[ Page 121 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions.

Medical emergency service in Cassiar. Mr. Passarell –– 121

Free speech for human rights director. Ms. Sanford –– 121

Railwest car plant. Mr. Barrett –– 121

Purchase of lots in Hayesville subdivision. Mr. Lea –– 123

British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation Amendment Act, 1979 (Bill 12).

Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 123

Mr. Barber –– 127

Mr. Levi –– 131

Mr. King –– 134

Mr. Barrett –– 135

Mr. Howard –– 138

Mr. Ree –– 141

Mr. Lea –– 142

Mr. Hyndman –– 144

Mr. Leggatt –– 145

Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 146

Mr. Stupich –– 147

Presenting reports.

Creston Valley Wildlife Management Area Act report. Hon. Mr. Mair –– 148

Appendix –– 149

THURSDAY, JUNE 14, 1979

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. BARRETT: I would ask the House to welcome today a British Columbia pioneer, a resident of the Peace River country for many years and an activist in the founding of the CCF, latterly the NDP, Mr. Bill Close.

MR. KING: I have a very important announcement to make. Miss Jackie Melville has been appointed the CBC legislative reporter to this chamber. I would suggest that under the sophisticated scrutiny of this young lady the government benches improve their conduct and their attendance. We're going to have very sophisticated reporting on the proceedings from this chamber. Let's give her a warm welcome.

MR. SPEAKER: Of course, hon. members, Miss Melville knows that she's not here.

MR. DAVIDSON: Visiting with us today from Burnsview Junior Secondary School are approximately 60 students, 35 of whom are in the gallery with their teacher, Alderman Karl Moser, from Delta. I would ask the House to make them very welcome. I also see in the gallery Alderman Lois Jackson from Delta, with her husband, and I would ask the House to make them welcome as well.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I ask the House to welcome a very dear friend and her husband, Mr. and Mrs. Earl Jackson of White Rock, formerly of Vernon, and Mr. Ray Foisy, our provincial assessor from Vernon.

Oral Questions

MEDICAL EMERGENCY
SERVICE IN CASSIAR

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address my question to the Minister of Health. Is the minister aware that on the night of June 4 Mr. Herbert Daum of Cassiar was critically ill and that he waited 11½ hours to be flown down to Vancouver to receive medical attention? Is he also aware that one plane developed instrument problems on the way up to Cassiar, returned to Vancouver, and another plane was not immediately dispatched? I would also like to add that Mr. Perry and his staff have been most helpful in this.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, I didn't detect a question. Questions may not be constructed in lieu of an address or order, says Beauchesne, section 171(s). Questions are also not to be framed in such a way as to suggest their own answer, and perhaps we could keep this in consideration while we are constructing our questions.

A further question? Please proceed.

MR. PASSARELL: Is the minister aware of what happened to Mr. Herbert Daum?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the particular case. I am sure the member has not brought it to my attention, but if he will, and if he is doing that now, I would certainly investigate it for him as quickly as possible and get him all the information necessary.

MR. PASSARELL: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Why wasn't another medical evacuation plane — that was just sitting on the runway in Vancouver — dispatched to help a man in critical condition in Cassiar?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: If you give me all the information, I'll get an answer for you.

FREE SPEECH FOR
HUMAN RIGHTS DIRECTOR

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see that the Minister of Labour has arrived, because I have a question for him.

In the Legislature yesterday the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom), in referring to Dr. Ekstedt, who is a senior official within his ministry, made the following statement: "He may well have expressed some personal opinions and I can assure you, sir, that in a democratic society people have the right to express their personal opinions." My question to the Minister of Labour is this: does the Minister of Labour concur with that statement made by the Attorney-General yesterday?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I assume it's somehow or other related to my responsibilities as Minister of Labour. If the member is asking me if I agree with freedom of speech, my answer is yes.

MS. SANFORD: Does the minister now feel that the same right should be extended to the director of the human rights branch?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That right should, and has been, extended to the director.

MS. SANFORD: It is my understanding that the minister has instructed the director of the human rights branch not to make statements which are her personal opinions on various issues.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: The hon. member is completely wrong.

RAILWEST CAR PLANT

MR. BARRETT: 1'd like to direct my question to the Minister of Economic Development. In his capacity as a director on the B.C. Rail, can the minister inform this House as to whether or not the Railwest car plant has been reopened to produce railcars?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The answer is no.

MR. BARRETT: On a supplementary question, could the minister inform this House as to whether or not the Railwest car plant has been reopened?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The answer is yes.

[ Page 122 ]

MR. BARRETT: On a further supplementary question, could the minister inform this House as to whether or not, in any capacity, B.C. Rail is building any railcars?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: So far as I am aware, the answer is no.

MR. BARRETT: On a further supplementary question, I would like to ask the minister if B.C. Rail is purchasing cars.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'I take that question as notice and get the details for the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SPEAKER: May I just interject? This is the way question period should work.

MR. BARRETT: I've been the victim of a praiseworthy editorial in a newspaper and now you're telling me that I'm conducting myself in order. In all modesty, this is a bit too much. Can the minister inform this House how many railcars B.C. Rail is daily short of for carrying available goods?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: There are shortages of railcars faced by practically every railway in North America due to the greatly increased demand for British Columbia products and due to the weather conditions experienced in the eastern United States last year. Had we continued to manufacture to total available capacity in the Railwest plant, we would have had some 3,600 railcars on the track which would have been manufactured at a cost which would not have allowed them to be competitive in the railway market in North America.

MR. BARRETT: Is the minister aware that the one way of alleviating a railcar shortage is by building railcars? Assuming that the minister is indeed aware of that possibility, even within his particular venue, would the minister please answer the previous question? How many railcars, daily, is B.C. Rail short of for carrying product?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That part of the member's question I said I would take as notice, but I want to inform the Leader of the Opposition that it was not the intention of the British Columbia Railway to manufacture cars at approximately 30 percent more in price than the rest of the manufacturing facilities in Canada. It's not the responsibility of the taxpayers of British Columbia to supply railway cars for the entire railway system of North America.

MR. BARRETT: The minister has stated that railways all over North America are short of cars. Excepting the fact that building railcars is the method of alleviating the shortage, has the minister investigated the possibility of building railcars and selling them to other railroads as an effective means of using those facilities?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Maybe the Leader of the Opposition needs a little lesson in economics. If you are going to sell something you must be able to be competitive.

MR. BARRETT: Is the minister aware that BCR's own rail reports on car building indicate that its prices are not out of line more than 8 to 10 percent with any other manufacturer in North America'?

MR. SPEAKER: There is no question there.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, I just asked him if he was aware of that.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the hon. minister wish to respond?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: That might have been prior to 1972, but during the NDP term — the socialist term of office — inflation went from 7 percent to 10 percent to 11 percent, greater than any province in Canada. This great government has brought inflation under control; now we're below any province in Canada.

MR. BARRETT: One last supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps the minister could inform the House whether he is aware that there was no railcar manufacturing plant before 1973.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: When I was speaking of inflation I know that under the socialist government they started to build a railway car plant which was to have cost them about $4.5 million. Due to the inability of that government and the Leader of the Opposition as president of that railway to get proper estimates, when the railway car plant was finished it was at $8.5 million, and unable to produce cars at a competitive price to meet the North American market.

MR. BARRETT: A last supplementary, Mr. Speaker. After hearing the minister's answers that the Railwest car plant has not been reopened to build cars and that the Railwest car plant is not building cars, could the minister please explain to this House why prior to voting day in the last election a statement was issued by B.C. Rail that not only would Railwest be reopened but that another car repair plant would be opened in north Prince George? If the price is too high to repair, why was this announcement made during the election campaign, only to have the minister contradict it now? Could it have anything to do with electoral politics?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I know that the Leader of the Opposition is envious of the great job that independent board of directors who are running the British Columbia Railway are doing. He's envious of the fact that we have reduced the operating loss from $23.8 million, when he was president of the railway, down to a profit last year. I realize he is envious.

The decision to open the Railwest manufacturing plant for the repair of railway cars was a decision made by that great independent board of directors who brought the railway from an operating loss to an operating profit. They had nothing to do with politics.

MR. BARRETT: I think you're playing politics.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I just wondered if you would like to retract that statement you made about the way question period should work. [Laughter.]

[ Page 123 ]

PURCHASE OF LOTS IN
HAYESVILLE SUBDIVISION

MR. LEA: I hope that time is taken off the question period. [Laughter.]

Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. Is he aware that Kaien Consumers Credit Union has been purchasing lots in Prince Rupert from the lands branch in the subdivision called Hayesville and that they have been paid 3.5 percent for doing so by the lands branch and they have in turn passed that 3.5 percent on to their customers who mortgage through Kaien Consumers Credit Union?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I took as notice that question to do with the Hayesville subdivision in Prince Rupert.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, he didn't take that question as notice. He took another question as notice and he's trying to lump every question back into the same bag because he's afraid to bring the evidence into this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Does the member have a question?

MR. LEA: Yes, I'd like to ask a question: how long can the minister stall this House by taking a question on notice and not bring the stuff back into this house?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LEA: I would like to ask the minister whether his department, the Ministry of Lands, Parks and Housing, has accepted a down payment for any of these lots from Hayesville — lot 48, 49, 51, 52, 53, 55, 57, 61 or 73 — and whether he has accepted down payments from Kaien Consumers Credit Union for any of these lots?

MR. SPEAKER: Would the member like to put that question on the order paper? It is rather detailed.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, if you put it on the order paper, you never get an answer. This way we may get one sometime. I want to know from that minister when he's going to bring in his answers.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. This is clearly an abuse of question period.

MR. LEA: It sure is.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt filed an answer to question 16 on the order paper.

Orders of the Day

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, in order to illustrate to new members on both sides of the House the procedure of moving from supply to public bills and orders, my colleague, the hon. House Leader of the official opposition (Mr. King), has agreed not to consent to the motion that I am going to make — so everybody can be informed of what is going to happen. I would ask leave for the House to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave not granted.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(continued)

On vote 100: minister's office, $109,825.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair,

The committee, having reported progress. was granted leave to sit again.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House proceed to public bills and orders.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Second reading of Bill 12, British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation Amendment Act, 1979.

BRITISH COLUMBIA
RESOURCES INVESTMENT CORPORATION
AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

HON. MR. BENNETT: Before I mention the bill, I would like to advise the House that I will be introducing one amendment, which is a correction, during the committee stage. In section 10(l) on the first line of the first page where it says "in the name of," that should read "by." In the seventh line where it says "held by," that should read "held in the name of." The two parts have just been transposed.

I would also point out to the members that the explanatory note on page 8 has a misprint and while it doesn't need an amendment, it will be helpful to the members. That's the explanatory note, section (n). Where it says the word "owes" that should be "gives."

Mr. Speaker. In preparing to move second reading of Bill 12, I'd like to just quickly refresh the members' memories on the intent of the British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation Act, the original act which was passed and declared into law in September 1977. British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation was to set up as a public company in the private sector. It provides the people of British Columbia with a large company in which they have an opportunity to own a share or shares. It gives the people of British Columbia a chance to experience individual ownership. It was brought in because of this government’s commitment to individual ownership in the private sector versus what we consider to be second-hand ownership through government. We believe that some of the assets that are included in the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation quite properly belong in the private sector and in the hands of the people.

[ Page 124 ]

The assets created problems for government because government had to administer them, and some in the forest industry placed government in a very sensitive area where government competed with the private sector which provides a large part of the taxes and builds the economy of British Columbia. This created uncertainty and confusion among those in that primary industry. There were fears from the industry, small and large, that government would favour its own. Here we had government writing the rules, administering the rules and playing in the game. That was an additional reason for including some of those assets in this corporation. Major assets are the exploration rights of oil and gas lands in northern British Columbia, together with the forest companies. These assets provide a base for this corporation.

I heard the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) the other day quite incorrectly express the fear that somehow the company would fall into someone's hands or someone from outside the country would control the company. We prevented this from happening by limiting ownership only to Canadians. There are opportunities for the company to retrieve shares should they be purchased or owned illegally. We limited the maximum personal ownership, or ownership of an association, to 1 percent. I know the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) is very interested in this because I heard him on a CBC radio program in which the interviewer was able to correct his misapprehension at that time. I know that he now understands it very well.

MR. MACDONALD: Will you give up the floor so I can correct you?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No. We have a company that can only be owned by Canadians. We have a company in which there is a 1 percent limitation on maximum ownership. We have the provision in the Act and in the amendments which provide that there can be action taken to retrieve shares should someone own them illegally. I have been asked the question: "What's to stop someone from buying and owning the shares illegally?" Well, every time we pass laws in this Legislature, what guarantee can I give that someone won't drive over 100 miles an hour, or someone won't go through a stop sign wilfully, or someone won't break into your home and steal your possessions, although it's against the law? We do as much as we can in this unique bill.

We can provide those safeguards, make it law, and provide opportunities for retrieving of the shares and also remain in law the opportunity for the executive council to reduce that percentage from I should someone be able to try to circumvent the law. We have built in safeguards to meet the purpose and intent of the bill. I think all members of this Legislature on both sides of the House can agree that it would be worthwhile to have a broadly based company, a large public company in the private sector, in which British Columbians have ownership. That ownership may in the future include other Canadians, because we're proud of being Canadians as well. In making that ownership available we have put in safeguards so that no group or groups can dominate. The 1 percent for individuals and groups and businesses and associations is there. We allow those other areas of pension plans and trusts pension plans for the people who purchase common shares and make investments to purchase up to 3 percent. That too reflects an opportunity for a broad extension of ownership by those companies: those pensions and those trusts on behalf of large groups of people. There again the intent of this Act is to provide the opportunity for as broad a base of ownership as there can be.

Bill 12 supplements the original bill because it allows the government — which in transferring these assets to this corporation that was set up by legislation had the assets appraised at that time by independent appraisal and a value placed on them on notes taken by the government — to take common shares for those notes. It allows the government to embark on what is a revolutionary, unique plan. But I think something is needed to give all our people who qualify the opportunity to experience share ownership, and that is to give to British Columbians, who are Canadian citizens, free shares in this corporation. That is what this Bill 12 allows. The government has taken 15 million shares in payment for the notes and is offering to give what could reach 12 million of those shares to the citizens of British Columbia.

It has been said we're giving them what they own, and that is true. But we're giving into their own hands, ownership that they can voluntarily make a decision on, and ownership which they may wish to extend. It is said that they had no decision in being given these assets and were not consulted. I'm hopeful that after the application date, and the delivery date, we'll see that by far the largest number of British Columbians would prefer to have individual ownership rather than the second-hand ownership of government. I think we're looking here at a principle that is this: Do we want to allow and encourage the people of British Columbia to invest their money in the business and industry of this province? Do we want not only to encourage them but to show them how? Because I believe that many of our people....

MR. LEA: Big brother.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Little sister. I believe that we have reached an alarming trend not only in British Columbia but in this country. When we were doing research in preparation of this Act, we found out that more and more Canadians were putting money into savings accounts. In fact, there were record amounts of savings in bank accounts, credit unions and the trust companies of this country. At the same time it appeared we were experiencing a shrinking of the ownership of the large public companies in the private sector of this country. It meant that what we feared, when seeing the mergers and takeovers that were taking place, was correct: fewer and fewer of our citizens were participating in ownership of these companies on their own volition, in wanting to own a piece of the action.

Those people don't want the government to own it; they want to own a piece themselves. But they haven't been encouraged, and the one thing that hasn't encouraged them has been government itself. Government has not had programs and encouragement to encourage people to invest their savings in equity; just the reverse. High interest rates have encouraged us to be a nation of moneylenders, while the equity ownership has been consolidated in fewer and fewer hands. Now if we're to have ownership by the people of this province for the large number of the people — not only of B.C. and Canada — for many of them the only way

[ Page 125 ]

they can achieve individual ownership is through the purchase of common shares.

