[ Page 399 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Committee of Supply: Executive Council estimates.

On vote 6.

Mr. King –– 399

Hon. Mr. Waterland –– 401

Mr. Leggatt –– 402

Mr. Davis –– 405

Ms. Sanford –– 406

Mr. Hyndman –– 407

Mr. Cocke –– 408

Mr. Brummet –– 409

Mr. Barber –– 410

TUESDAY, JUNE 29, 1979

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

(continued)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Prior to starting in committee this evening, I thought I would share briefly with the members a small note which was passed to me this evening at the end of my dinner. It was wrapped in a fortune cookie, and said: "Try to see various points of view." That in itself brought me to Beauchesne's 128th edition.

In earlier meeting of the committee today, we somehow managed to sway a little far from where we should have been. I would like to read, if I may, from chapter 3 of the fourth edition of Beauchesne, rule 128. It is on various pages in various volumes, but 128 remains 128. It reads:

"A personal attack, by one member upon another, is an offence against the House, in the person of one of its members, which, on account of the respect due, from every member to the character and dignity of the House, as well as the importance of preserving regularity in the debates, calls for the prompt interference of the Speaker, in order that any irregularity, into which a member may have been betrayed in the warmth of debate" — isn't that a lovely little phrase which captures this House so well? — "may be rectified, and that any expressions, which may be disrespectful to the House, or painful to the feelings of individual members, may be explained, apologized for, or retracted."

So perhaps we could consider that while we start the debate.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that that extra delightful delivery was exceptional.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member.

On vote 6: Premier's office, $245,047 — continued.

MR. KING: I hope the Chair will take note that this is the first time I have entered the debate in the Premier's estimates. Accordingly I would suggest that the Chairman's remarks may well be timely.

Mr. Chairman, I want to make a couple of points with respect to some of the debate that went on earlier. There has been controversy going back and forth across the floor regarding the interpretation of statistics, which is always a bit of a dicey game. There are those people who can interpret statistics to tell whatever story they wish to tell to make their own particular interest look good.

For the Premier's edification, the point I want to make is that interpreting statistics as a guide to judging the economic health of the province is hardly used by the British Columbia Ministry of Labour, by Statistics Canada, or indeed by any agency of which I know, as an indicator of economic health. In-migration relates, rather, to the economic health that may exist in other parts of the nation and the employment opportunity which may be obtained in any particular part. It also, as far as British Columbia is concerned, relates to a very beautiful, natural environment which we are fortunate enough to enjoy on the west coast and throughout British Columbia. In Canadian terms, it relates to exceptional climate.

I want to suggest to the Premier that the real indicator of economic health for our economy in British Columbia, or indeed the economies of any jurisdiction within Canada, is usually viewed and weighed against the growth in the workforce in any particular year. Other economic indicators are the gross national product of the nation or of the province. But in terms of population and in terms of the statistics game relating to people within our province, the only real economic indicator is the growth in the labour force.

To set the record straight, it might be useful to have a very brief glance at what happened to the workforce in the years 1972-1976, partially covering the term of a previous Social Credit administration, an NDP administration, and the current administration. In 1972 the total workforce in British Columbia was 950,000 — that includes men and women. In 1973 the workforce achieved the one million mark for the first time in our history — it then grew to 1,200,000. In 1974 the workforce was 1,600,000; in 1975 it was up to 1,103,000. In 1976 it grew to 1,135,000. Indeed, the years 1972-1975 showed a little faster percentage increase than any subsequent year except 1978.

It's foolish to talk about the in-migration and the total population as a realistic indicator of the economy of this province. The Premier knows that. This afternoon he went to some lengths to impugn the integrity of the statistics which the Leader of the Opposition put before the House. I suggest if there is any seriousness and sincerity in making that kind of judgment and interpreting the statistics, then the Legislature should be prepared to accept the statistics and the conclusions from those statistics which flow from the government's own department. The Ministry of Labour is charged with the responsibility of maintaining that kind of statistical data. What is used as the indicator of economic health is the success of any administration combined with the private sector in job creation and investment growth, et cetera. The Premier's long dissertation about the ratio reduction and in-migration is totally irrelevant and totally meaningless in terms of any analysis of the state of the economy from 1972 or before that, or of the present.

I take the Chairman's admonition seriously about not wanting to offend the sensitivity of any member of this House, but I do want to note that the Premier has been most reluctant to answer any questions posed to him in consideration of his estimates. The tradition of parliament, in my view, is that the discussion of ministerial estimates provides basically an opportunity for opposition members to elicit information from the minister.

I find it difficult to believe that ministers have full regard for the history and the traditions of parliament when in response to serious questions put to them they filibuster, they ramble, prattle and give lengthy and irrelevant dissertations that in no way relate to the question. If there is any desire on the part of this government to come to a new era of sweetness, light and cooperation in this chamber, then I would say they are going to have to start demonstrating a greater sensitivity and a greater responsiveness to their ministerial obligations. They must recognize

[ Page 400 ]

that the opposition is a part of the government process in a parliamentary democracy, and that the opposition has an obligation and a mandate on behalf of a great number of people in this province. Indeed, under the current circumstances we have a mandate from over 45 percent of the population.

It is our role, and a very essential and important one, to elicit information regarding government spending, ministerial policies and views and opinions. We criticize and offer alternative suggestions. That is the essence of how our system works, and I find that when in response to a serious question by opposition members we see the First Minister of the province engage in a long, rambling dialogue, attempting to retrace the history of previous administrations and place his own peculiar interpretation on that history and to deal in a very personal way with the role of members in the last election, it can only lead to retaliation by other members of the House and a hostile climate in this Legislature.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that it is incumbent on the First Minister to set the tone for the Legislature. I believe that the First Minister in the House today and yesterday has set a very poor example indeed — to his colleagues and to new members of this House of how a minister should accept his responsibility, and the regard he should have for this institution and the large number of people in this province who need to have information, who have the right to have a balanced point of view presented to them so they can make a judgment.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Don't lecture the House!

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, with respect to the hon. minister, the kind of wild dissertation we heard from him this afternoon speaks for itself, and I would perhaps listen to the counsel of any other member of this Legislature than one who has been so inconsistent as to embark into wild tirades for 14 hours in this Legislature in repetitive and tiresome debate which was as irrelevant as that member's representation of his riding.

