negotiated; tough bargaining. Old gas — 22 cents; new gas — 33 cents on the dollar.

With no warning to us, no warning to Mr. Macdonald, Mr. Turner brought in his new budget with the threat....

MR. GIBSON: No warning! It was brought out in May.

HON. MR. BARRETT: But we had expected that we would continue with what Mr. Macdonald told us to do. Why would he tell us to do one thing and Mr. Turner come in with a budget two months later with the complete opposite? Are they not talking to each other?

AN HON. MEMBER: Did you check on something

[ Page 766 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, I asked him that and they had no logical answer for it. The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) asked them and there was no logical answer. They were a little bit embarrassed — not ours, the other Macdonald; they're all over the place.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, don't blame that on the haggis. They are not bad fellows, the Macdonalds. Well, I don't want to start refereeing the Macdonald-Campbell fight; I just don't want to go through that again. That happened here one night, and I'll never forget that.

Now look, you can't have the federal Minister telling us one thing in September, the Finance Minister telling us something else and expect us to believe that they knew what each other was doing. If you want us to believe that, they are more incompetent than what we'd like to believe.

Then we were faced also with a stated threat: "Crown corporations may be taxed." Why was that threat given?

MR. GIBSON: To scare you.

HON. MR. BARRETT: To scare us? Did you hear that? Did you hear that? The threat was given to scare us, to threaten the province. Not my words — "to scare us" — those are the words of a Liberal. Is that the way to run the country — to scare a government?

AN HON. MEMBER: To build Confederation?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Is that the way to build Confederation — to scare a government? Is that not going at loggerheads, from Ottawa's point of view? He's a Liberal and he's telling us that it was said to scare us. Is that what policy statements are made for — to frighten poor little provinces? Is that what he learned while he was there in the Prime Minister's office?

MR. GIBSON: And you knuckled under.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Boom! We're going to scare them. We'll tax them. And that was a threat, a scare described by that Member, admitted by a living, breathing Liberal in this House. To scare us!

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Why did I accept it? Because they are callous and have an overwhelming majority, and I took that threat to be what it was — a threat. I did not want the position of the British Columbia Petroleum Corp. eroded because of a difference in philosophy. The federal government has talked, talked, talked about an agency to recover funds for the Canadian people out of our resources but has done nothing. Only during wartime, when we are given a demonstration of some leadership under a Liberal government, did we see Crown corporations returning adequate funds to the people of this country based on an investment through a Crown corporation. The Polymer Corp., which the former Hon. John Nicholson, the former Lieutenant-Governor of this province, had a part to play in, and an honourable part to play.... But what happened to Polymer? What happened to our merchant fleet? What happened to those Crown corporation dreams that were created by the Liberals to say: "We, the Canadian people, would have a share"?

Everyone who made money.... They destroyed it because of the influence of their corporate friends. One of the frauds of the Liberal Party in this country has been to titillate the Canadian people that they are progressive, while all the time guaranteeing that they'll be conservative.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): You're even filibustering your own estimates!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Go back to sleep now.

HON. MR. BARRETT: So, Mr. Member, we were given a choice. Faced with a threat and faced with the fact that the position taken by the federal government was not challenged by a single oil company in Alberta, because they knew they couldn't win the court case against the feds, we looked for something we could salvage to protect us. Now you say that it was done politically to manufacture an election. But you say on the one hand, to open your speech, that you should get as much as you can for British Columbia; but if you don't get it, you're going to call an election.

MR. GIBSON: No, if you want an election, you're going to ask for what you get.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, I have said that there's very little likelihood that there will be an election in this province this year...

MR. FRASER: All the more reason there will be one.

HON. MR. BARRETT: ...and I mean it. It's 90-10. That chance doesn't rely on what happens in Ottawa. I expect that Ottawa will give us a decent

[ Page 767 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: That's inconsistent.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Inconsistent? I have maintained all along that we need an increase in the price of gas, and I expect we are going to get it.

The last point. When you say to me, "Why don't you tell us how much money you are going to ask for?" — I will tell you why. You Liberals are funny people. When I announced publicly what I was going to do in Ottawa, the Ottawa politicians said: "Oh, you shouldn't have done that, you should have waited until you came down here and told us first." That is what I am doing.

Now you are saying: "Oh no, don't do that, come and tell us first." They said last time: "Don't do it that way, come and tell us first." So I am going to do it that way. I am not going to say what I am asking for until I get there, so they will be the first to hear. Okay?

Now if you are going to twist it the other way — you went to Ottawa without telling us first — I don't know what I am going to do. I am going to flip a coin on the way down there. I don't know how to satisfy you birds. But that is the route I am going to follow.

We have Mr. Macdonald's word that there is going to be an increase. The only reason we put off pressing the case was because he said: "Yes, we agree, but leave it until the energy conference in April." We accepted that. We accepted his proposition in that regard, and we are expecting an increase.

MR. GIBSON: I will be brief at this point. I have to express, truly, an unabounded admiration for our Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What did I say that was wrong? (Laughter.)

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, it is not what he said; it was how he said it.

MR. GARDOM: That's what affects the Liberals.

MR. GIBSON: It was marvellous. The Premier is an orator. He is a great orator.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No!

MR. GIBSON: He is amusing...

HON. MR. BARRETT: No.

MR. GIBSON: ...he is quick ...

HON. MR. BARRETT: No.

MR. GIBSON: ...but, Mr. Chairman, he didn't answer the question I asked him.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You forgot to mention that I am also modest. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, the question I asked him was why he conceded the point that Ottawa has the right to tax British Columbia Crown corporations. That is the question I asked him. He didn't answer that one.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You said they were scaring us.

MR. GIBSON: Not for one minute!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: What would you do if they did scare you?