Small business, something which we all speak in favour of, something which we believe is the backbone of our economy, is fine, but not everybody can be a single proprietor or small business person. In fact, that opportunity is there for a large number of our people; but most of the citizens of British Columbia, because of the nature of our economy and the North American economy, work for someone else. Economics of scale means that even small business in the forest industry is large by normal standards. It means there are employees. For them the only opportunity they will ever have to have ownership in their own name then is through the purchase of common stock. That is the only opportunity those who work for someone have — whether you work in the forest industry, in the mining industry, whether you work in retailing — for most people where by choice they work as part of the production of this province. They can't have their own small business, but they're content as long as they have an opportunity to own a piece of the business and industry of this province. They don't want it through government. They want it by choice.

What we've got to do through this then is extend that ownership and by experiencing ownership, for those who don't own now, extend that ownership in the future. I feel, as many do, that if you don't want someone else to own the business and industry of British Columbia, then the only alternative is to own it yourself. But one of the distressing things we found when we saw this build-up of savings and bank accounts — we saw a decline in ownership — was that in British Columbia, the investment community advised me on request that to their knowledge only 60,000 people had any experience in share ownership in this province — 60,000 out of a province of 2.5 million people. That means the large bulk of the people of this province weren't participating in ownership. This is something that our government has concerned itself with, not only in this Legislature and our province, but we have made this representation to First Ministers' conferences as well, that we've got to encourage those people who aren't investing now to invest; and we've got to teach them how.

I've said to the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer): "There's got to be something wrong with an educational system that hasn't prepared our people — my age, older, younger — to participate in the economy of the country in which they are born and raised, doesn't equip them to take advantage of the system to understand how they can own a piece of the action, how they can invest." I think it's tragic. Obviously it has failed, because we see that decline in ownership — only 60,000 owners of equity ownership — when you know and I know, Mr, Speaker, that of 2.5 million British Columbians, not everyone can own a small business, not everyone can be a single proprietor. Many of them, as I say, work for someone else. We want to encourage them to own their piece of the action voluntarily, not by something that's purchased for them by government, by whim, but something by which they wish to purchase and participate in the growth of the province, something they can buy when they want and sell....

MR. KING: Not everyone is smart enough to inherit a business.

HON. MR. BENNETT: And I haven't either.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: You were born with a silver spoon in your mouth.

HON. MR. BENNETT: And you were born with a lead foot in yours. [Laughter.]

Mr. Speaker, if we can return, for those who are serious about this — and those others may leave the room. For those who are serious about how we want to see opportunity extended for the people of the province — for that's why we're here — we say that the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation is not the only answer, but it's part of the answer, because it will provide that experience. So this Bill 12 allows the free distribution of the shares to the people; it supplements the original bill in allowing not only for the free distribution but some additional safeguard.

MR. LEA: That's not free.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The distribution is being paid for by the government of British Columbia, which is the people.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, it's the very people....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. members. The Premier has the floor.

HON. MR. BENNETT: It might take longer if he keeps heckling.

The member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) says: "That's not free." I'm glad he finally agrees with his party. Yes, nothing is free. When you give health services, the people are paying for it through taxation. When you give any benefit from government, the people are paying for it through their taxation. The people don't mind paying for a benefit that's real. What really used to bother the people was paying for your sloppy mistakes when you were government, Mr. Member. That's what used to bother them.

The Leader of the Opposition, during question period, admitted today that when he was president of the railway, it lost $23 million, and now it makes $3 million a year. They didn't like that kind of government.

Now I quite agree that there are things people receive from government that we take for granted — a measure of protection in health, and education — government provides that. But I have said that the one thing that built this country is individual opportunity and ownership, and government should be prepared, where it isn't now, to extend that to the people. I'm proud to spend the money to distribute ownership to the people.

Do you want to put a value on ownership, Mr. Speaker? Well, I'll tell you what ownership is worth.

MR. LEA: I hope so.

HON. MR. BENNETT: That member for Prince Rupert says it isn't worth the $15 million or $16 million that was estimated in the budget to distribute the shares. Well, I say that ownership is priceless. If you want to know what

[ Page 126 ]

ownership is worth, I'I tell you what it's worth. Just go to some communist country where ownership isn't allowed by the people, and ask them what it's worth. They'll tell you it's priceless. It is not something that should be taken for granted in this country. It is not something to be easily eroded away by misguided governments and misguided politicians. It is something to be encouraged. Once lost, it is never regained, as is shown by the history of the world. It is never regained in any country that has taken away that ownership by the people.

What is the people's best protection against government, government that should serve them? It is to maintain the ownership not only of the business and industry, but of their homes and their lands in their own names. The day you become a tenant, or the day that everybody becomes an employee of the state, is the day that you have lost not only a large measure, but your ultimate freedom — and that is the right of dissent. You will have become the captive of government. Let me say that we want to reverse the trend of ownership towards consolidation. And that ownership isn't just by big companies; a large part of that ownership, as I say, is by governments. The only way governments got the money to buy business out from under your nose — business that you might have wanted to buy — was overtax you, to use your money to buy businesses that you might like to own. It is self-defeating. As they take more and more of your money away, to buy what you should have, there is less and less opportunity for you not only to have the cash to buy it, but also less and less of the business in which you wish to make an investment.

We say we are trying to reverse that trend. This is one of the ways, and there are a number of other measures that this government has introduced in the budget to encourage investment by individuals in this province. There are politicians who pretend to speak for the working people of this province, and yet they don't think they're smart enough to be able to make investments in their own names. They say that only they, as government, can make those investments. Well, I say I want to give the people the opportunity, encourage them, give them the experience. And, yes, other programs and other initiatives and more leadership will be needed to extend this opportunity. But this distribution is the start of the reversal of a trend, and it is going to start in British Columbia, and I hope it will extend across this country. If there is a gradual erosion of individual ownership anywhere in the world, let us say that here, in British Columbia, in Canada, we have reversed the trend, that we have a government committed to the individual and the people. We don't just talk about individual ownership; we do something about it.

We want the people to own their share. Yes, we're giving them what they own, by letting them have a say in how they want to own it or when they want to sell it, and that is what this distribution and Bill 12 is all about. We are not selling them what they own; we're giving it to them. At the same time this bill provides that they have an additional opportunity to purchase other shares in the company they are getting in their own names with the free shares. The money doesn't come to the government; it goes into their company to carry out further economic activity in British Columbia and in Canada. It goes to carry on other economic activity. It's not sending the money somewhere else. That money that they put in become part of their assets.

It distresses me that there are those who would have confused the people, who would fight this principle, when the best guarantee of freedom in the future is to have that right of individual ownership.

It is good to have a vehicle, a large public company in the private sector that can carry on and extend the business and development of this province; something that can work for the people. I've heard the bleating politicians say over and over again they don't want someone else to own the business and industry of this country. They've never had any other answer but confiscation and big government. I say our system was built by people. They have forgotten that the principle of this country was built on people, and that people will always be a better answer than confiscation, expropriation and big government. They have forgotten that, and that is the principle behind this bill: allowing the people an opportunity to own, and giving them a chance to purchase.

Anyone who opposes this bill is against the average guy owning a piece of the action. It means you want only a few owners in this province. It means that the fellow who works in the sawmill or in the mines, who chooses to work at his skill, is not clever enough to own. If you vote against that, that's what you are saying. You're saying also that, for the first time, the little guy in this province is getting a chance in the purchase of additional stock. You'd be against that.

Mr. Speaker, I'm telling that member over there, and I'm telling the new member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt), who was wrong the other day, who didn't even know about the safeguards in the bill that was passed in 1977. He came here with great promise, and people expected much of him. He saddened us the day he was wrong in his first speech. They said he was going to bring a measure of confidence to the research of that party. I understand it was only part of a plot to encourage the government to give them more research help for the opposition.

Now he says that's true. He says that's why he was wrong. He stepped on a safety-pin in his stall. [Laughter.]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, may we return to the bill?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The additional purchase offer does mean that eligible British Columbians, Canadian citizens, will get an opportunity, for the first time, to purchase, at a preferred price, additional stock in their company.

For many years public issues have allowed a few to have that privilege. Here it is extended to all: a right to get a share in the business and industry; a way to go for the future. The B.C. Resources Investment Corporation, I hope, will not be the only investment source available to these people. I further hope that, encouraged from this experience, they will invest in other enterprises, show some of the initiative, show some of the guts their forebears had in investing and owning a piece of the action, and not sit back and whine about it.

Those who don't invest, who don't take up the free share offer, may not be sincere when they say they don't want someone else owning the business and industry of the province. They may not be sincere, because here is their opportunity to set up a vehicle to provide them with that very opportunity to show them the way.

[ Page 127 ]

I hope the Minister of Education, Science and Technology (Hon. Mr. McGeer) will encourage the ministry, schools and the community to tell our young people what ownership is, also explain the opportunities and the responsibilities that go along with it, because they are all there. When they learn from the schools I hope the kids will teach the parents who aren't investing now, and whom we are trying to encourage into the investment market and into ownership, to reverse the trend and make British Columbians, as individuals, more prosperous, but at least owners, at their own choice, in their own province of business and industry,

That is what Bill 12, the amendment bill, supplementing the original bill, the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation Act, is all about.

I now move that the bill be read a second time.

MR. BARBER: It is my first opportunity to do so, Mr. Speaker, and I would like, if I may, to congratulate you on having been chosen as Speaker, and to congratulate the Deputy Speaker (Mr. Rogers) as well on the election he achieved to his own office. I think you both do a good job. I also think you both belong in the cabinet, but I can't help that. Meanwhile, you are with us as Speaker and Deputy, and we're glad for that all the same.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

After this debate — such as it was — by the Premier, it is no wonder to any one of us on this side of the House why he chose not to debate with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) during the recent election. I could hardly think of any more banal, any more ordinary or any more nonsensical right-wing ideology than this stuff the Premier has just thrown across the floor in the Legislature. No wonder he doesn't want to debate the Leader of the Opposition.

I wasn't aware that he was even debating Bill 12 at all. It sounded to me as if he were back in 1977. It sounded to me as well that he was trying to make up for the failure his party suffered pursuing these arguments during the recent campaign. The Premier should know this: neither now nor during the campaign did the arguments he just made succeed. They didn't go. No one bought them.

The basic propositions that this government has taken, extreme and right-wing as they are, did not succeed as an election issue for that government. I don't think there is a member in this House who could claim with a straight face to have been elected on the basis of this five free shares scheme or on the basis of the B.C. Resources Corporation either. For how many of you did it even come up at an all-candidates meeting? It was a very rare event.

MR. KEMPF: I used the Waffle Manifesto myself.

[Laughter.]

MR. BARBER: And who read it to you? [Laughter.]

The political fact is that from the beginning, the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation has been a political arm of Social Credit, nothing more and unfortunately much less. It has been a political arm of Social Credit whose board of directors has yet to make a single independent decision, whose board of directors has yet even to announce a single decision. All major policy announcements about the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation have come from the Premier; not one decision or announcement has come from this puppet board. From the beginning the resources corporation has been a political instrument of Social Credit. It has no independent life of its own whatsoever.

The five free shares scheme itself did not originate with Mr. Helliwell or with any member of the board, but rather last fall we were treated to the spectacle of Mr. Helliwell admitting on the radio that the Premier phoned him up and told him that this is what he wanted to do.

HON. MR. BENNETT: It's the government that is giving away the shares, not them.

MR. BARBER: Here we go! Thank you, there's more to that yet.

The point is that this board, from the beginning, has served only the partisan interests of that party. It has never had independent or animate life of its own — not once, not ever. And if this group has its way, it never will either. The only good thing about the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation is the fact that when it was announced, the Premier finally told the truth about the assets obtained by the New Democratic Party.

I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, that for three and a half years in desperate opposition, that group attacked and mocked and ridiculed every investment made by the New Democratic government. They said they were all worthless; they were all dumb; they were all foolish; they were all misapplied; they were all wrong. The only good thing is that at last they are telling the truth because today they're boasting about those investments.

At last the Premier and his coalition are telling the truth about the wisdom and the appropriateness of the moves made by the NDP government. At last they're telling the truth about how wise it was that Can-Cel, Plateau Mills, Kootenay Forest Products and the rest of them were obtained for the public benefit in the name of all the people. At last they agree that it was worth something. We knew that all along and so did the people. The Premier only recently seems to have learned it.

But there are a number of problems associated with this bill and with that corporation that have to be addressed, and which the Premier for obvious reasons chose not to address in his last remarks at all. Even though these assets were grossly undervalued by the government, even at that lower rate, they still demonstrate how wisely and appropriately the NDP made investments during its term in office.

But the tragedy of the Resources Corporation is that public control of B.C. Cellulose was undervalued at $64.3 million; public control of the investment made in Westcoast Transmission was undervalued a $37.4 million; public control of the investment made in Plateau Mills was undervalued at $9 million; public control of the investment made in Kootenay Forest Products was amazingly valued at $1 by that group over there; and the public interest and various licences for petroleum purposes were undervalued at $40.9 million. So a total of $151.3 million is going to be lost. The whole sense of public control over public assets has been betrayed by this group opposite, betrayed from beginning to end.

Now later on in my remarks I will be tabling a document that the Premier might not be familiar with that indicates how in fact corporations will move to secure corporate

[ Page 128 ]

control of the assets of BCRIC. There are a number of problems created by the original bill and created by these amendments. The first problem is that we have abandoned any means in this Legislature of asking questions about how the resources corporation operates. I would refer members to Hansard of April 26, 1978, in which the Premier makes it very clear — he did it again today, but let me remind him of his original words — that this company is not a Crown corporation. He went on to make it clear that he would not be held accountable in this Legislature for its operations, even though he was the man who introduced the bill and to this day boasts about it. He said on that date, Mr. Speaker, that because the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation is a public company operating in the private sector and not a Crown corporation for which that type of accountability would be made to the Legislature, he was unwilling to answer a question I had raised about the salary — of all innocent questions — of Mr. Helliwell.

To this date, the Premier refuses to tell us how much Mr. Helliwell is paid. To this date, the Premier refuses to tell us how much the directors of that company are paid. To this date, the Premier has been utterly irresponsible in handling questions raised by this opposition about the actual operations of the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation.

The first problem is that this is a private corporation and the Premier will not be held accountable for what he did in setting it up. The second problem is that there is a level — if you will, a breach — of standards in terms of the political debate that surrounded this corporation. To the best of my memory, on no occasion has the Premier been willing to engage, as he should as a responsible author of this legislation, in any competent defence of its actual operations. He just won't do it; he refuses in question period.

There have been a number of internal delays in the operation of the corporation. The Speaker will remember that the corporation was supposed to have been well in business in 1978, well underway more than a year and a half ago. The corporation has yet to issue a single share. One of the reasons, we are informed by more than one reliable source in the investment community, is simple internal mismanagement in the corporation.

Another problem is that the assets of the corporation were artificially and deliberately lowered in their value. They were given that particularly low valuation for political purposes. The government chose to make the previous administration look as bad as possible by underestimating as much as possible the worth of those assets.

We're also informed by members of the investment community that in the first year of operation of this corporation they were unable to get an underwriting. No competent investment house would author an underwriting. One of the reasons for a longer than two-year delay in the public offering of this corporation was because of lack of confidence, the problems of valuation and the problems of internal management, about which the Premier has yet to answer a single question.

There is another problem. This corporation may, if it wishes, dispose of the assets that have been given to it. It is a highly dangerous thing that the corporation could sell on the open market the assets it has in B.C. Cellulose, Westcoast Transmission, Plateau Mills, Kootenay Forest Products Ltd. and in the various petroleum and natural gas licences. However, you needn't take my word for it; take the word of the Premier, at least on this occasion.

I refer you to Hansard, September 1, 1977. My colleague from Vancouver East asked the Premier whether or not it was possible for the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation to dispose of all the assets that it has been given. Yes, sure enough, it's possible. Specifically, Mr. Macdonald asks: "I ask the Premier if this company will have the power to sell these assets which it acquires from the government, such as B.C. Cellulose? Can they sell them off if they see a good chance to sell the company to somebody else?" The Premier replied in 1977: "Mr. Chairman, I doubt that they would do that. But yes, they would have the power to acquire assets or dispose of assets in the best interests of the company." Well, it may be in the narrow best interests of the company, but it is not in the broader best interests of the people to dispose of those assets.