With respect to the sensitivity and feeling of members, my colleague, the Leader of the Opposition, asked the Premier of the province if he was not prepared in the calmness of the post-election era to consider the very insulting and very damaging comments that he had made in this Legislature in announcing the last election, when he referred to members of the New Democratic Party as national socialists. Mr. Chairman, if there is anything calculated to generate hostility and acrimony, it is that kind of particularly odious suggestion. I want to say that I, for my part, was and am offended. I am not a veteran of the last world war; I was fortunate enough to be only 15 years old when it ended.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You look older.

MR. KING: That's not unusual, after having to put up with the kind of asinine comments that float across the floor from time to time — that's enough to age anyone.

But I am discussing a matter that the members may think is comical. I don't, and I'm saying in all seriousness that I was very offended and I remain very offended.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes, and I get offended with the ties from that side of the House too.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to ignore the minister's comments. If I considered the gentleman man enough, I would probably ask for a retraction; but I doubt that I can dignify it by giving him that status.

HON. MR. CHABOT: You're starting to talk like Frank Howard.

MR. KING: Well, I'm a very tolerant individual, Mr. Chairman, and I'm going to maintain a benevolent attitude despite the demeanor of that member and his rather insulting comments.

Mr. Chairman, I am and I will remain offended regarding the Premier's comments that we are in any associated with national socialism. As I indicated earlier, my father was a veteran of World War I and was wounded twice in defence of the British parliamentary system and the democracy that we as a party have a history of protecting and upholding. My father was also a veteran of World War II, as were two of my brothers and indeed, one sister. I believe that many members of this House are veterans, and I want to ask how members on that side of the House would feel if the leader of our party, particularly when he was Premier, had called an election based on a charge that the party he opposed was composed of national socialists — in other words, fascists and Nazis. I think that was an affront to thousands of British Columbians, I think it was an affront to the dignity of this Legislature, and I think it brought politics in British Columbia to its lowest ebb ever.

There are people in the city of Revelstoke who belong to the Royal Canadian Legion, and they're very active in that institution as well as being members of our party. They were so incensed by those remarks of the Premier that they were prepared to march down to Victoria and demand an audience with him as veterans who fought for this country. The Premier never fought, and I doubt whether he or his family has the record of defending freedom in this nation that my family has. I resent very much being called a national socialist.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: You're a phoney.

MR. KING: I'm a phoney? Well, you're not a human being, my friend; you're not even a man — neither one of you.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame!

MR. KING: Anyone who calls me a fascist, I tell you, is subhuman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, earlier in the evening I read from Beauchesne. I'm going to try once again; this is from Sir Erskine May, and it just very briefly says: "Good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language. Parliamentary language is never more desirable than when a member is canvassing the opinions or the conduct of his opponents in debate." This evening there has been a repetition of what we experienced this afternoon. It appears to emanate from both sides of the House. I ask that the members who wish to participate in this debate wait until the speaker who is

[ Page 401 ]

currently on his feet has finished, and then participate if they feel so inclined. The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke will please continue.

MR. KING: I, and many others, were deeply offended by the Premier's charge that I and members of my party in any way associate with or believe in the doctrines of fascism and Nazism. Those were the stated comments of the Premier, not on one occasion, but repeated a number of times. If he has any respect for parliament, if he has any respect for decency in politics, if he has any respect for thousands of veterans in this province who fought to preserve this nation as a free one, where difference of political opinion could be debated, without slanderous accusations and charges being made, then he should apologize to this Legislature. Members can taunt and gibe all they wish, but I want to tell you that there are many people out there in the community who feel far more angry than I am tonight, and, believe me, I am angry when I see the cavalier way in which the Premier and many of his members treat this whole incident.

If the Premier ever wants any good will in this institution again, if he is interested in elevating political debate in this province, if he is interested in addressing himself and his administration to the issues of the day, then he has an obligation to stand, like a man, in this Legislature and admit that his remarks were intemperate and to apologize for the insult that he inflicted on thousands of British Columbians. Failing that, Mr. Chairman, I have to assume that we will continue in the kind of acrimonious state that this Legislature has declined to since the election of the remnants of the Social Credit government. I hope the Premier will do that in all good conscience and in all good will.

There is one other matter I hope the Premier will respond to. That relates to the issue of BCRIC, and I'm not sure whether I should discuss this under the Premier's estimates or not. I appreciate that there is a bill before the Legislature on this matter and I would ask your advice as to whether it should be discussed at this particular time or not. But the Premier did deal with the organization and the establishment of the British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation.

I note that by press release dated June 4, 1979, the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) has indicated that a large portion of the tree-farm licence held by Can-Cel has been relinquished by that particular company. I will read that press release into the record of the House, because I think it has interesting implications for the new investment corporation. It indicates that Can-Cel forests have been reduced.

"Forests Minister Tom Waterland announced today that Canadian Cellulose Company, Can-Cel, has agreed to a reduction of its tree-farm licence No. 1 located on forest lands in the Skeena and Nass River valleys in north-western British Columbia, Prince Rupert forest region. TFL 1 has been reduced from approximately 2.7 million to 1.0 million hectares and the annual allowable cut is similarly reduced from 2 million to about 1.2 million cubic metres of wood. Waterland has been assured by both ministry and company officials that the reduced annual allowable cut, annual wood supplies from various other company properties, purchased logs and excess chip production in the region are sufficient to meet the wood-supply requirements of Can-Cel's northern manufacturing operations — the two Prince Rupert pulp mills and the Terrace and Kitwanga sawmills. Waterland said the deletions are all Crown land and will again come under direct provincial control. The areas will be reviewed for inclusion in one or more of the following timber supply areas: North Coast, Kallum, Kispiox and Prince George. Reviews of these areas will be completed in stages, with the final one being completed in late 1980. Some of the wood volumes from the deleted areas may be available for the small business program."