HON. MR. BARRETT: They have been trying to do it for years.

MR. GIBSON: The Premier and Minister of Finance had something to say about the reference of the federal Minister of Justice about the taxation of Crown corporations.

That is a bit of a red herring on this debate, Mr. Chairman, because we are now talking about natural resource revenues; we are not talking about the taxation of Crown corporations. I don't believe that the Canadian constitution has any built-in incentive for socialism. I don't believe that. That is what the Premier would be implying with his generalized statement on Crown corporations. I am talking about natural resource revenue which the Hon. First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) told us earlier on tonight, under section 109 of the BNA Act, is guaranteed to the provinces. It is the taxation of that revenue from the B.C. Petroleum Corp. by the Crown federal that the Premier has given away.

He said: "Is it a question of attitude?" He said that the former Premier used to go down to Ottawa, now he goes down to Ottawa, and they were both asking the same things, but that it was a question of attitude. It is not a question of attitude! I don't think that. It is a question of competence.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, no.

MR. GIBSON: It is a question of: how do we all use British Columbia and western muscle to get our due in this Canadian compact called Confederation?

[ Page 768 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: It is a question of competence related to ferry subsidies, really.

MR. GIBSON: A question of competence related to how you use British Columbia's muscle to get what we deserve, because unfortunately....

HON. MR. BARRETT: What about reason? Shouldn't reason play a part?

AN HON. MEMBER: Sure it should.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Then what is the reason why we can't have a...?

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, the Premier says: "What about reason — shouldn't that play a part?" Yes, it should, of course, Mr. Premier. And unfortunately, Mr. Premier, during the last administration it was never used. The last Premier never went down there, as you said. Reason has hardly been given a try. I hope you started it.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I believe you are incorrect. As much as I disagree with the former administration, they have on record letters they sent Ottawa with reason. They should not be faulted for that.

MR. GIBSON: I am just quoting the Premier's own words, Mr. Chairman, about the empty chair.

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: I will draw to the attention of the Premier the fact that the Government of British Columbia year after year refused — the Premier can turn to his Deputy right next door and ask him if this isn't right — to partake in the deliberations of the intergovernmental committee on intergovernmental taxation, which is exactly the issue here.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's changed now.

MR. GIBSON: Of course it is changed now. I say hurray for that and I say good for you. But I say that this is part of the reason.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Good for me, but it still hasn't got results.

MR. GIBSON: The proper argumentation hasn't been brought to bear over the years, so reason has to be a part of it, but a part of it also has to be....

You know the story of how you talk to a mule — first of all you hit him over the head with a two-by-four to get his attention. Mr. Premier, you have got to get the attention of Ottawa a little better than it is now.

The Premier spent a good deal of his time telling us how difficult it is to deal with Ottawa. As British Columbians we didn't elect him to tell us that; we elected him to be successful in dealing with Ottawa, not to tell us about his problems.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I am fighting 'em.

MR. GIBSON: We want to sympathize with you; we want to be behind you. But you have to use the muscle of British Columbia.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Did you vote for me?

MR. GIBSON: I'm talking about British Columbians generally, Mr. Premier. There were 39.5 per cent who voted for you. Because Mr. Derril Warren ran a magnificent campaign, it happens that you are sitting over there on the Treasury benches. But don't take that as a mandate to go too far; and don't feel too comfortable.

HON. MR. BARRETT: First you say don't go too far, but then you say to go ahead and fight. You are very confused. Now you suffer from the Liberal syndrome of the divine right to rule.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, the Premier feels that we're confused. He should understand that every party in this House wishes him well in his dealing with Ottawa — every party in this House without exception. We are all British Columbians and for the interests of British Columbia. There's no confusion there, Mr. Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Even your leader?

MR. GIBSON: We all do, one and all.

Now I have to say something, Mr. Chairman, about when the Premier said there was no warning on the budget statement. The Premier was so surprised, he said, on November whatever-it-was when this budget statement came down.

Mr. Premier, that budget statement came down sometime in May; and there was an election held on that budget. And the federal government said all through the election — it's a matter of public record — that if we were re-elected, the budget was going to come back the same. The Premier says that there was no warning. Of course there was warning. You just weren't prepared for it.

HON. MR. BARRETT: We have to deal with Macdonald. Do you forget that agreement?

MR. GIBSON: Now the Premier says that we had to do this. Ottawa was so tough that we had to do this. Mr. Chairman, Alberta found ways of getting

[ Page 769 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: They gave more money to the oil companies. We refused to do that.

MR. GIBSON: No, they didn't.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, yes, they did.

MR. GIBSON: The Premier says, Mr. Chairman, that they gave more money to the oil companies. They didn't.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That was Turner's instruction — to give more money to the oil companies.

MR. GIBSON: What they did, Mr. Chairman, was to give exactly as much money to the oil companies as Ottawa was going to take away, but they kept themselves at arm's length from Ottawa.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Ohhh!

MR. GIBSON: At arm's length.

AN HON. MEMBER: Turner said: "Give the oil companies more money."

MR. GIBSON: They did not admit the proposition that Ottawa had a right to tax the provincial natural resource revenues. That's exactly what the Hon. First Member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) was making a point of this afternoon, and that is exactly what we should be talking about in this debate tonight. Unfortunately, the Premier, with all his entertainment, didn't address it.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Chairman, I just briefly wish to make a point again with regard to the letter the Member for Saanich and the Islands (Mr. Curtis) read earlier today. I think it is most clear that the Premier should review his position now with regard to this whole matter, particularly with this new evidence which has come forward — and it is new evidence, Mr. Chairman. It admits by the person who gave the original donation to the now Minister that the reason the donation was given was because he felt — that person felt — that the candidate would be useful to him in the future.