The problem with this amendment and with your whole bizarre right-wing conception of what good ownership stands for is that in fact you have created a company that can dispose to anyone the assets that were acquired in the name of all the people. That's foolish; that's dangerous.

MR. STRACHAN: That's free enterprise.

MR. BARBER: Well, I suppose it is. You should hang your heads in shame, because in this instance it certainly will be.

It is a tragic offence that these significant public assets can be sold to anyone.

We know the history of this coalition. They sold a public asset called the Gray Line franchise. They didn't sell it to British Columbians who wanted to operate it; they didn't even sell it to Canadians who wanted to operate it. In order to undermine poor old Sam Bawlf altogether, they sold it to Americans. Such are the standards of this group that when they have a direct choice in the matter they won't sell it to British Columbians or Canadians at all. It goes south of the border. If that's going to happen with Gray Line, when they are directly in charge, what's going to happen to all the other assets when the corporation, its puppet, is acting for them?

We know, of course, that they sold the Panco processing operation to Cargill International, a notorious company, the victim of endless lawsuits, the victim of endless prosecutions, the victim of endless charges laid against it. That's what they were happy to do then. Think what's going to happen to this.

There's another problem with this corporation. It is that the profits can be milked and the dividends reaped in the names of a very small number of people. There is no reason whatsoever — nothing forbids it in this amendment or in the original Act — why those dividends simply cannot be spent on behalf of a very few shareholders. They can create any number of classes of stock they wish. Indeed, later on as we talk about it and I table a document referring to the way in which corporations can seize control of BCRIC, you'll discover quite easily how, as notoriously as B.C. Tel has always been drained by its parent company, so this corporation can be drained by those who will in fact control it.

The Premier had a lot of problems when he tried to sell the resources corporation. He had problems in the last election, and it didn't go. He had problems in this House. Today he admits for the first time that he is in fact trying to

[ Page 129 ]

give the people something they already own. Well, for the same reason that he would admit to that, surely he will admit that he's trying to sell them something they already own.

The corporation has been a political failure in the tender arms of their embrace. It was a failure as a campaign issue. Recognizing all these things, the Premier decided at long last that he would try and retrieve that failure by giving away five free shares. The Premier even seems unwilling to give credit to the author of that scheme. May I remind the House that more than a year and a half ago, good old Uncle Ben Ginter thought of it first. I was happy to release a little while ago a letter that dear old Uncle Ben wrote to his shareholders.

"Dear Shareholder in Uncle Ben's Malt Liquor:

"You may have read that I have been successful in buying back my own brewery in Red Deer. Therefore I am now free to proceed with the necessary legalities and the printing of the shares which you should receive by July, but no later than September. I am pleased that so many thousands have applied for the free shares, but only Alberta residents are entitled to the five free shares per family."

Uncle Ben goes on at some length about this remarkable scheme of his. The Premier doesn't even have the common courtesy to give Uncle Ben Ginter the credit for having dreamed up this five free share scheme.

So on behalf of the Premier today in Hansard - I'll send him a copy — I acknowledge, together with all my colleagues in the official opposition now greatly enlarged, that Uncle Ben deserves the credit for this weirdo idea. The Premier thought that this scheme would help get him re-elected overwhelmingly. He certainly did think that, and it certainly didn't. It had no such impact at all.

Now there are problems as well with the five free shares scheme. The first is that it cost the taxpayer $20 million-plus to give them away. That $20 million that could have been spent on hospitals, most certainly here in Victoria — it could have been spent on hospitals anywhere — is being spent instead to promote the Premier. You will recall that at one point of the draft of it, his picture actually appeared on the prospectus, on the invitation to apply for the stock itself. It has always been a political creature of Social Credit, but we found out about that so the picture was taken off and all that remained was this peculiar address by Bill Bennett, written large in italics, inviting people to take advantage of the generous nature of Bill Bennett and the shares that he proposed to give them.

Now if this wasn't political from beginning to end, you might ask thereby whether or not it was appropriate for the Premier's name and picture to appear on the shares application. Apparently under Social Credit this is appropriate; it's still there. So the first problem with the five free hares giveaway is that it cost the taxpayers $20 million to give away the free shares.

The second problem is that massive profits, quite unearned, have been made by banks and finance companies in British Columbia. No wonder they support it so enthusiastically; no wonder they took out ads in favour of it; no wonder they supported Social Credit in the last campaign. They've made a bundle off you. They've made a bundle because you've overpaid them.

I quote a letter dated March 21, 1979, signed by a Mr. Draper, the manager of the Royal Bank of Canada, 540 East Hastings Street. In the letter he admits the profits, the vast and unearned profits, given his bank by Social Credit. He says in the letter:

"We found that 10 applications an hour can be completed, and the bank has determined that branches can pay $5.75 per hour — 60 cents per application — to application-takers and make a fair profit for itself. The question we need to resolve is how much of the banks' fair profit can be spent on doing what the government should be doing?"

What an admission this is: it costs them 60 cents to process the application. Here's the letter; I'll table it. The Royal Bank of Canada says so. It costs them 60 cents and you pay them $5. You're wasting our money. Do you want the letter? It's costing us $20 million for this scheme. The Royal Bank tells us it only costs them 60 cents, and you pay them $4.40 too much, and that's another of the problems with this scheme. It's going to cost $10 million alone to process two million applications. According to the Royal Bank it could cost 60 cents each only.

Another of the problems with this giveaway is the way in which you have mismanaged it. Every one of us has received letters and complaints from citizens who've received five application forms in the mail, or none. We've all received complaints, like the election and the amazing way in which that was mishandled, about people who are dead having received these application forms, having been mailed at great expense by an administration so incompetent that you can't even do that right. I've got two letters; I'd like to read them into the record. There are only two; there's lots more.

The first is from a constituent of mine, Hazel Gard, 2747 Prior Street, Victoria.

"Dear Mr. Barber:

"Both my husband and I are very curious to know how the Premier's office obtained our daughter's name, which is Marion Ruth Gard, to send her a notice that she is eligible to apply for the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation five free shares. Our daughter is married and has been living in Australia for the past seven years. She used to work in the buildings before she was married. There must be a great number of people who received the letter and are not eligible now. This is a big waste of money involved for the postage."

She's been in Australia for seven years. Do you have to live there for 10 years before you're off the list? Where do you draw the line?

I've got another letter. Here you are, writing to dead people two years after they died.

"Dear Sir:

" Once again I take the liberty of writing to you. The enclosed envelope is addressed to my friend who has been dead for over two years. I heard on the radio today that notices were being mailed to drivers of cars obtained from the licence bureau regarding them being given five shares of stock in the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation. I just wondered how efficiently run is that licence department when my friend, by name of Nelson Maxwell, is apparently still with them. I thought you might be interested."

[ Page 130 ]

The letter is attached to one Nelson, Maxwell W. — I presume Maxwell Nelson was his whole name — 103-790 Francis Road, Richmond. How long do you have to be dead before you're cut off the list?

One of the major problems with this whole scheme is the way in which it's cost too much to give away too little. You've been mailing it to people who've been in Australia for seven years. You're mailing it to people who've been dead for two. How many thousands of others have received this from the Premier's office — a letter consoling them, inviting them, imploring them to apply for this gimmick?

The final problem with the five free shares scheme is that it's been viewed by the electorate with really a very great deal of cynicism. May I say it again? It didn't work for you as a campaign. It didn't work for you as an issue. It didn't help you get overwhelmingly re-elected. In fact, it may well have undermined your popular support. No longer are people so dumb or naive or easily bought that they will allow their vote to be bought by anyone, least of all you.

The problem we have is that unfortunately it's been done. Tomorrow the applications close. It's been done. The problem is that they've already wasted the money. It's been spent. The problem is further that so much water has gone under the bridge, long gone down the road, that there's no way unless the Premier changes his mind that it's going to be turned back. I see the Premier smiling.

We have a number of amendments to propose. We have a number of changes we should like entertained. We recognize as well that may be too late also.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Is this called climbing onto the fence?

MR. BARBER: Hardly. It should be noted that this legislation is retroactive to March 1, 1979. Section 10 provides that. The reporter this morning who thought somehow delay here would compromise tomorrow's deadline is not correct. It is retroactive. There is no problem with delay. There is no problem as well with accepting amendments. We'll get to those shortly.

In second reading, with the greatest reluctance, we're going to support the five free shares giveaway. Let me tell you why. The reason is that you have already taxed the people too much, and this at least gives them a little bit back, thanks to the NDP. The reason is that you've overcharged the people for almost four years and now you're giving them $30 back, and that's better than nothing. The reason is that so much has been spent, so much has been wasted, so many decisions taken that the clock cannot be turned back, and we regret that. So on second reading, with a lot of reluctance and many amendments, we're going to support it in the narrowest principle: that you want to give back to the people something that you already took. But we've got a lot of amendments, and you have a big problem and it's the document I'm about to release.

The five free shares gimmick, in fact, is peripheral to the real problem imposed by this bill. The problem is who shall control public assets. The problem is who will end up in control of the resources corporation. The problem is that your 1percent guarantee is meaningless. It is an empty, hollow gesture. It prevents nothing. It forbids no corporation from seizing control of BCRIC. We've already demonstrated and you've already agreed that the resources corporation can sell all of its assets to whomever it wishes. It could, I suppose, sell them all to your great friends the Gray Line in Seattle. It could sell them to Cargill International or any other of your pals to whom you've already sold public assets. The problem is, and you've already admitted it, and Hansard demonstrates that you did, that this corporation can sell those enormously valuable public assets to any old group it wants to, and there's nothing in law to forbid it.

The problem further exists that the resources corporation could, if it wished, dispose of its dividends in a way highly profitable to a very few people.

How do a few corporations manage to seize control of the assets of the resources corporation itself? Let's look for a moment, if we may, at the corporate structure of BCRIC. It is, by virtue of this share offering — the five free shares and the 5,000 on top of them — going to be in the initial stage a very widely held company. There will be a lot of people. There may well be 1.6 million or 1.7 million British Columbians who will own a very small piece of that action. In a widely held company it is therefore enormously possible for decisions to be made by a relatively small number of shareholders who've gone to the 1 per cent limit. Indeed, it's well estimated by the people who advise us that 10 or 15, perhaps 16, percent of the shares is all that you will require in order to effectively control the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation. When 1.5 million people who can't vote own five shares.... You don't give them a vote, do you? Your five shares have no voting value, and a couple of hundred people own 10 or 15 percent of the shares among themselves. Then what you have is a situation where public control of public assets has been betrayed by Social Credit. You have betrayed it. Your so-called safeguards are simply worthless.

However, politics being what it is, I don't expect the Premier to take our word for it. I refer instead to a letter signed on March 5 of this year by Mr. H.G. Osterbauer, the securities adviser to Pemberton Securities Ltd. The letter was written from their office in the Bentall Centre in Vancouver. In this letter, Pemberton Securities advises how corporations may through subterfuge come to obtain significant holdings in the resources corporation.

This is what is going to happen, thanks to your legislation. The amendments before us today do nothing whatever to prevent it. May I say it again? It's not our letter. Our famous research office obtained it instead. Mr. Osterbauer advises those who might be interested, and I quote from the letter which I will table:

"When applying for your five free shares, I suggest you consider adding some additional for yourself and members of your family. While these cannot be purchased by a corporation, the corporation may lend funds to the individual to make the purchase, and the shares may be transferred or sold to the corporation at a later date to retire the debt.

Thus advises Pemberton Securities.

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: Shall I read it again? No, he doesn't seem to want to hear it. But perhaps for the benefit of the galleries, if the sound system wasn't carrying, accept this advice from Pemberton Securities as to how corporations may, through subterfuge, obtain effective control of these formerly public assets — formerly controlled, in the public

[ Page 131 ]

interest, by this trustee, the Legislature of British Columbia. Mr. Osterbauer advises:

"When applying for your five free shares, I suggest you consider adding some additional for yourself and members of your family. While these cannot be purchased by a corporation, the corporation may lend funds to the individual to make the purchase, and the shares may be transferred or sold to the corporation at a later date to retire the debt. "

Now why would they want to do that? Why do you think it would interest a corporation to take such an approach? Why would this securities adviser go to the trouble of writing a letter that might fall into our hands, telling how what you've said is a guarantee against corporate control is, in fact, no guarantee at all? Well, maybe he did it because there's money in it. I mean, that's always possible.

I am informed that the firm of Midland Doherty is currently offering to its own employees the sum of $6 for these shares. I am informed that Midland Doherty knows an angle when they see it, and they are trying to get their own employees now to buy the shares and sell them back to Midland Doherty for $6. This, by the way, ups the ante. The original information was that it was $5.75. However, they have decided they can make a bit more money. We'll talk later about Midland Doherty.

Now if section 11(2)(e) of the original Act has been amended by Bill 12, I would like to see it. Because it is not. There is in fact, according to our research, information that section 11(2)(e) of the original bill is the one that allows Pemberton Securities to provide the advice they have. How will a few corporations obtain control of these vast public assets? They'll do it the way Pemberton Securities has described. They won't listen to your speeches. They won't read Hansard and have it told that they can't do it. They'll do it this way, the way, one presumes, it was always intended they do it. What's wrong with your whole approach? What's wrong with this amendment? It's not just this laughable five free shares gimmick. It's a patently silly thing that you are wasting money on. You're going to do it; you've already done it. Okay, so be done with it. The real problem is who will control this corporation.

The real problem is who will guarantee that these assets remain valuable for all of the people and not just some. The real problem is that you have sold out and betrayed the fundamental commitment to public control of public assets. The corporation itself is thereby fundamentally flawed. It is fundamentally unable to defend and guarantee and protect public assets. It is fundamentally unable to do that, because that seems not to be your intent. It is, after all, your legislation that allows the contrary to occur. We predicted in 1977 that inevitably public control of these assets would revert to a very few and a very small number of people. Thanks to Pemberton Securities, we now see how corporations can manoeuvre to obtain shares through subterfuge. We see that in a company with many small holdings, a few corporate owners can exercise effective control. Thanks to Social Credit, they are going to get away with it.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, during the remarks by the Premier, when he introduced the amendments, he characterized the reason for the bill as being to eliminate what he talked about as secondhand ownership. He kept referring to secondhand ownership. What he means by that is that all of the assets that are owned by the people of British Columbia at present, which are administered by the government, are, in fact, secondhand assets. And he wants to make them firsthand assets.

When he came into this House two years ago, he talked about having a corporation that people could invest in. He said it was important that people in this province got an experience in equity ownership. And he talked about how important it was. He used the figure of 60,000 people who were participating in the stock market and doing that kind of investment. And then, from September to November last year, we had in this province a great deal of talk about the possibility of an election. Then right out of the blue — very much out of the blue from the point of view of the board of directors of BCRIC, and also for some of the other people in the investment community whom I was in touch with — we got an announcement that, instead of people having to buy shares, they're going to get them free. The question that I asked the people in the investment community was: how is it possible for somebody to set out to set up an investment corporation, to allow people to participate in a corporation like BCRIC, and then suddenly change his mind — the idea was not changed by the people on the board; it was changed by the Premier — to decide that we're going to give it away?

My colleague from Victoria has talked about the kind of problem that the government had with underwriting. There wasn't that kind of confidence in what was going on in terms of the development of BCRIC, because by November that corporation was almost a year overdue in producing a prospectus. There were a great number of questions being asked as to where the prospectus was, and when people were going to have a look at what kind of offers were going to be made.