The chairman of BCRIC, Mr. Helliwell, indicated in a television interview, when the share issue was suspended on June 15, that far more capital had come in than they anticipated and that the corporation was now cash-rich and asset-poor. I wonder about the mechanism for the reduction of the tree-farm licence of Can-Cel, one of the component parts of BCRIC. I want to ask the Premier who made the decision to reduce Can-Cel's timber supply. As the Premier well knows and the Legislature well knows, the value of timber companies in British Columbia relates in large measure to their timber holdings, their licence holdings. That has now been reduced in very significant fashion. The Minister of Forests indicates that the company has agreed to reduce their licensed fibre.

My question to the Premier is also this: who asked them to reduce their timber supply? Was it the government of the province of British Columbia? Was it the administration of BCRIC? What effect does the Premier anticipate that this reduction in the forest licence held by Can-Cel may have on the share value of the British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation?

I am particularly interested in answers to these questions. I wonder if it was political dictation that caused Can-Cel to agree to reduce their timber holdings and I wonder if this kind of political intervention will continue to affect the resources held by the British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation. I would appreciate it very much if the Premier would respond to these matters that I have raised, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, we have been treated tonight to a rather sad situation from the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke. He stood here in this House, and he told the members of this Legislature that politics had reached its lowest ebb. He proceeded to demonstrate just how low that lowest ebb could be by taking statements out of context and trying to relate those to a period in the history of Europe that was very sad to the entire world.

He knows full well that the Premier, when referring to socialism on a national scale, was referring to the brand of socialism which had been brought about in this province by that party when they were in government. They attempted to turn over the resources of this province to the federal government in return for a trend of socializing this country on a national scale. He knows full well that there was never any intent by the Premier or anyone else to relate the term "national socialism," or socializing on a national scale, to any other political movement that ever took place in this world. That member should be ashamed of himself for

[ Page 402 ]

distorting statements and trying to raise an issue like that. He is sanctimonious enough to tell about his family's part in World War I and World War II. Do you think, Mr. Member, that there are not millions of people in this country whose families took part in the wars in Europe?

MR. KING: The guy called me a national socialist....

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Member, you should be ashamed of yourself for stooping to such a low level of political garbage! Mr. Member, you....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The Minister of Forests has the floor.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: Mr. Chairman, the member opposite is obviously embarrassed about the disgraceful dissertation which he gave to this House. He should be absolutely ashamed of himself. Mr. Chairman, I had to say that. I'm disgusted with the speech that member made. It's just the lowest thing I've ever heard in this House. You know, I used to have some level of respect for that member. I always thought he was a rather forthright member even though his political leanings are much different than mine. But I've certainly changed my opinion of that member here tonight.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, order, please. Earlier this evening and at the start of committee and once again some time ago, I drew to the attention of members on both sides of the House the directing of personal attacks at other members. I appreciate that in the heat of the debate people sometimes say things they don't want to say, but it's the duty of your Chairman to try and maintain order. I'm going to ask that all members once again respect the rules of debate and direct themselves towards the estimates of the Premier and stay away from personal attacks on other members. Please continue.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: The only question the member asked in his long speech this evening was related to Can-Cel and tree farm licence No. 1. If that member wanted to do some research, and if he had read the prospectus of the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation, he would read that negotiations and discussions with Can-Cel regarding the reduction of TFL 1, which has much more wood than they could use, took place long before the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation was ever even thought of. These discussions have been going on for the last couple of years. That member should have read the prospectus so he would have been fully aware of that. It was ongoing, and it was clearly disclosed in the prospectus of the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation.

MR. LEGGATT: I'd like to begin by asking the Premier some questions on the estimates, rather than getting into the history of the last 40 years in this country.

The first question I have of the Premier deals with his comments concerning fisheries jurisdiction in his initial remarks. I have some concern with an enhancement program presently underway. It's costing us all a good deal of money, and it doesn't matter whether you wear a federal hat or a provincial hat — that's a lot of money that's going into an enhancement program. I'm concerned that the major industry in this province, and rightly so, being the forest industry, has a tremendous amount of political clout and influence. I suppose that's also rightly so. My concern is that where a conflict arises in regard to the enhancement program, and where we're looking at enforcement in terms of rehabilitating our salmon resource, which has the capacity to double, provide tremendous job creation and tremendous export, we may find that the clout of the forest industry is so heavy that the fishing industry loses in terms of its enhancement program.

I'd like to be assured, Mr. Chairman, that if the Premier is going to be successful, as the results in the Newfoundland election apparently show he may, that is a jurisdiction that is going to go to the province. I want some assurance that there's going to be some clout to protect those streams for the fishermen of British Columbia. That clout doesn't really show in the Queen Charlottes. We want to make sure that there is a law in British Columbia that protects those stream-beds, so that we can double that fantastic resource that we have here in British Columbia. I'I leave that subject; but I'd like the Premier to respond to that, in terms of the political realities of the power groups in the province of British Columbia.

I have no doubt at all that one of the greatest power groups in this province lies in the forest industry — not merely in the corporate sector, but certainly in the trade union sector as well. And I want to know how any government of the day is going to resist tremendous pressure from the forest industry not to go ahead with this fantastic enhancement program that's underway. So I must tell you, Mr. Chairman, I have some reservations about this immediate move in terms of fisheries jurisdiction.

The Premier also indicated that British Columbia has been contributing a good deal to the balance of payments in Canada. That's correct; there's no question about that. We are certainly, I suppose, carrying a good deal of the burden in terms of Canadian trade. I'd like the Premier to respond in terms of one very important issue that's come up which has adversely affected our balance of payments. That is this irrational move on the part of the Premier's friend, the Prime Minister, to move that embassy in the Middle East from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

AN HON. MEMBER: You have to be kidding. Where do you think you are?

MR. LEGGATT: Well, you can say what you like about it. A person who is the leader of a province surely has a position on that. Surely he's willing to commit his government to a position to protect the Canadian dollar. Or is he just going to continue to sit in the weeds? I think the Premier should respond one way or the other in terms of his position vis-à-vis the federal government and the position that they've taken that they are going to move the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. That's had a tremendously adverse effect in terms of Canada's position in the world economic community.

HON. MR. BENNETT: What's Broadbent say?

MR. LEGGATT: Broadbent is clearly against this move. I'm very happy to associate myself with the remarks

[ Page 403 ]

he made on television yesterday, and today as well. I hope the Premier will respond to that.