HON. MR. LAUK: What are you alleging?

MR. McCLELLAND: At that time, the person who made the donation needed a friend in government. He was in the kind of business in which it was very necessary that he have some friends in government.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Premier if he would please answer once and for all....

HON. MR. LAUK: What are you alleging?

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the Premier if he would answer the question that when the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) told him that he was given a $200 donation and that he took that donation, or whatever it was...

HON. MR. BARRETT: Whatever it was.

MR. McCLELLAND: ...and put it in his personal bank account, when that information was relayed to the Premier, did the Premier at that time advise the Minister on the hope that the radio hotliner would not make the issue public? Did the Premier at that time advise the Minister not to make the allegations public — in fact, to continue the conspiracy of silence that had gone on for six days at that time?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, I don't know what you are up to.

MR. McCLELLAND: I don't know what you're up to either.

HON. MR. BARRETT: But you are giving an interpretation of a letter that your seatmate refused to give. Now either you have the guts to come out publicly and make specific allegations or put a motion on the order paper or, frankly, stop throwing sleazy mud!

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, it's time that the Premier had the guts to call an inquiry into this whole matter.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: Call an inquiry. Make the Minister resign and call an inquiry. That's your responsibility, Mr. Premier.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. McCLELLAND: You'd never call a motion and you know it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Either put up or shut up!

MR. McCLELLAND: You put up or shut up. We've just put up.

[ Page 770 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh.

MR. McCLELLAND: Come on.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What are you alleging? What are you alleging?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Come out and have the guts to say what you are alleging.

MR. McCLELLAND: Come out and have the guts to call an inquiry.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, nobody is alleging anything....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat]

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would hope that no Member is alleging any improper conduct on the part of any Member of this House. I think we are all aware of how these matters are handled, if necessary.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Chairman, I'd like to deal with three matters this evening. The first one does concern the same matter that was raised by the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland).

It seems to me that the government simply cannot pass as a smear campaign the questions raised by the Member for Langley and others in the official opposition.

I believe that any of us — and I'm one who has run in five provincial general elections — certainly any Member, any candidate, who is unwise enough to accept a campaign donation made out to himself is guilty, to put it in the kindest terms, of gross negligence.

For one thing, and I'm sure the Minister in question realizes this, by accepting that donation in his personal account he is liable for income tax on it, regardless of what he may do at some future time in saying that he passed the money on to some other individuals not concerned directly with his provincial campaign. The appropriate and proper thing for an individual who receives a campaign donation to himself, personally, is to simply return it. I'm sure that virtually every Member and every candidate in an election campaign does precisely that.

If someone sends you a campaign donation personally, you return it — that's the proper thing to do.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Have you ever returned one?

MR. McGEER: Lots of them. What you do is you request that the person who gives you that campaign donation makes it out, if he pleases, to whomever your financial agent is. That's why you have a financial agent to handle all of your campaign donations.

I'm sorry to say this: it is gross impropriety for any individual to accept a campaign donation in his own name. The Minister knows that; the Premier knows that; the Treasury benches know it; the backbenchers know it; the opposition knows it. Every person who runs in a campaign knows it and the general public knows it. You just do not accept campaign donations in your own name. There is no proper excuse that can be given for doing that.

That's the first point. The second point is that if you are foolish enough to accept that and then wish to excuse that acceptance on the grounds that you later intend to give that campaign donation to others for purposes of your choosing, which was the Minister's excuse, then the very minimum that you must do is inform the person who originally made that donation of what you are doing and why.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, Hon. Member, please. You are dealing with the merits of the charge that has been made against a Member, and I can't allow that.

MR. McGEER: No, Mr. Chairman, what I'm dealing with...

MR. CHAIRMAN: It would seem to me that you are alleging improper conduct on the part of any Member.

MR. McGeer: ...is the ethics of government and the Premier's responsibility to enforce ethics in government. Can't you realize, Mr. Chairman, that it is the Premier's job to hire and fire Ministers?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Will the Member be seated?

MR. McGEER: It is the Premier's job to establish standards, and it's your job, Mr. Chairman, as chairman, to see that we have appropriate debate on

[ Page 771 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! The Member knows full well that you cannot allege any kind of improper conduct on the part of any Member in this House without a substantive motion. I see no substantive motion; we are in committee — this wouldn't be the place for it.

Would you please continue with vote 2?

MR. McGEER: I am right on vote 2, Mr. Chairman.

MR. LEWIS: Holier than thou.

MR. McGEER: The Member down there says: "Holier than thou." What I'm spelling out to you, Mr. Chairman, to the Premier and to the government, is the very basic ethics of democracy.

The Premier has been applauding himself in the papers about submitting to this Legislature an Act to control campaign spending. I know the amount of money is small, but it's one of the grossest indiscretions that we've ever had presented to this House. It's the Premier's job to enforce political ethics in British Columbia. He's the leader of a party which is in government, and it's his standards which apply. They become the standards of the day. The Premier has shown today, by his unwillingness to deal with this issue, that he himself is lacking in these ethics which must be enforced if we're to have standards of democracy in British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, I want to spell out exactly what the problem is. The man who made this disclosure embarrassed the Minister and embarrassed the government.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: Yes, they did. You only have to see the Minister's performance and the Premier's performance to realize this. What we need to know is how many more of these indiscretions there were because unless the Premier demands now that every last single one of these be declared retroactively, we do not know how many others will be holding this club of embarrassment over the government.

Surely this is obvious to you, Mr. Chairman Surely it's obvious to the Premier. He isn't the first one who has had to face a problem of morals within his government. Unhappily, it occurs frequently. The public has become hardened to that fact; they almost expect it.