The remarkable thing is that when the Premier argues about investment, somehow he seems to indicate that prior to the implementation of BCRIC it was not possible for anybody in this province to go out and invest in anything. After all, what do you need a BCRIC for if you want to buy or invest in Can-Cel? You simply go down to the stock market and get hold of a broker and buy some shares. They're on the market, they're being publicly traded. Anybody could do that: even the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) can do it. It's simple. You just go down, if you want to do it, and you can do it. Every night in the newspaper there are reports on the operations of all sorts of stock markets, including the Vancouver Stock Exchange, which has in excess of 400 companies listed, some good, some not so good. But they're all available for investment. And I don't want to upset the Speaker by going into the merits of some of those stocks down on the Vancouver Stock Exchange. But for the Premier to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that somehow what he was creating was a brand new opportunity for people to go out and invest in equities is a real, patent lot of nonsense. Anybody could do that now, could have done it before BCRIC came in, and there is no indication whatsoever that as a result of the creation of BCRIC there's been a heightened understanding by the average person in British Columbia about the desirability of investing in equities.

One of the reasons for that is that most people who are not in the same income class as the Premier have no money to invest in equities. Most of the money that they did have over the past three years was sitting in some government bank account. For him to say, as he said on the news last

[ Page 132 ]

night, to give up part of your holidays, go out and buy some BCRIC shares — give up anything, but buy them.... You know, he sounded like one of those Howe Street raiders touting some kind of a stock.

In the statement that he issued when he announced the distribution of the BCRIC shares to the residents of British Columbia there's a section which says that this provides for an opportunity for British Columbians to get in on the ground floor in purchasing shares. Who hasn't seen that before? In all sorts of brochures that go around there's something about a good deal if you want to get in on the ground floor. And he says: "Too often we hear that only the wealthy and the privileged have a chance to enjoy such an opportunity. Now every resident of our province has a chance to get a piece of the action." Well, Mr. Speaker, we've got to examine exactly what kind of a piece of the action these people are going to get. Just how much of the $151 million of assets are they going to have access to?

First of all, they have no decision-making power. We even see that in the bill there aren't even going to be any annual meetings; there's not going to be any general meeting. They want to do something that most large corporations would be very happy to do — not to have general meetings, not to have to circularize all their members, which costs them a great deal of money, but simply to publish something in the newspaper, publish the annual report and then carry on about their business. There must be dozens of companies out there wondering whether they can get in on this kind of action, this kind of exclusion from the Companies Act which requires them to do a number of things which are generally very expensive. If you have a very large corporation, you do, but not BCRIC — they're going to do it differently.

But what does it really mean to the average individual who gets five free shares: He has five pieces of paper that have a value; it gives him no voting rights. He has no right to receive a copy of the annual report; he's simply the holder of five vouchers. If he gives them to his neighbour, then the neighbour becomes the owner. If 20 people get together, designate one person to go down and register the shares, then they've got 100 votes. He cannot have it both ways when he talks about people having a piece of the action. It's free, but nothing is freer than free. It's free, and that's all it is. Nothing in that particular ownership gives any responsibility in relation to the corporation. The only way that you can get responsibility, that you can get involvement, is if you have extra money and you can purchase the shares. But you need a lot of money. You can buy five shares for $30, 10 shares for $60, but what does it really mean in terms of the large corporation?

He made reference in his speech to some of the problems that exist today with large corporations. We have seen in the past three or four years in North America an incredible move toward takeovers and buybacks. Small shareholders get squeezed out because they do not hold enough shares to put them into the majority shareholder class. That's something certainly the investment market has to be concerned about if we're going to have a continuation of these kinds of buybacks. It's going to be a very serious problem in terms of the confidence in the investment field.

We have no basic information, other than what the Premier tells us, about the investment habits of people in British Columbia. He may have more information about investment markets than we have because for almost a year that government has been sitting on the Schroeder report, which deals with the operations of the stock market in all capital markets. It would have been very valuable for the members of this House, the investment community and the public at large to get some understanding of exactly what goes on in terms of the capital markets and the participation of the citizens in those particular markets. That information is not available to them, not available at all. They've decided to sit on it.

Going back to this whole question of participation and having a piece of the rock, one can become extremely cynical about the kind of move the Premier has made in terms of the disposal of assets. For instance, one of the assets that has gone into the BCRIC shares is Westcoast Transmission. Westcoast Transmission shares can be purchased by anybody in this province by simply going through a broker and getting the shares, or going to a bank manager and asking him, if you have the money, to purchase them. B.C. Telephone shares, which are not part of this particular portfolio, are being held by the government and can be purchased in exactly the same way. It's quite open. That's the kind of competitive market that the Premier subscribes to, but somehow he's been very critical of it. He suggested that there has been a barrier for all of the average people in this province to participate in that kind of investment. There hasn't been a barrier; people do not want to do that kind of investment. He was decrying in his opening remarks that Canada has a reputation of being a great saving nation and that's quite true. It was good in terms of development, but this cockamamie idea of giving away the assets of this province in free shares to people who have absolutely no power whatsoever in terms of the holding of these free shares, and suggesting to them that now they have a piece of the rock, is patent nonsense, absolute nonsense.

My colleague for Victoria described some of the very serious dangers that can exist in terms of who will eventually make the decisions in this corporation. So far we have not seen the board of BCRIC make any decisions whatsoever. For instance, my colleague referred to the fact that we tried to find out from the Premier last year what was Mr. Helliwell's salary. He said: "I'm not at liberty to say; you have to go and ask the board."

MR. BARBER: He refused to say.

MR. LEVI: He refused to say. Interestingly enough, when Mr. Helliwell was on Jack Webster's program, he was asked: "What's your salary?" He said: "Well, I'd rather not say." Webster said to him: "You don't want to say because the board said you shouldn't say?" He said: "Oh no, the board has no objection; I simply don't want to say." Mr. Helliwell's salary is not important in this matter other than it shows refusal of the Premier to get used to the idea that full disclosure with respect to a corporation is necessary. His first attempt at disclosure was to say: "Go ask the corporation!" He has made every decision since that corporation was set up. For this arm's-length, private company operating in the public sector, he's made all the decisions.

He's come into this House the second time in two years and he's trying to tell the members of this House, as he tried to tell the public of British Columbia: "Come with me, with my scheme." The scheme, frankly, is operated a little bit

[ Page 133 ]

like a bucket shop since the election was on, because he challenged us over here. He said: "I'm prepared to make the BCRIC share issue the issue in the election." We said: "Go ahead." I can't recall one individual in the 3,000 homes I called on who actually made mention of the BCRIC shares, other than to sneer at them. Now this doesn't do us any good as a province.

In all the debate that goes on around this, what kind of standing are we seen by with people who are in the investment communities outside of British Columbia or even outside of Canada? Here we've got a Premier who is going to sell off some of the assets, and we don't know what he's going to do next. He may decide to set up a corporation and go into the hospital business. He may decide that long-term care should be better operated in the private sector, so then we'll have that kind of a corporation, and he'll say: "We'll give you some shares in it; we'll make them free, and you'll have a piece of the action."

The kind of reasoning that he exhibits in this idea is that somehow nothing that a government does, in terms of being the holder and the steward of the assets of this province, is better than having each individual have a little piece of it. The member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) nods his head. One day, Mr. Speaker, we'll put a value on this building that we sit in here. We'll form a company, we'll sell shares or give them away, and before we can have a legislative session in this building, all the shareholders will have to get together and pass a motion that we can even do that, because that's the kind of idiocy that the Premier is talking about when he takes assets, puts them into a corporation, and then says: "We're going to give everybody something for nothing." What do they wind up with? Five pieces of paper.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

He says: "If you really want to participate, if you really want to be in on the decision making, if you really want to do something for British Columbia, pump your money into it." Well, that's not anything new. MacMillan Bloedel have been out there for years; Can-Cel have been out there for years. They're all companies that can be invested in. We don't need an intermediary, quick-buck artist like the Premier to tell us that's the only way people are going to invest in this province. That's absolute, patent nonsense. We don't need that kind of Howe Street bucket shop operation.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's sad.

MR. LEVI: What is sad, Mr. Member, is all of the money that has been poured in. It may take us a couple of years to find out exactly what it has cost to promote this pre-election and election-time scam they put over on us, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's going to be somewhere in the region of $40 million to $50 million when we've counted up all the incredible costs of the advertising, the processing of applications, and all of the time and effort that has gone into the Systems Corporation to produce this kind of scheme. That's what's sad about it.

And what is even more sad about it is that people out there did not believe it. They did not believe it in the way the Premier presented the argument. If he'd stayed with the idea that it is an investment corporation he might have been on better ground than he is now, because he's certainly not on any kind of ground at all when he is trying to suggest that almost two million people will be participants in what is the largest corporation in the world, because it will have well over two million shareholders. The only thing is that you have two types of shareholders: the first-class citizens who have got money, and second-class citizens who just hold bits of paper. That's what this kind of legislation does, is to create two kinds of investors in this province: those who have no money and no power, and those that have all the money and will take all the power. That's what we're going to see in this kind of corporation.

His philosophy, which he didn't mention, Mr. Speaker, because of the nature of the free-enterprise system, is that everybody's going to have a go at it by themselves, and everybody has to stand on their own two feet, whether they are able to or not, and participate, and if they can't participate let them fall by the wayside. But what, in fact, they have done is perpetuate a class system of those who have and those who don't have. We're going to give five free shares to everybody who applied for them, and there are enough people out there who are having enough frustrations in applying for them anyway, because they're not able to produce the adequate kind of identification that will give them these free shares.

What he has done. In fact, is to create two classes of people, and he should not be forgiven for that because he's driven, again, the wedge between those two groups of people which simply emphasizes the kind of philosophy he represents in his party — that the power belongs to the people who have the money. On this side, when we started to put assets together for the people, somehow he decried that. He said that's not the way to go in terms of assets, and that people are happier if they can have a piece of the rock. Well, he's never going to be able to demonstrate that, because people are not going to be happy with something they can't see and they can't feel. Five pieces of paper don't allow you to vote, don't allow you to even receive an annual report. You're just a nothing, just for the greater benefit of the Premier to show that his system, his free enterprise system, is what works.

Well, it doesn't work in the way you've set up this corporation, because they have nothing. You've never stood up and said to the people, 1.5 million of them: "If you maintain only your five shares, you have no rights whatsoever. You'I just get your $30 or your $40, and that's it. They've never talked about what kind of participation those people can have. Old-age pensioners are unable to afford shares, the discounted-value shares; they can't afford them, so they are second-class people. "You just stand in the background and hold your five shares and we people with all the money will make all the decisions." Well, the kind of decisions that were made in the government, when the government owned the assets.... And every three years you get that big general meeting, which is the general election, when the people can participate in deciding whether they agree or not with the way the government handles its stewardship.

He should know this time, because of this brilliant idea of BCRIC shares and all of the other programs that he didn't introduce, that he came pretty close to being defeated.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Tell me what it's like.

[ Page 134 ]

MR. LEVI: We'll tell you what it's like. We've been there and come back. Despite the fact that you didn't want us to come back, we're back.

The important thing is that the idea he developed was simply not believed by the public. They didn't believe him when he said that this is a better way to go than to have the government control the assets of the province. He would have you believe that all governments who control assets are somehow super-totalitarian groups that make decisions despite what goes on in parliament. I wonder what Peter Lougheed would say about that kind of thinking — or any of his other right-wing friends who operate in this country.

What we've had this afternoon is the kind of illusion that the Premier prefers to deal with, where he drops these little hints about how free we are because we are going to have five shares, and that we are going to participate in a "piece of the rock," when in reality we have no participation whatsoever.

This free-share idea that he came up with overnight was produced for one reason: in his own cynicism he thought that he could win an election if he was to produce this giveaway. That's what he had in mind. He didn't have the people in mind when he thought about the free shares. He argued strongly enough two years ago in this House that an investment program like BCRIC shares is the way we should go. And suddenly he comes up with the free shares. He has never yet given us the reason why he has gone from the investment idea to the free-share idea. In the committee stage we will want to hear from him why he changed his mind. Did he change his mind because nobody in the investment corporation believed him or understood him or thought it would work? That's what we have to find out from that Premier. He's going to have to be much more specific than he was in this cursory flapping over the issue.

I personally cannot forgive him, because he has created two classes of people. He has continued to drive a wedge between the people who have and the people who don't. In this world you have no money if you have no power, unless you have a government that is prepared to see that you get your rightful share — and your rights. He's gone the other way. He's gone back to the idea that if you have money you have power; that's what's implicit in the BCRIC shares. It's a sorry sight to see in British Columbia.

MR. KING: I am going to be fairly brief on this matter. I hadn't really expected to speak on this issue at all. I was very interested in some of the remarks the Premier made when he was on his feet. For the first time the Premier admitted in this Legislature that the shares are indeed not free. Perhaps my colleague from Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) should refrain from referring to them as free, because the people of the province have indeed paid for the assets involved in this corporation, and the shares are not free. The Premier, who is the one who is very fond of saying that there's no free lunch, admitted that in the Legislature this afternoon.

That being the case, I'd like to know how he justifies the ad that's running in today's paper and has run for a number of months. In the Colonist for June 14 it says: "One day left. BCRIC free shares offer expires June 15." I wouldn't accuse the Premier of taking liberty with the truth, but you can't have it both ways. He can't admit in this Legislature that the shares are not free and suggest at one and the same time that this is truthful advertising, put out under his auspices in the daily newspapers.

I wish the Premier would be consistent and tell it the way it is. The people have already paid for the assets. The shares in fact are not free. Why is it necessary to resort to deceitful and deceptive advertising to flog the shares?

The other things that I was concerned about.... After all, the Premier is the First Minister of this province. I want to be very delicate about how I phrase this. I object to his charge in the Legislature that the New Democratic Party as an opposition or as a government has ever advocated or indeed ever indulged in confiscation of property. There is absolutely no truth to that statement, and the Premier knows it. So why would he make a statement in this Legislature he knows to be untrue?

He said our party had indulged in expropriation. I challenge him to produce one shred of evidence that this party has ever expropriated or confiscated any private property or any business whatsoever in this province. The only confiscation I am familiar with in this province's history was that committed by his daddy, with respect to B.C. Electric and the Blackball Ferries, that were confiscated and denied access to the courts of our province to gain fair compensation. That is a fact. That is a matter of public record. So why would the Premier get up and propagate charges that he knows to be completely untrue in this Legislature? Why would he put forward arguments that are absolutely false?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Propagate charges? Do you know what "propagate" means?

MR. KING: I can't help it if the Premier has difficulty with the English language. If he does, perhaps he should consider a refresher course or something of that nature. That's up to him. I'm sure he shouldn't rely on his Minister of Education. Perhaps he should see someone else. But he has a variety of problems, and if that happens to be one of them that's beyond my control.

I'm interested in why he would stand in this Legislature and blatantly throw out charges he knows are false. How can you in good conscience do that as the First Minister of this province? You did it all through the election campaign, and in the heat of an election campaign perhaps one can be forgiven for flirting with the truth. But certainly in this Legislature particularly a Minister of the Crown should be expected to recognize the truth and respect it.

You made the charge that we had confiscated and expropriated. That's untrue, and you know it. You know it. You made that charge.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Read the Blues.

MR. KING: I'll read them tomorrow. I'll read back to you your exact words.

Mr. Speaker, I take exception to charges against our party which are blatantly untrue. It ill behooves the First Minister of this province to indulge in charges he knows are untrue.

I wanted to make two points on the BCRIC shares, one of them with respect to an item on the television news last night from Vancouver, where a lady was shown buying up the so-called free shares somewhere in east Vancouver for $10, offering $10 to all comers to divest themselves of the

[ Page 135 ]

so-called free shares. The camera moved on to people, obviously unemployed and in some difficulty — people who were the residents of very poor hotels in the east end of Vancouver, people who had to rely on the Salvation Army to eat — going to that lady's little stand where she had an advertisement that she was paying $10 for the so-called free shares, and selling out their right to apply for these shares for $10.

Is the Premier really serious when he suggests that this whole exercise is going to contribute to the education of people in British Columbia so that they will know how to invest in our resources? It proves the point that my colleague from Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) made. It's fine for people with money to invest, but there are hundreds and thousands of people in this province who are living hand-to-mouth, with no employment security without even the facilities to avail themselves of a decent meal. Their shares are rapidly going to end up in the hands of some of the rich friends of this government. Already it is happening, even before distribution of the shares.