During the course of the Premier's remarks he indicated, looking over here, that the hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody was nodding in agreement when the Premier was criticizing the New Democratic Party for failing to control PWA and allowing it to get into the hands of the Alberta government. And that was quite correct; I had very strong feelings at that time that we should have taken over PWA — we should have kept the head office right here in British Columbia.

But let's ask ourselves: what, if the New Democratic Party government attempted to take over PWA, would have been the Premier's position on that takeover move? Wouldn't he have been up ranting and raving about these terrible socialists who were going for takeovers again? You know, he can't have it both ways all the time. That was a takeover of a private corporation by a government, Mr. Premier — through you, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. BENNETT: It was no government takeover; you weren't listening.

MR. LEGGATT: I want the Premier to listen to something else. He has been in power since 1975....

AN HON. MEMBER: Back into history!

MR. LEGGATT: I'm not going to go back into history.

You have been in power since 1975, and what have you done about these complaints you've been making on the floor of this House about the failure to take over PWA? What have you done about developing a competitive policy in British Columbia? Why don't you get yourself an airline, Mr. Premier, and do something about giving PWA some competition, and deliver some decent air service into the interior of British Columbia? That's what you should be doing.

MR. BRUMMET: I'm going to read this back to you.

MR. LEGGATT: I hope so.

Mr. Chairman, the Premier's more interested in sitting here rewriting the history of the province of British Columbia than in getting on with the problems that are here today, not those that were here yesterday. There's no point in continually saying "You guys did this" and "You guys did that." You see, they've only had one successful election, Mr. Chairman. That was in 1975, and they're bound and determined to always run the 1975 election again. You know, it worked once and they think it will work forever. I just want — through you, Mr. Chairman — to assure the Premier that it's worked once and that's all; it's not going to work again.

The Premier has skated around another issue, a vital and important one, which is the subject of PetroCan. I was very happy to have been part of a minority government. I see my colleague from Skeena (Mr. Howard) and the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis)....

HON. MR. BENNETT: When were you part of a minority government?

MR. LEGGATT: In 1972 we were part of that particular parliament.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You weren't part of the government.

MR. LEGGATT: We were happy to take credit for the good things that were achieved in that period of time.

Interjection.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Premier, I'm happy to go on record as saying that PetroCan was a creation of the New Democratic Party of Canada. I'm proud of it; I always will be.

Unfortunately the Premier has failed to understand the significance of that particular move in terms of Canada's energy needs. I think the member for North Vancouver–Seymour appreciated the significance of that move. I'd like to hear these caucus discussions between the two of them, in terms of what their respective positions are on PetroCan. If PetroCan is such a bad thing, don't buy any Phillips 66 gasoline. That horrible company now controls Phillips 66 in the west. Are they charging too much? Is there a real problem in Phillips? Not at all.

AN HON. MEMBER: What does that have to do with estimates?

MR. LEGGATT: It has a lot to do with estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Perhaps if you addressed the Chair we could proceed with orderly debate.

MR. LEGGATT: In terms of PetroCan and what was accomplished, I think we should go back to what has been an energy policy for Canada that made a great deal of sense. That energy policy for Canada was developed by two people in this country: one of them was Tommy Douglas and his assistants; the other one was Hon. David Barrett, then Premier of British Columbia. A great deal has been made of an apparent offer to somehow give away the energy resources of British Columbia to the federal government, as if the federal government were some kind of foreign power. I'm beginning to think that you guys are bucking for an ambassadorship to go back there.

Canadians are Canadians whether you wear a federal or a provincial hat. You still own those resources whether the federal government or the provincial government controls them. You as a person will still own them.

Interjections.

MR. LEGGATT: Yes, you will. The Premier looks surprised about that. He doesn't think they will. He thinks it's better if Shell Oil owns them: that's really where it's at.

I think I should read into the record exactly what it was the then Premier of British Columbia said at that time. This is his submission to the federal conference of the Premiers and the Prime Minister. He said:

"On November 10 last, I stated that British Columbia would surrender the oil and natural gas rights granted to it by the constitution, if the government of Canada resolved to assume control of all the country's petroleum reserves and ownership, the means of petroleum production, transmission, processing and distribution.

[ Page 404 ]

"Mr. Prime Minister, I refer to your statement this morning on page 6 where you say Canadian producers should have first claim to Canadian markets. That, sir, is impossible under the present circumstances because 79 to 90 percent of those producers are American-owned under the present circumstances. So unless we have Canadian public ownership, the dream that you spelled out on page 6 is impossible.

"Our offer stands. In our view, such a program for recovery of national public sovereignty over this vital industry is the best answer for Canadians to the energy problems that we are here to discuss. However, the federal government has yet to indicate its willingness to adopt this solution. I understand there is some resistance by some of my fellow provinces, so today we are offering an alternate plan."

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

That's what was said. The Premier doesn't want to read the whole thing. He should read it all into the record, because it is the essence of what is a decent energy policy for this country. He also said: "This plan contemplates continued provincial ownership of the resource" — do you hear that, Mr. Member? — "and continued recovery, processing and sale through commercial channels..."

MR. BARRETT: You didn't read that, did you, Bill?

MR. LEGGATT: You didn't read that one.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You don't understand what you're doing. Don't ask me to explain it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LEGGATT: It continues:

"...but with a very different system for the distribution" — I'm getting to the good part now — "of resulting profits. As a petroleum producing province, we would expect the full assistance of the federal government in obtaining a true, competitive energy value for our resource on the export market. For our part, we are ready to make from the proceeds a contribution towards the stabilization of domestic petroleum prices during a reasonable period of adjustment to world energy market changes."

I can go into a great deal more detail, but within that is the essence of survival for Canada in terms of our energy resources. If you get up here and make this kind of phoney argument about giveaways, how can you possibly ever develop a national energy policy?

The Premier made some very grand statements here about going to the province of Quebec and saying: "Oh, please, stay with us. Don't leave. We've got to keep the country together." This is great motherhood stuff, Mr. Chairman; but he won't give them one dime's worth of energy to survive or stay within the province. He hasn't said anything about equalizing energy prices across Canada.

You've got to, once in a while, come to the bargaining table with something. What's happened is that the Premier has continued to go to the east with nothing. That's one of the reasons this country is in a bit of a sad state in terms of its national unity position.