The test of a government is how it deals with issues of this kind, no matter how trivial they may seem. We don't know now how many people might hold clubs over the government because they are capable of embarrassing them in the future.

The Premier could clear it up very simply and I want to spell out how: he says right now what his code of ethics is. He insists that all Ministers of the Crown live up to that code of ethics now. If there have been indiscretions in the past, declare them and clear the slate. That way he knows, we know, and the public knows that there is not one individual in British Columbia who holds that club over the government.

That's the problem of accepting donations in your own name. That is the problem.

Now I would like to move to another subject which the Premier has so far not answered either — the subject of the $2 million purchase from Daon Development which he so proudly announced a month ago. The question was asked twice during question period; two different Ministers took it as notice. The information could have been produced within an hour. I asked that question again this afternoon. According to the press reports, somebody walked off with a million bucks of the public's money.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): They've made a lot of millionaires over there.

MR. McGEER: The people in Daon Development said that they were glad they took the risk. That was when the Land Commission said that there wasn't any way that farm couldn't be declared industrial property, Some risk. Those people at Daon Development knew what they were doing. They knew they were going to walk away with a pot full of the public's money.

We want that purchase agreement tabled. The Premier could have produced it this afternoon. He could have laid it on the table at 8:30 this evening.

Well, Mr. Premier, tell us the story. The story, as I understand it, is that somebody walked off with a million bucks of the public's money. If I am wrong, say so. Prove me wrong. If I am right, it is a disgraceful scandal. We don't know because the government hasn't tabled the purchase agreement.

If it were an open government, Mr. Chairman, as the Premier has consistently told the public it is, we wouldn't be forced to ask these questions on the floor of the House. When a purchase is made, the details would be made public. Those who deal and negotiate with the government would understand from the beginning that the contract would be made public and they wouldn't be tempted to try the kind of thing that obviously went on in the Casa Loma case, and which appears to have gone on in this case of the Wallace farm.

It's getting to be a habit. If you are a businessman and free enterpriser and you understood that you could do business with the government in this fashion, wouldn't you be tempted to rip off? Easy

[ Page 772 ]

MR. LEWIS: You're sick.

MR. McGEER: No, I'm not sick. The Member from Salmon Arm says I am sick. Have you seen the agreement, Mr. Member? Do you know the details?

MR. LEWIS: I've seen enough of you to know you are in the House for only one hour a week.

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: Well, I never heard that Member asking any questions about how the government conducts its business. I don't think he even asks any questions during caucus. He's asked for privileges — that has been that Member's stock.

There's a way of doing business, and everybody who sits in this House should be prepared to accept that standard. No special deal for any Members or any friends of Members, but one standard of public business in this province — all the cards on the table face up. That's what we haven't had.

Finally, I would like to turn to another question that we asked the Premier before the dinner hour. While I've questioned some of the minor dealings of the government such as $200 personally with the Minister and $1 million in the lands purchase, in terms of quantity and what it means to future generations of British Columbians, the issue of our rights as citizens of this province to all of our resources — coal, oil, natural gas, all our minerals — now and for all time resides in the Premier's will to see that the terms of Confederation, made 100 years ago, are lived up to today.

We read to the Premier and to the House section 109 of the BNA Act. The Premier has indicated to us the urgency of getting a price increase because we're losing perhaps $300,000 a day. That does sound like a lot of money. I don't dispute that. But the issue as it applies to all mineral resources for all time absolutely dwarfs that short-term consideration. Untold billions of dollars are involved in this issue. No one could have foreseen, in the 1972 election when that Premier and his government were returned, that they would be the ones given the responsibility of seeing that these terms of Confederation were fulfilled. The Arabs hadn't begun to re-evaluate energy resources in the world at that time.

This has been political fate. This socialist government has been given the responsibility. The decisions are being made right now. They are of critical importance to the future. It is essential that we have a Premier and a cabinet that understand the magnitude of this issue. So far, the Premier and the government have handled it about as badly as any Premier and any cabinet could. Without a fight they've given away our historic rights. Now if some future government tries to recover that on behalf of the citizens of British Columbia, they'll be faced with a give-away precedent, done with great public relations and fanfare, but nevertheless given away. We in British Columbia have capitulated to the federal government and lost what has been our greatest heritage and for what we can see into the future will be our greatest heritage — namely, our endowment of natural resources.

We're less than three weeks away from the showdown, and probably this will be the last opportunity we will have to raise the issue with the Premier. I plead with him now, and I plead with the public of British Columbia, to realize the stakes that are involved. If the Premier can find no satisfactory political recourse — so far he hasn't — then he must stand on principle, refuse any final agreement and rest his case with the Supreme Court of Canada.

I'd like for the Premier to stand up this evening and say that in the final analysis he is prepared to go to the supreme court and, furthermore, that his government, instead of engaging the kinds of political hacks that are characteristic of the order-in-council appointments, will engage the finest lawyers in Canada to plead our case before the supreme court. Perhaps we should, as a province, engage in joint action with the First Ministers of the other provinces in Canada in order to secure a stronger case.

Regardless of the details of the method, people will undoubtedly look back on this time in history and the role given this government and say that the single most significant thing they had to deal with was this particular issue. Their success or failure will be judged on how well they commit themselves.

I remember when the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) was opposition leader in this House. When the question of offshore mineral rights was raised, he was very vocal about the position of the former Social Credit government. In retrospect, I think that government took a pretty gutsy stand.

The former Social Credit government implied that all of the offshore mineral resources belonged to British Columbia. I must say that they didn't get a great deal of comfort from the national government or from the Supreme Court of Canada. But they took the strongest possible position on behalf of the Province of British Columbia. It was decided in another way, but one could never criticize that former government for not taking a strong B.C. position.