The transparency of this whole scheme should make government members hide their heads in shame. There's another point; I had the issue raised with me a number of times during the election campaign by some constituents. One of the points the government should think about is the fact that there is another group of British Columbians precluded from obtaining their shares. And guess who they are. They happen to be the service men and women of this province, the people who are in the armed services.

I have a letter in response to a query from the chairman of the BCRIC corporation, explaining that unfortunately shares cannot be distributed to personnel who are absent in the armed forces but who were normally residents of British Columbia. Unless there's been some very recent change which is not reflected in the legislation, that is still the case. That is the advice that comes from the chairman of BCRIC.

I am prepared to concede that BCRIC is under the political direction of the Premier and, in effect, that there is no independent administration. But I think that the whole thing has been put together in a shoddy political fashion. There are exclusions on economic grounds. There are exclusions in terms of the sloppy method of drafting the legislation. The response I saw to an inquiry regarding the status of people in the armed services was that they are precluded from obtaining shares. This was done because they haven't resided in the province. Well, of course, that's true. Many of them have been out of the province for five or ten years. But they joined the forces in British Columbia, and they intend to return here when they are discharged from the service of this country. I suggest that it is a shame that they are not allowed to purchase under the current circumstances. I would suggest to the Premier, if that is correct, that he better check with the corporation which was answering the inquiries on this matter. If it is clearly stated that armed services personnel are now entitled to obtain the shares, I'm happy to hear it, but I wish he would direct that advice to the chairman of the BCRIC.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I am constantly amazed at the quickness with which the Premier has responded to the questions made in second reading by some of the members. I am also pleased to see the in-depth knowledge that he has of BCRIC, the intricacies in the administration and how the decisions are made. Yet he can't answer a simple question: how much is Mr. Helliwell making? It seems that he knows the answers to embarrassing questions but doesn't choose to answer them. He also knows the answers to other administrative detail that would be the fascination of a clerk 1, step 1, and is able to give those in an abundant flourish of immediate knowledge.

I want to deal first with a bit of the history of the assets of this corporation. I am pleased that the Premier is going around this province telling people that the assets are valuable. I would not want the Premier of this province to go around and tell people what he thought of the assets at the time they were purchased by the New Democratic Party. When we purchased the Westcoast Transmission shares on behalf of every single taxpayer in this province, we were subject to some of the most abusive debate that has ever been witnessed in this House: "It's wrong; it's a terrible investment; it will lose money, and tut. tut, tut, you shouldn't make purchases like that." When we bought Plateau Mills the same personal abusive and vituperative language was used in abundance by the then Social Credit opposition. The behaviour of some members is isolated forever in history in the Hansard of this House, in terms of some of the statements made by the then members, including the Premier of this province. We sat on government benches and had abuse, in terms of personal attacks, hurled at us because we made these purchases on behalf of the people of British Columbia, for all the people of British Columbia — not just the rich, not just the poor, but for all the people of British Columbia. We were attacked for protecting the interests of the ordinary people of British Columbia. We said that they had the sense, the ability, the capacity, to have ownership in their own resources.

Was it a pioneering device? No, what was pioneering was the method of ownership. Prior to our election and office, public acquisition of assets was set in a pattern of seizure, without access to court. Who was it that established the pattern of seizing private property? Was it the New Democratic Party? No. The only seizure of private property that I've witnessed in this chamber was by Social Credit when they seized the corporation formerly known as B.C. Electric Company, without any access to the court. Some of the now numerous lawyers that are present in this House would have been puzzled by the debate at that time. Indeed, there was the free enterprise party saying that private property rights could be immediately dispensed with because of public interest.

Who was to determine the public interest? Why, the government of the day. As long as the government of the day was Social Credit then the public interest was being served. But if the government of the day was of another party, which had freely bought assets, then the public interest was not served. I will never forget, as long as I live — despite the banter and the humour and the bonhomie that seems to be the hallmark of this new cooperative, legislative session — the kind of intense, personal, vicious insults that were hurled across the floor at me and my colleagues during those particular debates when we bought Can-Cel and saved that corporation from failing into the hands of international interests who had demonstrated time and time again in the history of this province that when it served their corporate headquarters’ needs, they would close down in British Columbia and dispense with jobs and investment in this province.

[ Page 136 ]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I know that the Premier and his opposition colleagues at that time said: "Oh, no, we have more trust in the international corporations to look after British Columbia than we do in the government of British Columbia."

AN HON. MEMBER: Who did you save it from? Who?

MR. BARRETT: Plateau Mills: you should be careful through you, Mr. Speaker — who you suggest we saved it from. Do a little research and you will find some interesting aspects.

MR. KEMPF: You bet you will.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, you certainly will. I remember the accusations made by the now Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) at cabinet ministers in the government that I served; the indications that he had evidence that we were buying shares; the accusations that were hurled across the floor that we as persons and members in this House were buying shares; the wild accusations and statements made at that time with not a shred of evidence to back them up. Then, of course, when we bought Plateau Mills, and when we bought Kootenay Forest Products, who were the great defenders of freedoms and individual rights? Why, it was Social Credit again saying that the government should not buy this, must not buy it. Let the Americans buy it. Let any international corporation buy it. Let any little group get together — Japanese, Germany, anything — with a front group or up-front and buy these assets before the people of British Columbia should have a chance at them.

Mr. Speaker, with a great deal of courage the government of the day took the abuse, took the criticism and said clearly, openly and honestly that these assets would be acquired for the people of British Columbia and, indeed, did so, and did so in a courageous manner. We did not seize, nationalize or expropriate one company. We rejected the centralist, bureaucratic, dictatorial government precedents established by Social Credit when they seized Black Ball Ferry, when they seized the B.C. Electric Company and displayed to all and sundry in the free world that a government of Social Credit was two-faced and would not protect the interests of private property or private investment. The most scandalous black name received by the government of the province of British Columbia in the international investment marketplace was on the day that B.C. Electric was seized by a government that was elected in the name of free enterprise.

Mr. Speaker, I don't mind a little bit of review of history. Of course, you weren't in the House then. Had you been, as principled people you would have voted against that seizure, I know that, and you would dissociate yourself from a government that would be involved in that kind of seizure. I hope that opportunity never presents itself, but you too — through you, Mr. Speaker — will be forced under the blandishments of previous Social Credit leadership to cave in on principle and vote for seizure of private property as was demonstrated by your party. You've joined the party and you have, as part of your obligation, to be responsible for the history of the party you've joined, and you can't escape that. Don't tell me that you didn't join that party without full knowledge that the only expropriations of private businesses in the province of British Columbia took place under the party's banner that you've identified yourself with.

When the purchases were made, Mr. Speaker, the predictions of dire ruin, bad investment and horrendous results of people owning assets were forthcoming from these benches in a non-ending stream. Not only was there personal abuse, but the economic predictions were that Westcoast Transmission shares were a bad investment; Can-Cel would not make money; Plateau Mills was a bad business; Kootenay Forest Products was losing too much money; and the whole thing was a disastrous investment. That total capital cost of some $40 million shared equally, Mr. Speaker, by every single taxpayer in the province of British Columbia — rich and poor, old and young — $40 million worth of purchases, have a capital replacement value now of well over $350 million.

Mr. Speaker, in the business vernacular: "Not a dog in the bunch. " Every single investment was a good investment. And how ironic it is now for me to witness the greatest touting of these investments — not from the New Democratic Party who are modest in the success of those operations, not from the members of the opposition who were indeed here at the time as government when they bought them, but it is the voice, it is the tone of the leader of this government that is going around this province and has gone around this province saying: "By golly, gee, every single one of those investments is a good investment. Buy some more."

There are those people, Mr. Speaker, who look in a mirror on occasion and reflect upon their past statements and behaviour and say: "In the past I've made some mistakes. Would it be too much for the Premier of this province to say: 'I was wrong when I attacked the purchase of those assets'? Would it be too much for the Premier of this province to admit frankly and candidly that every single purchase that he's now touting as a good buy was indeed thoroughly researched and bought as a good buy by the New Democratic Party?"

As one who was for a brief time responsible for cleaning up the mess of the Columbia River Treaty that left a debt of over $1 billion in the hands of the people of British Columbia, I find it somewhat ironic that one of the means of cleaning up that debt, that mess from the Columbia River Treaty is being dissipated by this little gimmickry going on with the Premier now. Now $100 million a year must go out of the taxpayers' money of this province to pay for the Columbia River Treaty sell-out.

Their record, Mr. Speaker, of purchase and negotiation and dealing has, been one of consistent sellout, giveaway and economic disaster. I didn't sign the Columbia River Treaty. I didn't take part in the decision that was made to seize the B.C. Electric. I wasn't here when those huge debts were loaded on the people of British Columbia when access to resources and access to alternative economic ventures were closed by a government that had a closed mind. But for the first time in the history of this province, Crown assets were returning money and taxes to the people of British Columbia at an unprecedented rate. They voted against it and now, after being in government, they say they're a good deal.

Mr. Speaker, for a Premier who is so skilled in answering these clerk 1, stage I administrative moves, for a Premier who's able to respond in good-humoured banter to

[ Page 137 ]

some of the more elementary questions, as he decides them, of the questions of the opposition of the administration, when he was asked on television on the Jack Webster show how much profit was made by Can-Cel, well, folks, he didn't know. For a man who once came into this House and gave in his first report as estimates as Premier of in effect how many pencils he'd sharpened in his office, and he couldn't tell the public of British Columbia how much profit Can-Cel had made, one felt that he was embarrassed to tell them what that figure was.

Do you know how much profit the company that you own, and you own, and you own, and even those of you that aren't there own...? Do you know how much money that company made in the capitalist word of profit under public ownership in five years? The Premier did not know. Was it $10 million on a capital investment of $1 and absorbing a mortgage of $69 million at a 6 percent per annum interest charge on that capital? Was it $1? Did they make $5? Did they make $10 million? Did they make $50 million? Did they make $100 million? No indeed, sir, they made $134 million profit on behalf of the people of British Columbia under public ownership. And where did that money go? Well, the Premier didn't know, he told the caller. He didn't know that $80 million of that profit, instead of escaping to Latin America, or Japan, or to Washington, D.C., or to Great Britain, came right back here to the province of British Columbia and put British Columbians to work in reinvestment in that corporation.

He didn't know that answer, Mr. Speaker. Oh, he can tell you that servicemen can apply. Oh, he can tell you clerk 1, step 1 answers about administration, how the ads have been misinterpreted. But when he was faced by the questioning of Jack Webster, he didn't know. When Mr. Webster pressed him, he said: "Oh, they didn't make any profit at all." Yes, you did.

MR. BARBER: Oh, why would he say that?

MR. BARRETT: I don't know why he would say a thing like that, but he was cornered. And when the Premier gets cornered, he is a very different fellow. Why, he had the opportunity to deal with me on these questions during the election campaign. Mr. Speaker, I know that the Premier most certainly was not frightened of meeting me in public on television. I know that the Premier desired to discuss these issues on television. The problem was that his schedule was already made up from the last election to avoid meeting me face to face in the election campaign.

He told Jack Webster there was no profit, with a flip of the hand, and when pressed again by that caller, said: "Well, if there was any profit, it was reinvested." Boy, oh boy!

HON. MR. BENNETT: You're not telling the truth, Dave.

MR. BARRETT: You are suggesting I'm not telling the truth. You get up and say that I am not telling the truth. I witnessed you on television when you said that, and I was there too and I went on TV the next day.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: You'll wait your turn.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You asked me to get up.

MR. BARRETT: You'll wait your turn. You'll get your turn. Sit down.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You weren't telling me the truth when you asked me to get up.

MR. BARRETT: Don't get jumpy. There's lots more to come yet.

Mr. Speaker, that one corporation alone made a profit of $134 million. The purchase we made of the Westcoast Transmission shares was made out of the first profit made from the Petroleum Corporation of British Columbia, which one particular member spoke 14 hours against, Mr. Speaker, Can you imagine? Fourteen hours and he hadn't even begun to unwind the spring. Well, it was like my colleague the other member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) said: "Just put your mind in neutral and let it all hang out." Imagine them running around telling the people of British Columbia Can-Cel is a good investment, Plateau Mills, Kootenay Forest Products, Westcoast Transmission!

Thank you for the admission that the purchases made by the New Democratic Party are all making money. However, if you do not like the New Democratic Party, withdraw the shares in the companies we bought and go out there and flog off B.C. Hydro after the death of the Columbia River Treaty.

Mr. Speaker, then there is the question that we must deal with in terms of whether MLAs can have free shares. He said MLAs can have free shares — absolutely no problem. I would prefer not to violate second reading of any bill by referring to a section, but it has been brought to my attention that there is indeed a section in this Act exempting this particular acquisition of assets by an MLA because of the Constitution Act.

You note, Mr. Speaker, there is no amendment of the Constitution Act — none at all. Our forefathers, in drafting the Constitution Act, cautiously warned — as a matter of fact, more than cautioned, explicitly forbade — any MLA to be placed in conflict of interest around the ownership of assets held by the Crown. I refer my legal friends, who are much more skilled in these interpretations than I am, to section 23(l) of the Constitution Act. Even a high school principal would understand that one.

So we find an exclusion, Mr. Speaker, but for what purpose? It is an exclusion to ensure that what the forefathers of this province set out to protest against in terms of conflict of interest would be excluded in this case so that the political games could go on with the resources corporation.

Well, Mr. Speaker, what about the shares? The Premier has told us you all have five free shares but we'll take away your vote.

Now there is an important principle of democracy involved here. When a government acts for the people and in single action or collective actions, if the voters are unhappy they can vote against that government or for something else. Up until now, in terms of every single action with these Crown corporations, the people of British Columbia could have a vote. Now they're given five free shares but they've given up their right to vote. If the Premier of this province was serious about his argument

[ Page 138 ]

about people participating and having a hunk of the rock, then I challenge him to amend this legislation and ensure that every single citizen has a vote for those five free shares.

We're going back to an old concept — the return to the poll tax. If you can afford to buy a vote, you buy 100 shares and you have a vote. If you can't afford it, you get five free shares and shut up and don't bother us again.

Tell me about the single mothers out there who are trying to raise their children on a limited income, and how they're going to buy 100 shares to protect their vote. Tell me how the elderly, who've actually had some of their supplements cut back by this government, are going to vote. You tell me how these people, who have had the opportunity of a direct say in the operation and control of their assets, are now going to have a vote. Only if you have money will you have a vote. It is a new form of the poll tax, and if the Premier disagrees with that he should put in an amendment to ensure that everybody who holds five shares has a vote.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to use my few remaining moments to deal with the philosophical gap that exists between myself and the Premier, between his party and mine. Jingoism and rhetoric leads him to say: "Oh, we want everybody to feel that they have individual ownership. We don't want the government to own this or own that. You've got to feel that you have a piece of the action."

The whole concept, once peeled off like an onion, smells worse as you get closer to the core. You take off that top rhetorical label, and as you get closer to the smell you find: "Oh, yes, let Big Daddy do it; here's five free shares but we'll keep the vote; oh, yes, you can run these little things on your own but we know best about the internal runnings of government." Do you really believe what you say when you say you're going to break it all up and give them each a little piece? Do you really believe you have actually dissipated the control from a small core of people, who will become even smaller once the ownership is concentrated on the basis of wealth and not on the basis of free men and free women in any election process? Do you really believe that you think you can tell people of this province that individual competitive action by rubbing their shares up against each other is more beneficial than people in some instances doing things together, cooperatively?

It is my predecessor in this province who understood there were times when governments must act on behalf of all the people of British Columbia, and spend public funds for public corporations. That's what led to the B.C. ferry fleet — yes, the B.C. ferry fleet, a socialist enterprise owned by all the people of British Columbia. Every time they step on one of those ferries they feel the alienation between themselves and government, because they don't own a hunk of the ferry. Every time they step on that ship they feel like they are pawns in a big-government game, because the state owns the ship they're travelling on. If you believe that kind of rhetoric, Mr. Premier, then I suggest you get an acetylene torch and carve the ferry fleet up into two million pieces, so that everybody can understand that they own a piece of the action, and can take their little hunk of ferry and go home with it, because they don't want to cooperate with big government in public ownership.