I want to say another word about a surprising statement I heard this afternoon which deals with the question of succession duties.

HON. MR. MAIR: Have you read that paper, Stu? If you have, you're the only one there who has.

MR. LEGGATT: I have read those papers, and I must say I didn't think the five-regions concept was the most horrible thing I've ever heard. Okay? But in terms of another statement, I find surprising the pride with which this government takes in having abolished all succession duties. Surely someone who has left an estate of $2 million owes just a little bit back to the rest of the community. What is this business of: "Oh, we've got to have these giant capital acquisitions; we can't force these people to pay anything back"? They owe something back to this community because this community helped them rise, and helped them grow, and prospered with them, and helped them develop all these funds. And now they don't want to give a dime back. They'd rather take it down to Palm Springs and play around the pool with it. Well, Mr. Chairman, that's a philosophy I reject. That's a philosophy of outrageous selfishness.

Back to the Premier's estimates. I now want to ask the Premier another specific question. It deals with something as at least a B.C. nationalist. I certainly couldn't call him a Canadian nationalist, but as a great supporter of the province of British Columbia I respect the position his minister took in negotiating sea boundaries. The objection they took to the federal position was wise and right. But something else is missing in this. Right now the government of Canada has refused to enforce its boundaries in the Dixon Entrance in the north of British Columbia.

I want to know where the Premier has been in terms of representation to the federal government to say: "You enforce the boundaries of B.C. You look after the province of British Columbia." I've had no indication that the Premier or any other member of this government objected to this backing up by the federal government in terms of maintaining that particular boundary.

I want to say a word or two about foreign ownership. Let's talk about MacMillan Bloedel. That's just as interesting. This is the one that was saved from the horrible tentacles of CPI. I listened carefully this afternoon because the Premier told us why he had saved it. It was because it was getting too big. Its size was its problem. We don't want this giant corporation in British Columbia. It's got to be held to size; it's got to get smaller.

Well, I was back in Ottawa when something called the Bryce commission was doing an investigation into corporate concentration. That's of genuine concern about how large corporations were dominating the economy of Canada. So I thought: we have a government and a Premier who is very concerned about a worthwhile objective to try to keep competitiveness in the marketplace and make sure that we don't have great giant corporations dominating small business and dominating the market. So I thought I'd like to see what their brief was to the Bryce commission, because the Bryce commission had 196 separate briefs on the subject of corporate concentration. There was one from the government of Ontario. Various representatives from all

[ Page 405 ]

across the country expressed their concern to the Bryce commission. I don't see one word from the government of the province of British Columbia about corporate concentration on the Bryce commission — not a word. Maybe it was too expensive to send a representative back. I don't know. Maybe it was going to be too costly. I know the Premier is concerned about money; he doesn't give any research out.

Mr. Chairman, the other day the Premier was kidding us about mistakes, and he was kidding me because I had misread the BCRIC legislation. He said: "Gosh, there's lots of control in there. You guys are talking out of the wrong side of your mouth. We won't sell that stuff abroad." And he's right. It's in there. Of course, he started off with B.C. preference — that's out. The next move is going to be selling those shares abroad. I'm just waiting for the market forces to see what happens. We'll see what happens if those shares happen to drop and what desperate moves would happen to that corporation if they decide to try to make sure they grow. They want a bigger market for those shares.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Will you apologize like your leader? Will you?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Please address the Chair.

MR. LEGGATT: I'I certainly apologize when I am wrong. Why do you think I'm on my feet? I'm apologizing for misinterpreting that particular legislation. But I want to tell the Premier something. He kidded us because he said: "Well, that member's probably tripped in his stall; he's just there angling for more research help." You're darned right I am, Mr. Chairman, Anybody who appreciates the parliamentary process knows there has to be adequate help and research for the opposition. It makes them a better government, as a matter of fact. I don't see that appreciation in this House — not at all.

HON. MR. MAIR: Did you forget your name?

MR. LEGGATT: There's nothing the matter with having adequate resources for every member of this particular House.

"B.C. Is not for sale." That has been a sort of model. It's almost a slogan this government ran on, and I'm not too sure who said what to the Foreign Investment Review Agency, or whether this government was for foreign investment review or not for it; I'm not sure. All I know is what they did with their own assets — they sold them abroad. Surely those actions speak far louder than all the words in a campaign.

I do have some words, however — and I hope if these words are incorrect, someone on that side of the House, Mr. Chairman, will get up and correct them — I'd like to read from the Financial Times of October 10, 1977, an article by Mr. Hugh Nangle, following a conference between Mr. Evan Wolfe and Jean Chretien. This was the news report: "British Columbia's Evan Wolfe pressed Mr. Chretien to do away with the Foreign Investment Review Agency on the ground that it is discouraging much-needed foreign investment. He found little support at the conference table." Now could we possibly be so misled?

Interjection.

MR. LEGGATT: I don't know. But you'I have to check with Hugh Nangle of the Financial Times; he was there. Perhaps the Premier will now ask Mr. Wolfe whether he still has that view or whether he had it originally.

The Victoria Times this year on January 19 said as follows: "Economic Development Minister Don Phillips said B.C. has never pressured Ottawa to dilute the powers of the Foreign Investment Review Agency, as claimed by Barrett on Thursday." Somebody has got to get their act together over there. We really know where you stand on this subject. There is no philosophic commitment to ownership of Canadian and B.C. assets by Canadians, and there is no philosophic commitment against foreign ownership. I don't think the public are fooled for one minute. But they keep running things up the flag, and they salute it, and they say: "Well, let's try this one on for size; it sounds like a good slogan." And they try it. And everybody gets sort of confused for a while, not sure where they are. Be honest about it: it is in fact harming foreign investments to be a complete purist as a Canadian nationalist. Take the flag and be courageous enough to do it: that's what we say. You have to be able to do that. But be a Canadian nationalist first; have some feeling for the future of Canada. This is not going to be just another American franchise province — not as long as we in the NDP have anything to do about it.