By contrast, the position taken by the government in which the Minister of Transport and Communications now sits is the weakest possible position that could be taken by a province. Contrast that: the former government taking the strongest

[ Page 773 ]

We have got the constitution on our side. So far, we are refusing to use it. Historians will condemn the provincial government of the day for failing to stand on its constitutional rights.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The federal government tore it up when they brought in that budget, and you know it. Get after your Liberal friends in Ottawa.

MR. McGEER: Are you going to lie down and take that, Mr. Minister, like your Premier? Or are you going to stand up and have some backbone on behalf of British Columbia?

Interjections.

MR. McGEER: You don't have any backbone, and neither does the Premier.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: The federal government destroyed that constitution when they brought in that budget, and you know it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. McGEER: It's your responsibility then.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the Member please address the Chair?

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I would just remind the Minister of Transport and Communications and the Premier that they are the officials of the government. They are the ones who must defend British Columbia if they think the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Turner) of the federal government has overstepped his responsibility. I agree with that. It is their responsibility to stand up for the constitution and to defend British Columbia. If they are not prepared to do it, what they should do is send down some opposition Members who are prepared to do it. We are sending down the weakest representatives we can find in this House and we are taking the weakest position that the Province of British Columbia could possibly take. All I can say, Mr. Chairman....

HON. MR. BARRETT: Your argument is a fraud. You voted against the B.C. Petroleum Corp.

MR. McGEER: Yes, I voted against the petroleum corporation because I said that what we should do is to take royalties. Under section 109, there is no question that we are entitled to royalties. It is right there spelled out in black and white.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You've had Bill 31 for royalties. Now you are twisting your own arguments.

MR. McGEER: I am going to come to Bill 31 later, Mr. Chairman. I am going to deal with that. Don't try to wriggle out of this by calling us inconsistent.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, don't give me that stuff.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I accuse the Premier of lacking backbone in this issue.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Look at your voting record.

MR. McGEER: I say that if he is unprepared to defend British Columbia's case politically himself, turn it over to a group of able lawyers and let us take it before the supreme court.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Just a quick response. That Member spoke violently against the B.C. Petroleum Corp., voted against the petroleum corporation, and now appears to try to take the position that he is a great defender of a corporation he tried to have stillborn. You talk about royalties, and I say you are submitting a fraudulent argument based on your own earlier position. You, sir, are questioning my backbone. I question your ability to remember your own statements which contradict your speech tonight.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I had a few words to say this afternoon about the estimates and revenue with regard to the price of natural gas. I must say that I'm deeply concerned that the Premier of this province, as Minister of Finance, would hold up to political blackmail all of the municipalities and cities of this province.

Not only is he holding the municipalities of this province up to political blackmail but he is also holding up the taxpayers within those municipalities.

During the reign of the socialist government in British Columbia....

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, being in power — call it reign — call it what you want.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Sunshine.

MRS. JORDAN: The socialist smog.

[ Page 774 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: During the socialist government in B.C., as a percentage of the per capita gross of the provincial revenue, the per capita grant has declined steadily from 4.7 per cent in 1973 to 4.4 per cent in 1974 to 3.2 per cent in 1975 and an estimated 2.6 percent in 1976.

Here are all of the civic officials in the municipalities getting ready to get their budgets so they can send out their tax notices, and the Premier says to them: "Well, if we get our deal with Ottawa you might possibly get some money out of the revenue-sharing." But while the Premier is holding up for political blackmail the municipalities of this province, he in his heart is really hoping that he doesn't get what he wants out of Ottawa.

That's the only attitude we can take because during his estimates he has continually tried to play games with Ottawa — condemning them, trying to get them against him by every means possible. He is standing in this Legislature condemning them, criticizing them, taunting them in the hope that when he goes to Ottawa he will not get what is rightly due and just for the taxpayers of British Columbia. It will be the taxpayers, the municipalities and the municipal governments that will suffer. That must be on the head of the Minister of Finance because there is no way that they can plan; no way they can estimate what their revenues will be.

The Premier has put a figure in his estimate of income based on a promise that was made in Ottawa, evidently, to him. He won't tell us in the Legislature what that figure is. He has no figure in the Municipal Affairs budget so that the municipal officials can have any idea whatsoever as to what they may receive.

There is another interesting figure that I would like to give to the House — another reason why the Premier should level with the municipalities, and level with them now. In relation to provincial revenues from individual and corporate income taxes, capital succession and gift taxes — all grouped in the budget speech — such revenues increased from $136 per capita in 1970-71 to $383 per capita in the 1975-76 fiscal year. Yet the Premier is still holding these municipalities down at a lower percentage than has been the record in the history of municipal financing since 1970-71.

In relation to provincial total revenues from all sources, such revenues increased from $537 per capita to $1,289 per capita between the 1970-71 fiscal year and the 1975-76 fiscal year — almost three times as much.

If the Premier and Minister of Finance in this province was really sincere in doing what is just and honourable by the municipalities and by the taxpayers in those municipalities, he would make a statement to them that they would be guaranteed at least a minimum amount. If he is talking about $20 million he should say: "Yes, I will guarantee you $20 million."

By not doing this, and by putting an "iffy" figure in front of them, he makes them part and parcel of his political game that he is playing with Ottawa. It's political blackmail. He puts them in the position of having to support him, and I'm sure they will. I'm sure that all the officials in the municipalities are interested in having done what is just and right by British Columbia when the Premier goes to Ottawa. I'm sure that when he goes to Ottawa they will send with him their best wishes for success. They have to, because he has put them in the position, whether they like it or not, of deriving from this trip he makes to Ottawa a large portion of what should be their upcoming budget.