MR. LEA: Sell them all a rowboat.

MR. BARRETT: Well, you can't have a rowboat either, because that means cooperating, Mr. Member.

Rugged individual enterprise is what the Premier wants. Why sell off the winners? Why not throw in the risks of the losers as well? The subsidy for the ferry fleet is over $45 million a year. Every single taxpayer gets stuck with that subsidy, but the profits of these corporations, that came in to offset that subsidy, will be gone.

Mr. Speaker, it is my prediction that within a matter of months, through the process outlined in the excellent presentation of the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber), those assets will fall into the hands of a few people, offering financing as a device to get around the limits on financial institutions buying at first crack. Don't worry about buying the shares; we'll loan you the money and then, when you want to pay back the money, just sell the shares to us and we'll call it even. Did you anticipate that, Mr. Premier? Do you sanction that — through you, Mr. Speaker — corporations are going to loan money to people to buy shares, and they will take those shares back as payment for those loans? Do you approve of that? Did you plan it? Will you do anything to stop it?

Not at all; you won't stop it. And because you won't stop it you will allow this precious single opportunity for the people of this province to have some say in their economic destiny to slip away into thousands of international investors and to large money holders.

If any whirling dervishes truly exist they will be found in the graves of the founders of Social Credit, who would really whirl in their graves to see this one opportunity for public participation in the economy being dissipated by a party that calls itself Social Credit. You have no connection whatsoever with the founders of Social Credit, who understood some basic redistribution-of-wealth problems. You have come in here as a right wing administration guaranteeing that those who are already super wealthy, those who already manipulate the marketplace, will have another arrow to shoot in a limited arena of competition.

What have you got against the people? What have you got against people coming together and who are cooperating and planning their own destiny? Why have you sold us out through Cargill, through Gray Line? Why have you blocked the opportunity for people to truly come together in a cooperative fashion and at least hold their heads up high in the international marketplace and say: "We can indeed be maitre chez nous." Games!

Within 24 months the principal control of those assets will fall into a very few hands, and we will have lost forever the opportunity for us to do things not for ourselves, but for an idle political game. There is no control. The assets will be lost to the people of British Columbia, and it's all for a little bit of politics.

MR. HOWARD: Like others who have attended the House, I have paid a great deal of attention to the debate, particularly and specifically to what the Premier said in his introductory or opening remarks.

We need to classify the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation as a political company. Looking at what's happened up until now, we have to classify David Helliwell, president of that company, as a political stooge. It's regretful indeed that moves are made to set up a corporation of this nature and to have it so closely tied to a political party and the concepts that political party has.

One of two things will occur: either B.C. Resources Investment Corporation will do what the Premier tells it to

[ Page 139 ]

do — in which case it will be of no value whatever to the shareholders of that corporation — or, alternatively — and I think this is the case — the government will do what B.C. Resources Investment Corporation tells it what it wants to happen. In which case the government then becomes subservient to a corporation set up by this Legislature, and will reflect therein its total subservience to the private ownership-capitalist system.

Let's look at a couple of fundamental things about a corporation that the Premier knows better than anybody. As I understand it, he grew up working in corporate structures on his own hook for some time, with some success. He knows the ins and outs and the fundamentals of corporate structure and corporate policy and corporate attitudes. The officers of a corporation, and the board of directors of a corporation, have their primary and their first responsibility to that corporation.

HON. MR. BENNETT: To the shareholders.

MR. HOWARD: They do not have their primary responsibility to the shareholders, contrary to what the Premier says. If he holds that view, then I wonder why he himself was such a success in the corporate field.

The primary responsibility of the board of directors and of the officers is to that corporation, and to keep that corporation alive. The Premier will agree with this: if, for argument's sake, it comes to a question between the responsibility of the board of directors to pay out or not pay out dividends to shareholders to keep the company alive, then they won't pay out dividends. They'll keep the money in the company, and they'll keep it alive.

AN HON. MEMBER: Not true.

MR. HOWARD: All you have to do is ask your buddies in MacMillan Bloedel what that company did when it had a loss situation a few years ago of quite a few millions of dollars. They curtailed their dividends. They said: "It's more important to keep the money in the company, because we're losing money." They could have paid dividends, but they didn't; they kept the money. Ask your friend. I know he shakes his head in disbelief.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'm in disbelief of what you're saying because I think you're serious. At least we know they're kidding. You're serious. At least we know Dave's laughing; but you're serious.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Please proceed, hon. member. You have the floor.

MR. HOWARD: The Premier is closer to the directors and officers of MacMillan Bloedel than I am or ever will be. He knows that is the way the system works. Their first responsibility is to the corporation. The shareholders come next, and any corporation that doesn't operate in that fashion doesn't deserve to be a corporation. What I'm getting to is this: if there are changes required to the piece of legislation called the British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation Act that was passed a couple of years ago; if the corporation or the board of directors, I submit, feel that it is in the best interest of that corporation, or, to take the view of the Premier's approach, in the best interest of the shareholders of that corporation — it doesn't matter which prevails — and they come to the government, so long as this government is in office, and say, "We want these changes to be made," guess what will happen? The Premier will succumb to the request and the changes will be brought into the Legislature, because that is his belief of the relationship between government and this corporation and the private corporate structure.

If the question of foreign ownership becomes one of some prominence in the minds of the board of directors of B.C. Resources Investment Corporation and they feel it is in the best interests of that corporation or the best interests of the shareholders, whichever way they want to put it, and they come to the government of the day and say, "We want a change to that Act to permit limited foreign ownership," guess what the Premier will do? He'll get down on his hands and knees and say, "Oh, yes, I'llI do that, whatever you want," because he believes that's the way government should operate vis-à-vis this corporation.

What about the 1 percent rule, as another example, the 1 percent rule that the Premier touts so much and mentioned in his opening remarks? He didn't tell the full story about it, of course. He didn't tell the full truth about it, of course, but said that there was a limitation: no person, no corporation, no other provincial government, no federal government could own more than 1 percent of the voting shares, and he stopped dead there. He stopped there and he forgot to tell, at that moment, the Legislature that there is a provision in the Act which gives the cabinet the right to vary that 1 percent rule. It's right in the Act, right in the law. Everybody who was here when that bill was passed knows that.

So all that needs to happen is that if the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation — the directors or the officers — comes to the Premier and says, "Look, Mr. Premier, it's in the best interest of the corporation to change that 1 percent to just 2 percent or 3 percent," guess what the Premier is going to do. He will say, "Yes, sir, whatever you need," because the interest of the corporation is what prevails. It doesn't need to come to the Legislature even. It's done by secret order-in-council, changing that 1 percent rule. If there was any intention in the minds of government, in the first instance, to have an absolute restriction at the 1 percent level, then they needn't have put in the provision that says the cabinet can change the 1 percent. The only reason words like that are put in law is if the people who draft the law contemplate that they might have reason to use them at some time in the future.

We remember the provisions of a law of this province that required copper mining corporations to keep aside a certain percentage of their blocked-out ore in order to provide, some time in the future, for a copper smelter in this province. The cabinet, the previous Social Credit government cabinet, continued, by order-in-council, to reduce that percentage figure until it meant nothing. The same situation prevails here. If you have no intention of using that power, then make the commitment now to take it out of the Act at committee stage. If you leave it in, it means you want to use it, and it means your 1 percent rule is a lot of hot air and it doesn't mean a thing. And it means you are leaving yourselves completely at the request of the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation and whoever happens to be the board of directors to do their bidding and to make whatever changes may be necessary to suit them.

[ Page 140 ]

Just look, as an example, Mr. Speaker, at the prospectus issued by the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation, which says in it that it is seeking.... This is whatever the date of that was; it was before the election anyway, and before the Legislature met. It said: "B.C. Resources Investment Corporation is seeking an amendment to the Act to provide that the company, if the supreme court so agrees, can dispense with annual meetings of the corporation."

MR. BARRETT: Why would they want to do that?

MR. HOWARD: I don't know, because all corporations, as we know, just adore meeting the shareholders in the annual meeting. They just love those 15-minute or 20-minute annual meetings in which they say: "Here's who we're going to elect as the board of directors for the next year. All in favour say aye." The guy with 50 percent of the vote carries the vote and that's it. I don't know why they wouldn't want that right.

MR. SEGARTY: What about union meetings?

MR. HOWARD: The difference between a corporation and a union meeting is that in a union meeting every man and woman who is a member of that union has the same vote but in a corporation you vote your dollars — and one person can have 65 percent of the votes of the corporation because he's got 65 percent of the share holdings.

In any event, the prospectus says that the company is seeking an amendment to dispense with the annual meetings of the corporation. And, lo and behold, I see those very words in the bill before us, that the corporation, any 100-share holder, any voting member of the corporation, anybody who has been able to get hold of 100 shares can make the application — the board of directors can do it; the supreme court can do it on its own hook, without anybody applying for anything — to dispense with the holding of annual meetings. I don't know why they would not want to carry out that pseudo-democratic process that exists, but they don't.

All I'm getting at is that the corporation asked for the amendment and, lo and behold, they got it. We know full well, as has been talked about, that the corporation — and when I'm talking about the corporation, I'm not talking about the shareholders; I'm talking about the board of directors — if they decide for their own purposes that they want to sell Can-Cel off to Weyerhaeuser — as this party was going to do at one time — then they can go ahead and do it and nothing can stop them. If they can do that, and dispense with the annual meetings of the company at the same time, where does the shareholder have any say in this kind of function? That's how assets owned by the people of the province of British Columbia will be sold off — if it suits the convenience of the board of directors of B.C. Resources Investment Corporation.

Talking in terms of ownership, I would just like to make a comment in passing. The Premier says — he becomes a stock market tout at this level — that everybody should buy the shares. Put your six bucks out, buy all you can, but don't sell them. Just buy them and keep them, don't sell them. Of course he's not going to say sell them. I don't know if he was enunciating government policy, but one of his cabinet ministers during the election campaign had the unmitigated gall to say that you should get your shares and enjoy the benefits that come from individual ownership when the shares are sold.

AN HON. MEMBER: But not before.

MR. HOWARD: Oh, no, not before. You enjoy the benefits of individual ownership when you sell.

MRS. WALLACE: What minister was that?

MR. HOWARD: The Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt). It was during the election campaign that the Minister of Agriculture said that. He waves his hands, saying that's of no consequence now. I agree with him, it isn't.

The Premier, for all his claptrap about buying the shares at six bucks a share because they're a good deal, they're 50 percent below book value or something like that, but not selling them may be his view — that he doesn't intend to sell his — but that is not the way share investment operates. And he knows. Everybody in this House should know that if somebody buys those shares for $6 a share and by chance, when they start to trade — maybe even before they are listed on the Vancouver Stock Exchange — they're trading at about $8 and that's going to be the net asset value or the book value after all the dust has settled and we know how many additional ones have been bought, guess what a number of people are going to do. They're going to pick up the $2 capital gain and sell them. That's what happens in trading shares. The Premier knows that, and he knows that as long as trading shares on the market continues, some other corporation with an eye to do it will eventually get control of B.C. Resources Investment Corporation, regardless of the 1 percent limit and whether or not the cabinet changes the 1 percent limit.

One of the processes which doesn't take place in trade union meetings, a process which functions quite regularly in the corporate world, is a thing called "proxy voting." A person can be a shareholder and doesn't have to attend the annual meeting, if it's ever held. But assuming that it is held, the particular shareholder doesn't have to attend. He signs a slip of paper called a proxy form, and he gives it to another shareholder, and he says: "Here, vote my shares."

Control of B.C. Resources Investment Corporation, if it is to be what the Premier hopes it will be, namely with a lot of people buying shares and widely held distribution of shares, can be held in the hands of 10 percent or 15 percent ownership. Ten percent or 15 percent of the voting shares of that corporation will control it. That's a fact of life. The Premier knows that as well as anybody.

He also knows that it's not beyond the ingenuity of the corporate or financial world for 10 or 15 companies to each own 1 percent of the shares but give their proxies to one company to vote for them, giving the control to one corporation. That's not beyond their ingenuity at all. In fact, it's done every day.

The Premier recognizes — even though he talks one way — that this will occur. For all his talk about 2.4 million people in B.C. applying for shares, he knew from the beginning that 2.4 million people were not going to apply. In the budget itself, for the $5 he's paying to the banks, trust companies, stockbrokers and everybody else to handle these shares, he only provides $9 million to pay for that $5 an application.

[ Page 141 ]

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: That's 1.8 million. That's recognition right away that about half a million people in B.C. weren't going to bother to apply. I don't know what number won't. I'm assuming from what was said the other day — seven million — that probably when tomorrow is over there might be ten million shares applied for, the so-called free shares, There might be ten million, I don't know. He doesn't know either.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: No, he doesn't. How can he know? Phone up your buddy Dave Helliwell. He'll tell you. For the introduction of the budget he told the Minister of Finance seven million. There's no great problem doing that. Pick up the phone and say: "Dave...." All the Premier's got to do is....

Interjections.

MR. HOWARD: Well, I'I tell the Premier something else. If he wants to know anything about democratic conduct in the Legislature he can phone any one of the Daves on this side of the House and they'll tell them how to do it. But phone up your stooge, Dave Helliwell, and say: "Dave...."

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, the hallmark of good debate is temperate language. Please employ that language, hon. member.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I agree with you no end. The only reason I used that word was because I used it at the opening of my remarks and nobody said a word at that time. I thought they accepted it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nobody was paying attention then.

MR. HOWARD: Well, if somebody is paying attention now, at least I'm getting a message across. I hope that's a forerunner of things to come. If these gentlemen and ladies on the other side always pay attention to what we say over here, they might learn something.

MR. SPEAKER: And now back to the bill, hon. member.

MR. HOWARD: I'm glad you've come to my rescue, Mr. Speaker. I was having some difficulty.

In summation — without the use of the introductory remarks that I made about this being a political company and the like — a fundamental thing that's going to develop and exist is that the corporation's views will prevail. It will not be a corporation that serves the interest of British Columbia. It will be a corporation that serves the interests of the balance sheet of that corporation. It will not be a corporation that serves the interests of the ordinary five-bearer shareholders. The rights of those shareholders — the average citizens of this province who've gone ahead and just applied for the five shares and haven't dug up another $570 to buy their right to vote, a right which they would have had if this had remained in the hands of the government — will not be represented because they will not be notified of any annual meetings. They won't be notified in the normal course of events about dividends. They'll have to watch for some advertisement in the paper and go to some other place, maybe a bank or something, to pick up their dividends if and when they're ever declared. They will not be able to attend the annual meeting; they won't be able to go there and say: "Mr. Helliwell, what are doing with my company?" They are disfranchised. And the people who will own and control the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation will be the people who own and control most of the other resources in the province of British Columbia — you can put in one hand. And that's the shameful part of what's taking place here today.

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to add my own words of congratulations to those previously given by the other members of this assembly on your election, not only as the member for Chilliwack, an area where I went to school at one time and of which I have fond memories, but also upon your election as Speaker of this House. I am confident that I speak for all the new members of this House when I say your reputation for firm and impartial justice — oftentimes possibly tempered with a certain amount of levity — is well known. It is indeed a privilege to have you preside over us, as it is also to have your deputy, the first member for Vancouver South (Mr. Rogers), and to him I also extend my congratulations.

Mr. Speaker, I stand here today listening to the members across the floor here — those who sit on your left — and I see where we do need very seriously in this province an education program to educate some of the people with respect to investment in this province, or investment in the assets of this province. I listened to them very seriously, as the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) reached the end of his comments, because I had great difficulty trying to understand whether they knew what they were talking about. They keep making reference to the giveaway by the corporation of its shares. They don't even understand or appreciate that it is the government that is offering the five shares to the public of the province. Many times in your comments you make reference to the company making that offering.