Every once in a while the Premier looks over here, saying: "Ha ha! You've got some problem there, Mr. Barrett. There's Mr. Leggatt there — he wants your job." He's really taken with this leadership problem. It almost seems to be preying on his mind. When I look at the first member for Surrey (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) sitting right behind him — and I know the Premier has this preying — not on this side it's worrying him, though. Oh no; it's over there.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Especially if I'd lost twice.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Chairman, there are winners and there are losers, but without leadership this province is the real loser as long as this Premier is here. We've got to spend less time rewriting history in this place and getting on to dealing with some of the other problems. I'm not going to get into the national socialism debate; I think it was an easy one for the Premier to deflect. All he had to do was get up, and it would have been a one-minute job to defuse that issue. But because he thought there were a couple of Brownie points he hung on to it for a while, thinking: "Well, we'll get a little edge on these guys." What happens is we get into this kind of abrasive debate. That kind of debate is completely unnecessary, but the reason for this debate is the Premier. and there is no question about that.

MR. DAVIS: We've had a wide-ranging debate; it's touched on resource development, international trade and on foreign ownership. These are very important subjects. I want to deal with an aspect of resource development which is very important. It has been a major issue in Alberta and an important issue in Saskatchewan. It is the two-price system for selling our resources in Canada and in the markets of the world. We've had a two-price system in this country in respect to manufactured goods for a century, ever since the national policy was brought in by John A. Macdonald in the 1870s; that two-price system saw a world price and a higher price in Canada for manufactured goods.

[ Page 406 ]

Canadians as consumers have paid considerably more for manufactured goods generally made in central Canada than they would have paid had they been able to buy them without an import duty. Today that import levy averages around 20 percent. As Canadians, whether we live in Toronto, Vancouver, the Peace River district or Newfoundland, we are paying 20 percent more than we would pay if there weren't import duties. We are paying it, basically, to buy Canadian-produced goods, produced by Canadian labour largely in central Canada. We've had a two-price system, but it has been a two-price system in respect to manufactured goods. Now in the 1970s we have what could be, and I hope is not, the beginnings of another two-price system. It's a two-price system which sees Canadians who produce resource materials getting less than the world price for their product. The Alberta government has been very concerned about the fact that the oil produced in Alberta was selling internally in Canada for considerably less than the world price. But Alberta has also been concerned about the fact that the oil produced in Alberta was selling internally in Canada for considerably less than the world price. But Alberta has also been concerned about the fact its oil sold in the United States was also returning to Alberta only the internal Canadian price, not the world price.

Alberta currently, and I'm talking in very round figures, receives about $12 a barrel for oil which is worth nearly $20 a barrel on world markets. It does so because the federal government has now introduced an export tax. So we now have not only import duties on manufactured goods, but an export tax on our raw materials. We have it, in effect, on natural gas as well because natural gas going to Toronto is priced at a much lower figure than could have been obtained had they been able to sell it directly to the United States. Our concern has to be whether this trend in the energy area, that of levelling export taxes or administratively, through regulatory bodies, arranging for a lower internal Canadian price than the world price, will persist and will spread. Will it spread into coal if world oil and coal prices continue to rise? Are we going to see not only Alberta coal but British Columbia coal shipped to Ontario for a considerably lower price than can be obtained by selling the coal to Japan and that trade perpetuated, essentially, by an export tax levied by the federal government?

I can't imagine Saskatchewan being happy about a two-price system for potash whereby potash was sold at a low price and export tax was levied by the federal government, with a higher price obtained in foreign markets than that coming back to the producing province. I can't imagine Premier Levesque in Quebec being happy about asbestos from that province being sold at well below the world price as far as he and his producers are concerned, and yet yielding a much higher price on world markets. I can't imagine Ontario being happy about nickel being marketed in a two-price system. There is less return to the source areas, to the source provinces, to the producers, than could be obtained if there was free trade or relatively free trade — or the current kind of marketing we have in respect to lumber.

When I was in Ottawa in the period 1973-74 there was a heady period in which a new industrial strategy was being developed. It didn't mature; it didn't materialize. But there were a number of members, including ministers from Ontario, who suddenly saw a vision. It was not only that the manufacturing industries of Ontario would be protected by an import duty but that they would also get their raw materials at less than the world price, that they would get their oil, their gas, their electricity — whatever it was — at less than world price, and this would give them a competitive advantage in the markets of the world.

That would be a two-edged strategy. It certainly would favour the manufacturing areas but it would be detrimental to the basic interests of the resource-rich provinces. We currently have in federal-provincial conferences, for example, provinces like Newfoundland looking ahead and saying: "If we find oil on the Continental Shelf, we want the world price. We don't want a lower Canadian price. We don't want an export tax levied by the federal government on our resources." I'm glad we don't have this sort of thing in respect to lumber, but it could conceivably happen. I'm glad we don't have it in respect to our fishery resources, that we as producers get the world price.

Now I'm concerned about publicly owned corporations. I'm concerned about PetroCan. I'm concerned about nationally publicly owned corporations if they become the sole instrument for development in the particular industry. If you have PetroCan being the only developer-producer-transporter of oil and gas in the country operating in the provinces as well as the territories, what's to say that PetroCan won't be directed by a government in Ottawa to find more resources in a particular province and ship those resources, not for export and for sale at the world price but to other provinces — and notably the central provinces — at less than the world price? That would be my main concern about PetroCan becoming the only vehicle for resource development, particularly oil and gas development in this country.

I think there is a role for PetroCan. I think it's a role similar to that, for example, of British Petroleum, acting like another private corporation in the private sector — large, competent, Canadian-owned, but not an arm of the federal government. It should be an agency, a corporation, in other words, that basically makes good sound business arrangements and looks for more resources in this country, makes more oil and gas available. I think that is a role for PetroCan, but it should not be the sole oil and gas corporation in this country and certainly not as an arm or instrument of the federal government.

Equalization payments exist in this country. The national government can tax in any way it wants, with any mode or method of taxation equally. It is to be hoped it taxes all Canadians equally. It makes sure that its payments across the country for federal projects are reasonably distributed across the country. It also nowadays ensures that the incomes of the provincial governments are comparable across this country — that the income of a province like Newfoundland is comparable to the average income of Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia. That's the sort of thing we can reasonably do as Canadians.

But I do not believe that the resource-rich areas of this country should be discriminated against by a two-price system, and I don't believe that there should be national corporations which would completely dominate a resource area and act as an arm of the federal government in a policy sense.