There's just one other subject, Mr. Chairman, that I'd like to deal with for just a moment. We've had, in this Legislature, a lot of talk about the Department of Housing, and it wasn't too long ago that the Department of Housing, under the Minister of Finance, spent a sum of $5.8 million for a group of management personnel known as Dunhill Corp. I said at the time the government purchased this corporation that we were wasting $2 million of the taxpayers' money because that corporation was not worth the $5.8 million that the government paid for it. At that time we discussed certain share trading deals that were going on just before the government purchased this corporation, and the Attorney-General said that he would have an inquiry into it.

Well, it'll soon be a year since the Attorney-General stood in this Legislature and said that there would be an inquiry into this matter, but to date, Mr. Chairman, the taxpayers and the Members of this Legislature are none the wiser. The unfortunate part of it is, Mr. Chairman, that since that purchase Dunhill and the management team have not used the expertise that we paid $2 million for, plus healthy management contracts, to build any houses in British Columbia. They have merely gone out and purchased housing which would have been provided at any rate through private enterprise. This is after wasting $2 million of the taxpayers' money.

Then we have such fiascos as Casa Loma, where the Minister of Finance paid out $565,000 to the owners of Casa Loma. This is $565,000 which, if the deal doesn't go through, we haven't one hope of getting back, because it's common knowledge that for every mortgage house in Canada, the Casa Loma people tried to raise mortgage money on that particular project. Now they needed $2.14 million, which they asked for the project originally. The government pays them $1 million more so that they made, approximately, after fixing it up, probably about $800,000 profit. The money was given to the owners of Casa Loma really without the proper security, Mr. Chairman, because although the government has an agreement with the people of Casa

[ Page 775 ]

Mr. Chairman, we've asked many questions about the Casa Loma deal in this Legislature. We haven't got any answers from the Minister of Housing (Hon. Mr. Nicolson). I think it is time that the Minister of Finance, who is responsible for looking after the finances of this province, started answering a few questions himself. After all, Mr. Chairman, it is the taxpayers' money. We want to know, and we've asked continually in this House, when the first contract between Dunhill Development and the directors of Casa Loma was made. We want to know why some of the lien holders on the Casa Loma project were paid off at 100 cents on the dollar while others had to settle at 40 cents on the dollar. We want to know who did the survey to determine the value of the Casa Loma project before the government entered into an agreement with them to purchase this project.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why should that be a secret?

MR. PHILLIPS: I don't know why it should be a secret, but there are a lot of secret things evolving around the Department of Finance, the Department of Human Resources and the Department of Housing. This government that was going to be such a great, open government seem to have lost their tongues in many of these instances.

We want to know who did the appraisal to determine the price that should be paid for the Casa Loma housing project. Who did the appraisal? Why wasn't it tabled in this Legislature with the rest of the agreement? There are many, many questions that must be answered.

We want to know, and I've asked this question of the Minister of Housing many times: does the agreement to finish the project include finishing 32 motel units as living quarters or finishing them as motel units? Does the agreement to finish the project include double-glazing the windows and other refinements that must be made? Does the contract price which he has with the owners bring it up to Central Mortgage and Housing standards? Indeed, Mr. Chairman, does the project meet Central Mortgage and Housing standards? What recourse does the government have to recapture this $565,000?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Member please relate his remarks to the vote under consideration?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, it is the responsibility of the Minister of Finance. Now I'm sure, unless things have changed in government, that he doesn't allow the Minister of Housing to write his own cheques. I'm sure that it still has to go throughTreasury Board — or maybe not. Maybe he gives the Minister of Housing $135 million with a blank chequebook and says: "Go ahead." Otherwise, Mr. Chairman, this is within the responsibility of the Minister of Finance. And I don't know how the Minister of Finance can be so naive as to let this money slip through his hands.

We have Dunhill and the Department of Housing running around this province buying up land like it's going out of style, and we want to know what appraisals are done on this land before it's purchased. Who determines what the value shall be? In many instances there is no relation whatsoever between land purchased and prices. We have an instance in Vanderhoof where the Department of Housing — and I don't know whether it was through Dunhill Development Corp. or through the Department of Housing — purchased 30 acres of land at Vanderhoof for the sum of $1,759,000.

[Ms. Sanford in the chair.]

MR. GARDOM: How much is that per acre?

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm glad you asked, Mr. Member for Vancouver–Point Grey. That works out in Vanderhoof to $33,000 — just let me get my figures straight now — well over $33,000 per acre.

MR. McCLELLAND: Is that in Burnaby?

MR. PHILLIPS: No, that's in Vanderhoof. Yes, it works out to $35,300 per acre in Vanderhoof.

MR. McGEER: Is that fully serviced land?

MR. PHILLIPS: No, that land isn't fully serviced.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, it's not commercial land. It's raw land in Vanderhoof.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, it's not waterfront property, not lakefront property.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I'm sorry. It wasn't $1,759,000; it was $1,059,000.

MR. FRASER: You could own the whole town for that.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thirty acres. Do you know what that works out to per lot? That works out to $7,060

[ Page 776 ]

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: This is in Vanderhoof — $7,060 per lot.

AN HON. MEMBER: In Vanderhoof?

MR. PHILLIPS: In Vanderhoof.

AN HON. MEMBER: Downtown? (Laughter.)

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, it's relatively close to downtown. It's in the southeast sector.

Now, Madam Chairperson, this land isn't serviced by subway. I don't think there's even bus service in Vanderhoof.

MR. McGEER: How far is it from the nearest paved road?

MR. CHABOT: Or tunnel?

MR. PHILLIPS: Let's add to that the cost of servicing. Do you know what it's going to cost you for reasonably priced government housing land in Vanderhoof? Well, we are looking at close to $12,000 a lot. Now let's just compare that, for instance, with land on Tilbury Island which was good agricultural land...