Mr. Speaker, I heard one of the honourable gentlemen complaining — or more than one complaining — that they weren't asked about the share scheme during the election, and possibly it's because they didn't understand it. I know my colleagues and I many times received many responsible inquiries from interested people. In my tours to the schools, I had many students asking about it. Many of them were concerned about the question of direct ownership and indirect ownership. When I gave some examples of how they could deal with something that was in their hands and they couldn't deal with it when big government had it in its hands, I think they fully understood, because they did not have a vote if it was owned by the Crown. They had a vote at election time: they didn't have a vote annually at annual general meetings of companies at any time, even when they owned enough shares to be a shareholder; they did not have a vote when it was owned by a Crown corporation. They had no say in the handling of their assets.

[ Page 142 ]

Mr. Speaker, by the time we were finished with these meetings, I think they probably understood it. I was very thankful for the youth of this province being as interested as they were in this offering and this opportunity of learning to invest in the assets of this province for its future and for the benefit of the people of this province in the free enterprise and entrepreneurial way.

Mr. Speaker, I sat here the other day listening to the arguments on the previous bill coming from the other side, and the support that came from the opposition on the repatriation of assets to the people of this province, assets which they alleged occurred through overtaxation. I suggest this is just what we are doing: we are repatriating to the people of this province assets acquired through over taxation by the previous government, which moneys received from taxation they used to speculate in investments that they're not prepared to risk their own funds on. We are returning these funds by way of the assets of the shares to the people of this province so that they can use them for their own investment. They can use them for their own speculation if they wish, rather than having big government do their speculating and investing for them when they have no say in such investments.

Mr. Speaker, I obviously will support this bill.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I would like to give the argument of why this won't work but give it not from this side of the House's point of view but the other side of the House. I don't understand how the members on the other side can support this legislation that they say every day won't work. I would like to ask them....

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, why won't socialism work? The reason that socialism won't work is when you give out something equally to everyone, it doesn't stay that way. It concentrates to a few. Is that not the argument that I've heard so many times from my colleagues across the floor? When you turn out something to the public in equal shares and take the wealth and you distribute it equally, it won't stay that way. That's what the other side believes, Mr. Speaker. They've all said that.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: The Premier says he doesn't say that. If you haven't heard that, Mr. Premier, you haven't listened to Friedman, you haven't listened to any right-wing capitalist philosopher. I just gave you one; you didn't recognize it — Friedman.

The argument that is always put forward by the capitalists as to why socialism won't work is that even if it were possible to distribute everything equally, it wouldn't stay that way.

You have to ask what's going to happen to these shares that are going to be distributed equally throughout the province. According to the philosophy and the ideology of the other party across the floor, they will concentrate into the hands of a few — by their own admission. This is the philosophy and ideology of the other party. The member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis), I'm sure, if he was up speaking on this bill, would agree with me that that's what would happen. I would like to hear one of them stand up and disagree with me.

So what do we have? We have a very slick method of appearing to give people something for nothing, equally.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Socialism takes it away.

MR. LEA: Socialism takes it away, he says. Aren't they getting a little fouled up in their philosophies? Even though they understand that if you do what they're going to do, it will end up in the hands of the few who are already wealthy and control the wealth of the province. That's the whole plan, Mr. Speaker. The plan is to get this public company and these public assets into the hands of the wealthy few that we have in the province. That's the plan.

They're even a little more sinister than that. Another little thing that they're always telling us is that people don't value things they get for nothing. Isn't that what you people say? They don't sell these shares for a reasonable rate to people. They give them to the people for nothing because they believe that people who get things for nothing don't value them as much as even if they paid a little bit. There is a bigger incentive to get rid of them, sell them and get them into the hands of a few. See how carefully they've planned it, Mr. Speaker? See how carefully they've planned it from their own point of view?

Mr. Helliwell was being interviewed by Allan Fotheringham on CKVU. Allan Fotheringham said to Mr. Helliwell: "Who came up with this idea? Was it you within the corporate structure of BCRIC or was it the government?"

He said: "Well, no, last November the Premier came to see me and said, 'Look, I want to give people something for nothing.' " Those were Mr. Helliwell's words. "I want to give people something for nothing. Work out a scheme." That's what he said, and if the Premier doubts it maybe this Legislature could send to CRTC and get a transcript of the tape, because that's what he said. Either Mr. Helliwell isn't telling the truth....

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Oh, no, I didn't. That's what he said: "The Premier came to see me last November and said: 'I want to give the people something for nothing. Work out a scheme.' " That's what Mr. Helliwell said to Mr. Fotheringham on CKVU. Don't get so worried, Mr. Premier. You said it.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: No, you worry about your own. I don't have a bunch of people sitting behind me that want my job. You worry about your own credibility.

HON. MR. BENNETT: What have you got that they would want?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, I think it's wise to review standing order 17(2). When a member is speaking no member shall pass between him and the Chair, nor interrupt the member speaking except to raise a point of order. Let's observe that standing order. It's No. 17, for those of you who wish to review it.

[ Page 143 ]

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, if the group on the other side don't believe the things that I've said they believe in, just what the heck do they believe? If they don't believe in the philosophy that they say they believe in, about distributing wealth equally, ending up in the hands of a few, and people not valuing things that they get for nothing, then what do they believe? Do they believe that? They say they do. So if they believe that,, then isn't this a pretty sinister plot dealt out of their own philosophy, their own ideology, to take public assets and get them into the hands of a few? Pretty sinister and cynical.

You hear them getting up, one after the other, talking about this great government and the great things they've done. You know, I was sitting here the other day, Mr. Speaker, looking towards you and I could hear the new member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) speaking. Because I wasn't looking that way I thought it was the old member for North Peace. You know, it was the same ideas; it was the same way of putting it, the same way of intellectual debate. I looked around I saw this new body, and I thought that medically they'd performed a miracle. They'd actually taken a brain and transplanted a body.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, to the bill, please.

MR. LEA: Well, it is to the bill. That is to the bill, because what I'm trying to point out is that there has been consistency of the kind of philosophy that I have pointed out that this group holds. "Equally distributed wealth ends up in the hands of a few." That was from the old member for North Peace, and the new member. It's from that cabinet and the old cabinet of the Social Credit government before. That's what they believe in. That's the reason for this plot to take public assets and do it in a sinister way, and make it even look like people are getting a gift, that they're getting something for nothing. They think they don't value something for nothing. So that's why all of the subterfuge, all of the legislation, all of the rhetoric leading to one direction: to get the assets that are publicly owned by all of us collectively into the hands of the few that make the Social Credit Party exist as a party, because that's where their campaign contributions come from.

Their campaign contributions come from the wealthy in this province, and the more public assets they can shove into the hands of those few wealthy, the longer and the better are their chances of survival, they feel. That's what this bill is all about, that's what the whole thing is about — to get the hands of their friends on the money of the people in order to maintain them as a political party. That's what we've been witnessing since 1977 with this bill.

Mr. Speaker, the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) pointed out that the cabinet, without coming back to the Legislature, can change the rules around a number of the sections of this bill in order to allow further than 1 percent to be bought by one individual company. They can change a lot of those rules. I believe, yes, it's a danger to British Columbia to have too much foreign investment in our economy, because it takes away from being able to set our own destiny and move in the direction we want. But even more sinister than that, the one thing that we've seen with these assets over the past few years is that because they are publicly owned in British Columbia, it's one of the only companies in British Columbia that has actually invested in British Columbia in the last few years.

Now are we going to see another company take its profits that are made in British Columbia — and I'm not using profits as a dirty word; we need profit.... But where's the profit going to be invested? Is is going to be like MacMillan Bloedel and invest its profit in Southeast Asia, and in Brazil and Alabama, to bring on stream pulp mills that will go into competition against our own pulp mills? Is that going to be allowed now that the public is no longer going to have a say in the direction of that company? Yes, it is, because as the member for Skeena pointed out, the directors of that company only have one obligation; that is to the corporation itself and the shareholders — but the corporation itself.

Now it might not be in the best interests of all British Columbians to invest money outside of our shores, outside of the country. But after the concentration of wealth that takes place, and we prophesy that it will take place — and your philosophy says that it will take place — then it might become in the best interests of those minimized shareholders, but for concentration of wealth, to take that wealth that is generated from that company and from our resources and invest it outside of Canada, to our detriment, to bring competition on the world market to compete with ourselves. And we use our own money to set up our own competition to beat ourselves down. Now does that make sense? I say no. I firmly believe that there isn't one person over there that doesn't agree with me. You all agree with what I'm saying. And yet you are going to come into this House and you are going to support the Premier and his pet political project in order to do what? Remain in grace?

What are you doing over there — playing cabinet sweepstakes? You've only been in here how long, and you're going to sell out your basic philosophical principles to back a bill in order to try and do what? Advance your own selves; that's what you're going to do.

MR. SPEAKER: Address the Chair please, hon. member.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, what we see is the biggest group of people in one gigantic move sell out their individual principles for what? For what? For political gain, for personal advancement. They call that having the right to be an individual in our society, as they define it. Because they define being an individual in our society as a person that is allowed to be as greedy as possible, even at the expense of your neighbour. They don't see being an individual as having the responsibility to be a social being, to look after your neighbour along with yourself. They're a greedy group of people who have decided that to be individuals in a society is synonymous with greed. That's what they believe.

Mr. Speaker, they may smile from across the floor, but when they go home, tonight, in the quietness of their own room or their own home, I wonder if they are going to smile to know that they have violated every principle that they have held to be dear for quite a while. Every principle of that right-wing group is going to be violated by this Act, every one except that bigger principle: to concentrate wealth in the hands of a few. And they are even willing to give up their own greediness to see that happen, because it means their political survival. They plan to get a few bucks for their next political campaign, this coalition of opportunists who will do anything to stay in power. Anything! I think it

[ Page 144 ]

is a credit to the people of this province that they weren't bought off by this stupid scheme. In fact, I credit our 46 percent of the popular vote to be because of this scheme, and the cynicism with which people viewed it. He says $20 million. That is priceless? No, $20 million isn't priceless. It's $20 million.

So what do we see? We see the carrying on of a plan that has gone so far down the road that there is no turning it back. But at least these new people — and you have to vote for the legislation whether you agree with it or not....

HON. MR. BENNETT: Oh, no, you don't.

MR. LEA: You have to vote for this.

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, you don't.

MR. LEA: Yes, you do. You blow $20 million of the taxpayers' money...

SOME HON MEMBERS. No, no!

MR. LEA: ...unless you vote for this bill.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You know you are not going to defeat us. Vote for it.

MR. LEA: Well, if a few of those members over there, Mr. Speaker, would stand up and put their mouths where their principles are, we would defeat it. That's what we would do. But even then, if we did that, what would we be doing? We would be blowing $20 million of the taxpayers' money right down the tube. So here's the choice. Issue the free shares or waste $20 million. That's what we have the choice of doing. Not a very big choice, but some choice.

But I'I tell you one thing. We went on record in 1977 as being against this principle which is held over there, because we do believe that there is a way to be a cooperative society, not always greedy, like they believe. This bill is nothing more than the last stage of a greedy, selfish plot for their own survival politically, because they know that the concentration of wealth that will happen around these five free shares won't take very long. The Minister of Education knows it probably better than most. If that group disagree with the principles that I've put forward that they hold, let them stand up and say so. I don't think they can quite bring themselves to do that, because it would do two things. It would publicly put them on view as having lost all their principles, and it would be their last chance to go in the cabinet. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Speaker, having listened to that lengthy peroration on principle from the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), I for one fully expect that in the name of Woodsworth and Coldwell, Winch and Strachan he will break with his caucus and rise individually and vote against this bill.

As a freshman in this House I listened with some interest to the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition. I think it was a very impassioned and sincere speech foremost. Those of us not in his party would differ with him. But I don't think it is appropriate for new members in this House to be lectured on the issue of expropriation by a man who, when he was Premier, brought in the first draft of Bill 42.

As a point, all I'm going to say is that there are new people in this House. But I hope the older members won't get up and give us just one side of a story in lecture form like that without giving us some of the others.

If you want to talk about the history of this chamber and shameful efforts at expropriation without compensation, and without appeal to the courts, the first draft of Bill 42 is a shameful document beside which the issue of B.C. Electric has nothing.

The other thing, of course, that the Leader of the Opposition forgot to tell us was that there was a provincial election very soon after the B.C. Electric expropriation, which, if you are a student of these things, will realize was about power development. The Leader of the Opposition should be careful, because the people of Vancouver East returned a Social Credit member in the immediate election thereafter on that issue.

MR. STUPICH: The appropriation was right after the election.

MR. HYNDMAN: We've had some comment about the new atmosphere in this chamber. I think it might be a very useful step forward if public officials, public servants working hard for the people of this province, were not called names on this floor. If we want to call each other names, that's fine; but if anybody has bothered to research Mr. David Helliwell's record of community service and his career, he's one of the finest British Columbians in this province.

As one of the new boys, I want to say that our education and what we've been told is getting just a little harder when, from the people on your left, we hear David Helliwell called a stooge. It's not a particularly good lesson.

On to the positive content of the bill before us. The great thing about this BCRIC program is that everybody is talking about it: people in B.C., people in Canada. If you read this week's Financial Post, published in the east, it says: "Everyone agrees BCRIC shares are a good deal." What a great change that people in this country are now talking about British Columbia and British Columbia's positive economic ideas — not the the mess out here, not the problems, not the decay, but positive, exciting economic ideas coming from this government in British Columbia.

The acid test of the wisdom and the success of this principle is going to be public reaction. I invite the members who spoke against this bill this afternoon — but who won't vote against it — to walk out tomorrow into the banks and trust companies of this city. If they haven't yet, they should apply for their shares.

Just the other day I was in a credit union in this city, a modern one with six wickets. People of all ages were lined up to apply for their shares. They're not just applying; they're buying: old people, young people, people of all walks of life. They're interested. They have the chance to learn, to invest. They're excited. They're applying.

If the members who have spoken against this legislation but, mind you, they won't vote against it — are as concerned as we've heard this afternoon, let them go into those banks and trust companies tomorrow, perhaps wearing a little sign that says: "It's not a very good idea.

[ Page 145 ]

Don't do it. My name is X, MLA from Y," and see their reaction.

Earlier today the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) read from some interesting correspondence. He's been kind enough to give me the liberty of reading copies before he's tabled it. For the benefit of the House, I'd like to read some other quotes from that correspondence.

First there was a letter from the research department of Pemberton Securities Ltd., a western Canadian, Vancouver head office securities firm. This is the interesting portion that the first member for Victoria did not read:

"Inasmuch as the book value of each share is in the $10-to-$15 range, I consider the purchase price of additional shares at $6 represents good value. I feel that the price is likely to increase when trading starts on the open market."

Now, Mr. Speaker, what of this sinister letter? Well, if you know Pemberton Securities, you'd know that our western-based Vancouver head office firm, with one of the most remarkable mailing lists, I'm certain, in western Canada.... As you examine it, it is a form letter to all the thousands of individual investors they have. Of course, Mr. Speaker, that letter exhibits the very thing this legislation is designed to promote, a chance for the little person, the small businessman, to start taking advantage of the kinds of things that for too long had been the preserve of big business and the wealthy.

I think far from criticizing Pemberton, that firm, Mr. Speaker, is to be congratulated for in the next paragraph telling the little people and the small business people how they can go about getting their investment shielded at 27 percent in the small-business rate through a family holding company as opposed to paying the personal income tax load. They are to be complimented and congratulated.

I think our friends on the left are just a little worried that through this legislation working people, ordinary people and small-business people are going to start to have the chance to become involved and learn some of these techniques that are available to all, but only the wealthy in big business can afford the advisers to show them how. I think Pemberton Securities should be congratulated for taking the initiative, Mr. Speaker, in pointing out to small business people, small investors, how they too can do the very things the rich people with their squads of accountants are going to do. I say congratulations to Pemberton.

Now the Royal Bank of Canada letter, I'm proud to say, appears to be the Royal Bank of Canada branch in Vancouver East, which is trying to make a real effort, Mr. Speaker, to bring banking services closer to the community. It's a very well-known and famous branch in Vancouver. What we weren't told earlier today is that the letter in question initiated by the Royal Bank of Canada was written to the Downtown Eastside Residents Association, an excellent community-minded East Vancouver organization.