MS. SANFORD: I would like to comment briefly on the term "national socialist," which the Premier first used on prime-time TV on the day he called the election.

[ Page 407 ]

Mr. Chairman, I must assume that the Premier had full understanding of the fascist connotation of the term "national socialist." Certainly within my constituency people would come up to me and express their dismay and their sorrow and sometimes their disgust because the Premier had chosen that term. Now if my assumption is correct, and the Premier knew the connotation at the time he used it, he must stand up in this Legislature, in my view, and apologize to this House and to all of the people of the province.

Mr. Chairman, if he did not know the connotation of the term when he first used it the day he called the election, he certainly at this stage of the debate must have an understanding of the connotation of that word.

In any case, Mr. Chairman, it is incumbent upon the Premier to stand up in this Legislature during these debates and apologize to this Legislature and to everyone in British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to raise one other issue that has not been raised under these estimates to date. This goes back a bit to a commitment made by the Premier on the floor of the House in 1977 regarding the expenditure of funds committed by this Legislature under the previous NDP government to the children in Vietnam. I would like to quote briefly from the statements made by the Premier in February 1977, as quoted from Hansard.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: They didn't put up one nickel.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Minister, I am quite aware of that.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The New Democratic Party never put up any money. Say it for the record.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Comox continues.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) is yelling across the floor of the House that there was no money put up by the previous government in a special fund. I don't deny that. What I'm going to do at this stage is quote from the commitment made by the Premier in February 1977. I would like the Minister of Municipal Affairs to listen closely to what the Premier said at that time. I’ve got it written out here so that it will be correct: it’s out of Hansard. I would like the Premier to listen too, because these are his own words, and I have a question based on these words:

In regard, Mr. Chairman, to the one question concerning the money that was voted by this House for children in Vietnam, I am sure the obligation remains with all of us. Nobody denies that. The fact that not only that money but other money had been spent by the former government still doesn't relieve the obligation of the Legislature that goes beyond normal spending.

Then, Mr. Chairman, the Premier went on to say in February 1977:

Whether it is on the municipal level, the provincial level or the federal level, people elect new governments and throw out old ones so that they can have a change in policies. It is a well-known fact that in these elections governments can't commit future governments because future governments are elected to make changes.

This is really important, Mr. Chairman:

However, yesterday we were dealing in a very sensitive area that was not a commitment of government but was a commitment of this Legislature. There is a strong distinction. It was a commitment that went beyond politics. It was a commitment made unanimously by a Legislature on a basis of human need. That commitment as legislation will be kept.

Now based on what I have read into the record again, Mr. Chairman, and the very clear commitment as outlined by the Premier at that time, I would like to ask what plans he has to carry out the commitment he so clearly stated to the Legislature in February 1977.

MR. HYNDMAN: Mr. Chairman, my remarks will not be lengthy. I have a couple of questions for the Premier relating to federal-provincial matters, and also relating to the question of foreign investment.

In prefacing my remarks, for the benefit of the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), I want to make just one observation in passing to the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King), and I say this very sincerely. I don't propose to revive that debate on the phrase "national socialism," but I do want to, for the record, simply say this: whatever that member may sincerely feel, and however disturbed he may be, and regardless of who is right and who is wrong, I would like his side to know that our side might say the very same thing about a very unfortunate phrase in the campaign called "an attack on the sick,'' which brought grave worry to people in hospitals in this province. I think — and this is all I am going to say, Mr. Chairman — this had no place in the campaign and I don't think in this debate at this time we should be in this kind of rehash of the election.

What I simply want to say is that if you want to get into that kind of note comparison, perhaps as politicians we all fail. But I think it is unfair to suggest that all the right is on one side; that one side is perfect in a campaign and that somebody else is all wrong. That's all I propose to say about it.

Now there are two areas, Mr. Chairman, which I would like to direct a couple of questions to the Premier. They are germane to his estimates. They are on the question of federal-provincial relations. I thought the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) prefaced what I really had in mind rather well when he made the observation that the Premier goes to the east with nothing. I think those were his words.

Well, Mr. Chairman. the Premier seems to come back with something pretty incredible for the people of B.C. The numbers suggest that in the four years from 1975 to 1979 the amount of bargained, worked-for dollars for British Columbia earned by this Premier have risen from about $450-odd million to over $900 million. It's an increase of about $450 million.

On a comparative basis, the increase annually now in federal-provincial bargained moneys earned by our Premier equals the amount of that tremendous subscription to BCRIC shares. Putting it somewhat differently, if you're saying that there's been an increase of $450 million annually coming back to B.C. now — bargained dollars — and if the sales tax per point earns the provincial treasury in the order of $150 million, it's about the worth of 3 sales tax points a year. Mr. Chairman, members may say the Premier goes down to the east with nothing. He must go down with

[ Page 408 ]

some magic, because he's coming back with something. Those are incredible numbers.

My question — and I'd appreciate some comment from the Premier — is given this remarkable growth at the rate of which these federal-provincial earned and bargained dollars have been coming back to British Columbia, and having regard to the change of government, does the Premier expect that we have a realistic chance, with continued hard work, of maintaining that rising rate of bargaining those dollars back or, realistically, is the time coming when there perhaps has to be something of a plateau?

Now my next series of questions — and there are three, Mr. Chairman — relate to the topic of foreign investment. We've had a very interesting path of debate from the opposition since the House convened. You'll recall that through the throne speech and the budget speech we heard a great deal about unemployment and job creation in British Columbia. Now, more recently, we've heard a great deal against foreign investment from the opposition. As a dutiful new member, I thought I'd try to do some research into this difficult question of foreign investment, and it struck me that the province of Alberta might be a good place to start. It appears to have by all accounts the humming economy of Canada, perhaps an economy that people marvel at, with a remarkably low unemployment rate in the order of 4 percent.