AN HON. MEMBER: That's costly land.

MR. PHILLIPS: ...purchased by the Department of Economic Development to put an economic development, an industrial park in there. Now this is close to downtown Vancouver.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's expensive land.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll tell you, the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Lauk) stole that land compared to the price of this land in Vanderhoof because he purchased 726 acres of prime agricultural land for industrial purposes on Tilbury Island for $4,300,000, only $5,923 an acre. Now that's on Tilbury Island: $5,923 per acre for land.

MR. CHABOT: Must be a gold mine there.

MR. PHILLIPS: Dunhill Development or the Department of Housing purchases land in Vanderhoof for $35,000 an acre on the announcement, Madam Chairperson, put out by the...

MR. CHABOT: It all started with the Glenshiel.

MR. PHILLIPS: ...Department of Housing dated March 7, 1975, it says.... This land might not be developed for a while so there will be interest on it. It says: "Landbank in Vanderhoof for housing. The Department of Housing has purchased 30 acres of land in Vanderhoof for future housing development, Omineca MLA Doug Kelly announced today."

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'll tell you, he should be proud because the city of Vanderhoof has taken the Department of Housing for several hundred thousand dollars. I think if I were an MLA and could get a deal like that in my constituency for some landowners in my area, I'd stick out my chest and be proud to announce it as well.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Now that question is going to have to come later, if the Minister of Housing ever returns from his sojourn into the boondocks. I think the Premier has sent him on a trip to Japan.

MR. CHABOT: Who announced Casa Loma?

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, there are several questions that are unanswered about the Department of Housing. Even in dear little Chetwynd in my constituency, for development in there it is only $6,144. That's a serviced lot. It has a lot of potential. It's close to the site 1 of the Peace River dam; it's close to the Sukunka coal project; it has great potential. That's a fifth of what the Department of Housing paid for unserviced land in Vanderhoof.

Interjections.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. Member, would you please relate your remarks to the vote that is under consideration?

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I am talking about the spending of money by the Department of Housing and, ultimately, the Minister of Finance just has to be responsible.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: I'd like to remind the Member that the Department of Housing does have its own estimates.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, I realize that. But we may never get there. The Minister of Finance is

[ Page 777 ]

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Mr. Member, that's an argument you could use for every department. In other words, you are saying that you can discuss anything under this vote.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, I wouldn't do that.

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Would you please relate your remarks to the vote under consideration?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, if you want to give the Minister of Finance the opportunity to answer for this land in Vanderhoof...He must have signed the cheque, it must have gone through the Department of Finance.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, the Premier, Madam Chairperson, says carry on. But we are concerned here about taxpayers' dollars and we are concerned about providing reasonably priced housing through the Department of Finance for the people of this province. Yes.

I am concerned about the gay abandon that the Department of Housing and Dunhill seem to have with the cheque book. They have a gay abandon going around the province signing cheques and buying up land. And we'd like to know from the Minister of Finance what criteria are used in establishing prices, because there is such a wide variance. Why Madam Chairperson, even in Prince Rupert serviced lots, through the Department of Housing, are only going for $12,000.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Madam Chairperson, there are just too many unanswered questions. The Minister has no money for the municipalities. Is it because the Minister of Housing has taken it all away?

What really concerns me is that all of the promises by the Minister of Housing to provide cheap housing for the people of British Columbia are not going to come to fruition because in many instances they paid too much for the land. Yes, I wish the Minister of Housing would come back so we could ask him some unanswered questions.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: I could go on — I could talk about some land that they purchased in Surrey.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You can go on and talk about whatever you want.

MR. PHILLIPS: Madam Chairperson, the Minister of Finance says that I can go on and talk about whatever I want, but the people of the province aren't going to get any answers.

HON. MR. BARRETT: As long as you're talking, we can't give any answers.

MR. PHILLIPS: No. If I resume my seat, Mr. Minister of Finance, will you give some answers?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, I'll refer you to where you can get the answers.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I can tell you where you can go.

MR. CHABOT: Oh, oh! Open government.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Premier wants to get trivial and jovial, frivolous, when we're talking about the taxpayers' dollars. But no matter how often he tries in this Legislature, we're not going to get used to him taking that attitude toward spending the taxpayers' dollars. I want to tell you — there is concern out there. We live in our little ivory shelter here, while we're here, and think that nobody cares, but out there there is unemployment and there is concern about rising taxes. There is concern about inflation.

AN HON. MEMBER: You don't like this government.

MR. CHABOT: How'd you guess?

HON. MR, BARRETT: I just feel that.

MR. PHILLIPS: There is concern about the cavalier attitude of the Minister of Finance toward....

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, your time is coming to an end. The green light is on.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, oh...my time is coming to an end. Madam Chairperson, do you mean that literally or physically?

MADAM CHAIRMAN: Right — literally. (Laughter.)

[ Page 778 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: I would certainly hope, Madam Chairperson, that you're not threatening me. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

[Mr. G.H. Anderson in the chair.]

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll be happy to resume my seat and let the Premier explain to us where all the money is coming from that seems to filter out through Dunhill with that gay abandon, that disregard for the hard-pressed taxpayers of this province, because there has to come a day of reckoning....

MR. CHAIRMAN: You're into your final two minutes, Mr. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: Whether the Premier answers now or whether he continues to keep the books of the province closed and sealed in secrecy.... If he wants to keep the books closed and sealed in secrecy — financial accounts of this province — some day they will have to be opened. I think that day is coming very shortly when we must have the answers. We must have the answers because when there is unemployment, and when businesses are reeling from increased taxation...

MR. CHAIRMAN: You time is up, Mr. Member.