Let me quote the opening sentence, Mr. Speaker: "We would like to work with DERA in an effort to ensure that residents have a chance to buy and own the shares." Again I say this is the very thing this legislation was designed to do, to encourage and promote some initiative-taking, by the banks in this case, to take the concept of share ownership to the people in the streets. So the bank wrote a letter in an effort not only to get more people involved in the opportunity to own these shares, but indeed in an effort to hire some people from that community to assist in the very processing. That's a first-rate idea.

I think these two letters, Mr. Speaker, exhibit, as I say, the very kind of thing this legislation is going to promote. Everybody is talking about the BCRIC program, and that's terrific. We're talking about it in here. And, Mr. Speaker, one of the other very good things about this legislation is that at dining-room tables around this province, in lunch halls around this province, people are talking about the merits of the idea. They're talking about what a company is and what shares are and what interim financial statements are and what a prospectus is. That is very healthy; that is very educational. It's a first-rate concept that's being advanced through this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, it's undeniable: everybody is talking about the BCRIC shares — in the lobbies of the trust companies and the banks, where people are lining up to apply for them, on the floor of this House, in correspondence, across Canada. Once again, Mr. Speaker, everybody's talking about some exciting economic ideas from British Columbia.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, I just want to deal briefly with a couple of points that haven't been raised. I would think that those residents of this province who would have the largest claim to a distribution of anything that was allegedly free would be the native population of British Columbia. I'm going to be very interested to find out how many free shares the native population have seen fit to apply for. I'm also going to be very interested to find out how many of our native people have enough money to buy any shares at all, in terms of this latest offering. Surely, if this government was interested in helping those in this province who probably have a better claim to the assets and the resources than any other — because they were here first and we've never settled their rights, and we've never settled their aboriginal claims.... If there is any group that deserves some kind of claim, it's the native people of British Columbia. But I'm willing to bet right now that when you examine the percentage of native people who will have a chance to participate in this particular operation, it will be lower than any other group in the province of British Columbia. So examine what you are doing to that group of people.

There's another group of people in British Columbia that perhaps has some claim on the resources of this province. They're not here now, but they may come along — they'll be born later on. What you are doing is you are taking the resources of this province now and squandering them forever, and never giving people who come along in years to come — your children and your children's children — a chance to participate.

I see some smiles on the other side. It's really a kind of a joke, isn't it, folks? It's really a kind of a laugh.

I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that we hold the assets of this province in trust for future generations. You don't understand that over there. You want to squander them now, you want to get rid of them. And there's no doubt about what is going to happen to these shares they are going to wind up in the hands of the same people who have always owned and controlled the province of British Columbia. There's just no doubt about that.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Are you going to vote against it, Stu?

[ Page 146 ]

MR. LEGGATT: No, I'm going to vote for the bill. I'm going to vote for this bill for a number of reasons. One of them is that $20 million has been squandered in terms of promoting these shares, and we're going to save you from yourselves in terms of that particular misadventure.

We're also going to vote in favour of it so that you do issue the few free shares, so there will be at least a little bit out there for those people, instead of the zero that will happen — they won't have a thing. Yes, we're going to vote for it; but we want you to listen very carefully to the amendments that are going to be presented.

Mr. Speaker, we'd like this government to give some serious consideration to the points raised by my seat-mate and colleague for Skeena (Mr. Howard), who raised some very valid points concerning the question of the transfer of those assets. There's nothing in this prospectus, for example.... Let me read part of it: "BCRIC has the same unlimited investment opportunity available to it as any Canadian company and may vary or extend its investments in any manner the directors believe will benefit the shareholders of BCRIC." There is no restriction whatsoever on the sale of any of those assets anywhere in the world.

I know the Premier took me to task for suggesting that these shares might be on the markets of Zurich or London. Why do we have this amendment bill in front of us? He's already changed his mind. How soon will he change his mind when the people I've heard defended all afternoon — David Helliwell — decides that it's not economically feasible not to sell these shares abroad? They'll say that, quite frankly, they need the capital. And when David Helliwell speaks, the Premier will act. There's just no question about that.

MR. LEA: Who is the stooge?

MR. LEGGATT: Who is the stooge is a very good question.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Perhaps we could use more moderate language.

MR. LEGGATT: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the reprimand. I'm not sure that we shouldn't have a debate some day as to the parliamentary nature of the word "stooge." I'm not so sure that that isn't a parliamentary word. But perhaps this is an inappropriate time to raise....

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, the word is offensive to this chamber and we'll try not to use it. It's been indicated on at least two occasions that it is offensive to the chamber, and the Speaker will do everything he can to try to protect the chamber from itself. Please proceed.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, I must say that is a very wise and sage comment. This is one chamber that does need to be saved from itself — on frequent occasions.

I just want to say in summation that we're going to vote in favour of this bill on second reading. And if you'll accept the amendments that are going to be presented in this chamber, we'll vote in favour of it on third reading. I want to tell you now, Mr. Speaker, that on third reading you might not get that kind of cooperation if this bill continues clearly to have a chance of transferring the assets of this province to foreign ownership, which it still does.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I don't intend to say more than a few words, because obviously, in the final analysis, there's going to be a love-in when the vote comes on this particular bill.

I am reminded of what they said about that great baseball player, Shoeless Joe Jackson: "Say it isn't so." If there is anything that clearly delineates the approach of people on this side of the chamber from the socialists on that side of the chamber, it's whether ownership should be individual or by the state.

In Europe in socialist countries they say: "Everything is ours but nothing is mine." You've had an opportunity over on that side to keep these assets as "ours." You could have come out during the election campaign and said that if you were elected you would halt this distribution of shares in the interest of the Indians, in the interest of future generations, in the interest of all those whom you say will lose these assets to people outside of British Columbia.

You had the opportunity then and had you seized that opportunity, perhaps you would have been the government had the people agreed with you. But no, during the election campaign, that's not what you said. You said it's all right if it's yours and not ours. Having denied your opportunity in the election campaign and having been rejected by the people — however close that vote may have been — you come back and raise all the arguments in this chamber that you should have raised during the election campaign. Why aren't you true to your principles? We're not embarrassed to say that individual ownership is good for British Columbia and we believe in it. But you've said it's bad. Every one of you who stood up for debate this afternoon said it's bad.

When it comes right down to cases, when it comes down to the vote, here's the member who has just spoken — a new member in this House but an experienced politician — standing up and denying his own principles. He's going to deny those principles in a vote. It doesn't matter, Mr. Member, if you come in this House and say: "We're going to vote for it in second reading, but if you don't accept this little wrinkle of ours or that little wrinkle of ours, then we'll vote against it." You're standing up for the principle of individual ownership if you vote for this, not for the socialist principles you go out to get elected on.

We've got something very clear here this afternoon. We've got a principle whereby our party is saying we believe in individual ownership because we believe that's the route by which prosperity can be brought to all British Columbians. We're giving effect to it in this bill by asking individuals to participate in ownership and work for progress in this province.

On the other side of the House we've got another set of principles. The first is disbelief in that system because the people on that side of the House don't believe in individual ownership. You don't believe in the capital assistance. You believe in state ownership, and you believe in state ownership of all the assets and no individual ownership. Yet when it comes down to cases, that's not how they vote. They don't vote for their principles; they vote against their principles. It seems to me that if there is one thing that characterizes the New Democratic Party, it is the fact that they will not vote for their principles when the crunch comes.

Mr. Speaker, nobody on this side of the House is ashamed of individual ownership; nobody on this side of the House believes in state ownership. We've been against it in

[ Page 147 ]

the past; we're against it now; we will be against it in the future. We won't be shilly-shallying when it comes to votes on this question in the future, because we know where we stand, and we are going to continue to vote consistently with the principles we believe in. Even though it isn't going to happen on this particular bill, we would hope somehow, sometime in the future, the New Democratic Party could find the courage to vote for its own principles.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, first, I think perhaps for the sake of those people who are avidly awaiting Hansard to read it daily, I should perhaps make some corrections to some of the remarks from the hon. second member for Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman), I think it was, who, in talking about expropriation, confiscation and public ownership versus private ownership said that there was an election just after the expropriation of B.C. Electric and the action of the government of the day was vindicated. Not only that, but he said a CCF member — the NDP then — was defeated in that election after the government had acted as it had.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I am sure you are well aware that that wasn't the case. The CCF member in Vancouver East was defeated in 1956. The CCF campaigned in 1960 for public ownership of the B.C. Electric; the government of the day campaigned very strongly against public ownership of the B.C. Electric. The government then proceeded, within a year of having been re-elected on a policy of not taking over the B.C. Electric, to expropriate it.

I think it's perhaps interesting to read from the.... We don't have Hansard, but we do have the Lieutenant-Governor speaking at the time — and this certainly ties into the remarks of the previous speaker — of "paramount importance" in a Power Development Act, 1961: "Its provisions will, I am confident, result in perhaps the greatest new cycle of industrial growth ever witnessed in British Columbia. Its significance, not alone to the electric power industry, but to the stimulation of the economy as a whole, cannot be overestimated." Ain't public ownership grand, when it's the Social Credit that's doing it? You will recall who was the author of the speeches that the Lieutenant-Governor read in those days.

If I may speak just a little more about the remarks of the hon. second member for Vancouver South, when he talked about the expropriation in Bill 42, it is obvious that he must have been listening to the Conservative Party leader of that day, and not bothering to read the legislation himself. Bill 42 in its initial draft did not include any provision for expropriation.

To get on more pointedly to the bill before us now, the legislation in 1977 to set up BCRIC was opposed by all the members present on this side of the House. Some of us were tied up with other duties at the time, else that discussion would have taken a lot longer. You will remember that the members of the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture were travelling round the province, and were not present when that bill was being discussed. Otherwise, I assure you, it would have been discussed for a lot longer. It was bad legislation. It took assets that were owned by the people of the province in common, that were producing revenue to provide the kind of services that are now being starved; and it gave those assets to a private corporation that was being set up by that legislation. We opposed it; we voted against it. And those of us who were travelling round voted against it as well. It was bad legislation.

Today we're not dealing with the BCRIC legislation. We're dealing with amendments to that legislation. One of the concerns we had about the BCRIC legislation was that it took out of common ownership and put into the hands of a few, potentially, the ownership and the control over all those assets. The amendment before us today does nothing to persuade us that control of the corporation will not gravitate into the hands of a few people in a relatively short time. We're still afraid that that will happen, and the legislation doesn't do anything to correct that concern. But it does a little bit to correct the concern that ownership of all these assets will go into the hands of a very few people in a short time. What this bill does do is say that every resident of the province will have the opportunity to participate by acquiring five free shares, and by buying more at a reduced price.

To that extent, it diminishes one of our concerns — a concern that all the assets of these corporations, that BCRIC itself, would be owned entirely by just a few people in the community. So in that way, at least, it’s some improvement upon the legislation that was pushed through this House two years ago. Because it is some slight improvement in that way, and since it does say the community as a whole will have some opportunity, at least for a time, to have some measure of ownership of these assets that were acquired by the NDP, and that grew under the NDP administration, because it does provide some improvement that way, we will vote for the legislation. Certainly we want to improve it but we'll vote for the legislation before us today.

The Premier said that he is proud to spend the money that is required to distribute ownership in this company, proud to spend the money on newspaper ads such as this where he is adjuring everyone in the province to apply for their five free shares, and I join with him in that. I think everyone should go out and get their five free shares. It's their opportunity to get that chunk of what is being given away. They've owned it all in common. It's now going to be given away, and to the extent that people do not apply for it, the government will have those shares. Who can tell what they will do with them, who they'll give them to or who they'll sell them to.

He's urging people to go out and buy more shares. I too would urge them to go out and buy these shares at the reduced value of $6. They're worth a good deal more than that. He's adjuring people to go out and buy them, and I would do the same thing, because to the extent that they do go out and buy them he will not be able to flog those shares in Calgary. In Toronto and who can tell where in the future.

The hon. Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) complained about the $20 million of interest that is being spent on dead-weight debt, and how much more he could do for the hospitals if he had that money. How much could he do for the hospitals if he took the $25 million that is going in this campaign?

The Premier suggested that if we wanted to we could go to some communist country and ask the people there how they feel about community ownership as opposed to individual ownership. He may have had the opportunity to go to communist countries. I haven't. I haven't had an opportunity to ask people in those countries how they feel about it. But I did talk to Colin Cameron once, who did

[ Page 148 ]

have an opportunity and spent a couple of visits in Yugoslavia.

He told me about conversations he had with the people who were working in those plants that were community owned but where every worker in the plant had an opportunity to participate in discussions about what that industry was doing and the prices it was setting.

In British Columbia we started very gradually in that process by asking the union to name directors to Kootenay Forest Products, just as a beginning. Union members were named as directors, just to see whether we could work out something....

Interjection.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, the Premier asks me whether I am recommending Yugoslavia for here? Perhaps he has been to Yugoslavia; I haven't. I don't know from first-hand knowledge what they're doing there. I'm simply trying to tell him that in B.C. we had our way of doing things and that our way was to ask union members to sit on the board of directors as the beginning to something in the way of industrial democracy that is being practised in so many western democracies.

Mr. Speaker, I have to ask the Premier if he objects to that kind of industrial democracy that has worked so well in West Germany, for example. The Premier says this is the start of a trend. Well, I ask the Premier what he's going to do for an encore. He's given away everything that's any good.

What's he going to do for an encore? Either he or someone over there — I took a note, and I'm not sure who said it — said "sloppy NDP mistakes" — the kind of mistakes that took assets, that cost the people of British Columbia, according to the book value of the assets as in public accounts, $54 million and that were turned over to BCRIC at $110 million. Those are sloppy mistakes in the period of three years? They're worth twice what the people paid for them. We could do with a lot more mistakes like that, Mr. Speaker.

But if this is the start of a trend, there will be no more moves along that trend until there is an NDP government re-elected to once again acquire assets that will grow as those did grow, so that there will be opportunities for the people in British Columbia.

This whole thing would not have been possible had there not been an NDP administration elected in '72 to build up the kind of assets that made it possible.

I have a letter to the editor here — it was in the Nanaimo paper — by someone who wrote an open letter to the Premier. And he was so happy about all this. He said:

"The Premier is inviting me as a citizen of British Columbia to buy some shares so that I'll have a vote, buy some shares so that I'll participate as a member of this company. Hopefully you see my point, Mr. Bennett. How is one to exercise his democratic right in purchasing the stock at its lowest price" — at its lowest price, Mr. Speaker, because this is likely the lowest price at which it will ever be offered — "when he is unable to gain financing? Or is this offering of shares merely an exercise for placing the shares of BCRIC into the hands of the wealthy at below-market value?"

Mr. Speaker, how did he ever arrive at the $6 figure? And I say "he" because I don't think the BCRIC directors really did that. Mr. Helliwell was asked if he arrived at that and he said: "Oh, there were several reasons." And he gave three of them, but none of them sounded very convincing. Was it so that a substantial degree of ownership in this corporation could be passed into the hands of a very few people — 5,000 shares each — so that control of the company would be in the hands of a very few people? That's the question that the Premier has not yet answered, and I think perhaps he would like to have an opportunity to answer it in second reading.

Mr. Stupich moved adjournment of the debate.

Motion approved.

Presenting Reports

Hon. Mr. Mair, in accordance with section 23(3) of the Creston Valley Wildlife Management Area Act, presented the report of the authority for the fiscal period 1977-78.

Mr. Barber tabled two documents referred to in his remarks earlier today.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.

[ Page 149 ]

APPENDIX

16 Mrs. Wallace asked the Hon. the Minister of Agriculture the following questions:

1. Were any moneys paid out in 1978/79 from the Farm Income Assurance Fund?

2. If the answer to No. 1 is yes, (a) what was the total amount paid and (b) what was the amount paid to each individual Commodity Plan?

3. Did any Commodity Plan pay moneys into the Farm Income Assurance Fund?

4. If the answer to No. 3 is yes, which plans and in what amounts?

The Hon. J. J. Hewitt replied as follows:

"1. Yes, during the 12 months of fiscal 1978/79 to the end of March 1979.

"2.

"3. Yes.

"4.