MR. PHILLIPS: ...those people want the answers now.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, earlier this evening I raised three issues with the Premier. We got a very brief answer on one of the issues — the final one. On the first two, we heard nothing.

I want to come back to the first of the three issues and ask if the Premier would deal with that one. It concerns the vulnerability of a Minister or any Member of the Legislature who accepts any donation personally, and how we deal with a situation like that.

In the 1972 election, prior to voting day, there were some businessmen who got rather panicky. The old government wasn't just peeling around the edges; the foundations were crumbling. One businessman offered $25,000 as a political donation to the NDP. They were very proud of rejecting that donation prior to voting day because they didn't want to be obligated.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: They didn't give you anything. You refused it.

After the election.... Twenty-five grand — you know better than me. After the election....

HON. MR. BARRETT: Which businessman? Name names.

MR. McGEER: You name them. I'm not going to reveal your campaign donors. That would be indiscreet. You know them better than I do.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You said we turned him down.

MR. McGEER: Certainly, that was before the election. I'm merely drawing a few contrasts.

Mr. Chairman, after the election, one of the people involved in the liquor business deposited a little refreshment on the porch of the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald). That was after the election, Mr. Chairman, and he returned it. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman, he didn't accept any gifts. He returned it.

AN HON. MEMBER: He said if it was a bribe it wasn't enough.

MR. McGEER: I know these things, Mr. Chairman, because the NDP brag about them. Yes, sir, they brag about them.

HON. MR. BARRETT: And his daughter ate the apple.

MR. McGEER: But, Mr. Chairman, there was one we didn't learn about until the other day. That was the one they didn't turn down.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: Well, it was worth more than a case of booze.

But, Mr. Chairman, the problem with all donations, whether they are given before or after an election is the same. That problem is whether they carry with them a future obligation, whether there is an expectation of a favour returned with interest. That's why the people who are scrupulous about the way they manage their campaign donations make certain that they do not know the identity of those who donate to the election campaign even before the election is held.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Oh, come on.

MR. McGEER: Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. Don't give me that "Oh, come on." That's the ethics of political donations. You send it to your finance chairman who is obliged not to disclose the identity of the donor.

[ Page 779 ]

We didn't have that, Mr. Chairman. No, sir.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: Not at arm's length? Not even before the election was held. By golly, that man who donated made sure that the person in question not only knew who the donor was but the amount, after the election.

Mr. Chairman, wouldn't that bother you? A donor comes along...

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. McGEER: ...with a gift for your campaign after the election. He doesn't call up to seek out who your finance chairman is. No, sir. He writes a cheque to you personally. He wants you to know that he's giving the money and he wants you to know how much. I don't care whether it is $5, $10 or $25,000, or a case of booze.

AN HON. MEMBER: Or an apple!

MR. McGEER: There is a reason, Mr. Chairman, and in every one of those...

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, Hon. Members.

MR. McGEER: ...circumstances the donor is unethical, Mr. Chairman. If he really wants to help politics he gives his money anonymously and before an election. Let there be no doubt about the motives of the man who made that donation. Let there be no doubt about the motives of anyone who offers a gift to someone running in an election or elected. Let there be no doubt about the motives or ethics of such a person who makes his identity known and who makes known the amount of money he wishes to give.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Members!

MR. McGEER: That man expects favours in return.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member for Vancouver–Point Grey has the floor. Would the other Members please stop interrupting?

MR. McGEER: Now, Mr. Chairman, it's up to us, it's up to the Premier to set a standard on behalf of all elected people now and in the future, not on the basis of an election expenses Act, which is supposed to be a politically sanctimonious document, but on the basis of the motives of people who donate. If they are interested in democracy, if they are people who are unselfish about politics, they know that the appropriate thing to do is to give anonymously and with discretion. People who have proper motives do precisely this. If those who give lack those motives, then the ethics should be supplied by the candidates or the elected Member.

Mr. Chairman, that has been lacking. The proof has been offered and there has been an admission on the part of the Minister of the Crown.

HON. MR. HARTLEY: Now tell us about the kickbacks.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You are in Public Works. You should know about kickbacks. You'd better tell us.

MR. McGEER: We'd be interested in that, Mr. Chairman.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Right on.

MR. McGEER: I've asked some questions...

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): They're asking a few in Ottawa, too.

MR. McGEER: ...about Daon Developments. We want answers. If you supply the answers, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, the questions cease. But when you don't supply the answers, you should understand that we and the public are entitled to conclude that you are hiding something and that you are only confirming our worst suspicions.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What is your allegation?

MR. McGEER: My allegation is that the ethics of your government are lacking and that you had better spell out pretty quickly what you consider to be the appropriate standard for politics in British Columbia.

I've said quite clearly what the ethics should be. Anybody who donates before or after an election and who makes personally known to you that he is giving money, and the amount of money he is giving, is guilty himself of improper motives. If that person has improper motives, then it is up to the individual who has been offered the money to reject it outright. Those are the ethics. They weren't followed.

Now, Mr. Chairman, we do not want people

[ Page 780 ]

What we have at this moment is not just a Minister but a government that sits under a cloud. If you are not prepared to make the demands of him, how many others, Mr. Chairman, are guilty of those same acts of indiscretion?

The failure of the Premier to take a stand is only an indication that this has been standard practice. It hasn't violated the ethics of the NDP. It hasn't violated their ethics at all. Or has it, Mr. Chairman? We have not heard from the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) or anyone else what they consider to be proper behaviour.

The amount of money is small, but the principle is very, very large. That's why we want to hear from the Premier now on what kind of standards he is going to demand in the future and what he has demanded in the past.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Leave granted.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There was also a request by a Member to file some papers in the House.

MR. SPEAKER: Would the House grant leave for the filing of the letter that was in committee?

Leave granted.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:56 p.m.