It's very interesting to see what you find studying Hansard from the province of Alberta, Mr. Chairman. A prominent member of the NDP — in fact, the NDP leader in Alberta — just a couple of weeks ago was commenting in the Alberta throne speech debate. He's Grant Notley, the Alberta NDP leader, the lone member there. But he does, I think, a workman-like job for his party over there. Mr. Notley and I went to school together. I know something of him. He's a very balanced and fair-minded person, and he had this to say two weeks ago in the Alberta throne speech debate about foreign investment. This is from the leader of the NDP in the province of Alberta. I think it's an interesting comment and perhaps it's worth remembering. Mr. Notley said:

Mr. Speaker, I don't think anyone disagrees that when you have foreign capital come in, one has to look at it from the perspective of a balance sheet. There are obviously going to be pluses. Certainly there are pluses. We see the pluses in the Alberta economy today — a buoyant economy with a very low rate of unemployment.

Mr. Chairman, that's the NDP leader next door in the province of Alberta, who is fair enough to observe that the question of foreign investment is a balanced one, and he's fair enough to admit that in the province of Alberta, which has admittedly some foreign investment, the balance has been a buoyant economy, a very low rate of unemployment and some definite pluses. He paints a balanced picture.

My questions for the Premier on this question of foreign investment are these, because I think we've had simply one point of view on foreign investment from our friends in opposition. It's a hard-edged point of view. It's a very negative point of view. I think it's fair to say that throughout the debates this session, our friends in opposition have at no time uttered a single positive statement about any possible benefit of foreign investment. I think that may be just a little one-sided.

So, Mr. Premier, would you consider these questions again, as they relate to your work at federal-provincial conferences, where you convene and discuss with provincial Premiers representing many political parties and, indeed, the NDP in Saskatchewan and formerly the NDP in Manitoba? The questions would be: First, is the British Columbia position with respect to foreign investment generally similar to that of the other nine provinces in Canada? Secondly, does any provincial government in Canada advocate a hard-line approach against foreign investment? And thirdly, if you hypothetically assumed that the British Columbia government adopted the hard line against foreign investment suggested by our friends in opposition, what would be the effect in terms of jobs and job creation in British Columbia, reprisal discrimination against British Columbians investing outside Canada, and the impact on British Columbia workers whose jobs depend on the success of B.C. business and B.C. ventures outside Canada?

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, the cabinet sweepstakes are in full swing. We're all delighted over here to hear those very thoughtful questions raised by the second member for Little Mountain — sorry, Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman). It's so easy to forget, and I'm sure he'll be so easy to forget, and I wouldn't be surprised if the Premier didn't forget the answers to the questions that he's forgotten. In any event, I'm sure we've all been delighted to hear that there might be some reprisals from some other nation if, in fact, we resist foreign investment, which already owns and controls some 65 to 70 percent of our economy.

I also would like to take a little umbrage at the member's suggestion that the opposition's suggestion that this government was attacking the sick was something that sent everybody in our province into a tailspin. I gather from that that when we come to his estimates the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) is to be treated very gently, that we mustn't mention shortages in hospitals, shortages of staff and all of the other problems that we are facing and have faced for many months in our province.

The Premier has seen fit to leave the chamber. I'm rather sorry that he has, because the question that I want to ask him is a question that only he can answer, and his backbenchers and his cabinet colleagues who are there to defend him....

AN HON. MEMBER: I'I note it down.

MR. COCKE: You'll note it down. Would you like to try to answer it? I don't think you could.

The question that I want to ask him is indeed about an attack, but it was an attack on a human being in New Westminster. It was an attack by a person that I couldn't believe would attack another human being in the way he did. In the election campaign — and I may reiterate this for the Premier if he doesn't answer, if he isn't within earshot — there was a pancake breakfast and a street assembly. During the electioneering a young person heckled, and he was quite ill equipped to deal with the polished politician and the situation that he found himself in. As a result of his heckling he was sucked into coming up on the stage by the Premier, and offered a microphone. The crowd, of course, screamed their heads off. He wasn't heard, but he was a person who should not have been treated in that way, made a fool of by the First Minister of this province. It was one of the most shameful things that I have ever heard of. The candidate running against me in New Westminster at that

[ Page 409 ]

time, when confronted with that at an all-candidates meeting a week or so later, said: "I dissociate myself with that behaviour." That's a quote.

You can joke all you like. We've all seen the behaviour on television. I think most everybody in our town knows his name. There is certainly no reason why I am going to put it on the record here. It was certainly public knowledge in our town. Would that be a further embarrassment? Not on your life. But as far as I'm concerned, this is the kind of behaviour that one expects, particularly from one who would make the kind of charge that he made at the beginning of that campaign.

The members on this side of the House say how much they not only regret the charge of national socialism, but how much they abhor that kind of behaviour. Talk all you like and as long as you like, but there is no way that the political climate in this province can improve as long as there is that kind of hate and that kind of vitriol. You know that the one thing that I try to refrain from is that kind of absolutely abhorrent behaviour, like this afternoon.

This is the first time I've spoken in the House on this debate, and as a matter of fact I'd prefer not to, because who wants to? In any event, Mr. Chairman, that's what makes the world go round for this kind of politicking. It strikes me that it's about time that there was some backing off from that kind of behaviour. I have yet to see any kind of accommodation for the feelings of others where that particular individual, the Premier of this province, feels he can get away with pushing people around in the way he has. I think it's a shame, and I think it's about time that his colleagues assisted him in forming a new kind of pattern of behaviour, a pattern that possibly would be more commensurate with his office.

MR. BRUMMET: I said in an earlier speech in the House that nowhere in the province was the difference between the NDP and Social Credit policies more evident than it was in the Peace River country. Therefore, in order to support the Premier's point that his government works best, I would like to offer the following evidence.

The interprovincial migration was very real in our area, Mr. Chairman. A lot of my friends left; a lot of the oil and gas service companies left because the reason for their existence in that area had been destroyed. Oil and gas exploration and drilling had moved out, and these oil companies are big enough to fend for themselves. They were pushed out of the province at that time. They just went elsewhere and went to work drilling, but the people in the Peace River area were the ones who had to give up their homes, give up their jobs and move out because of the policies of the NDP government.

It wasn't the oil companies that got hurt. It was the people in the community. I would like to quote from the Trade and Commerce magazine of April 1979, which, because it was so damaging to the NDP, was actually withheld by this company until after the election. It was a special issue put out, listing Fort St. John as the city of the year. I would like to just read a couple of paragraphs from there:

"The city languished in a state of mild depression in the early 1970s as the provincial NDP government policy sharply reduced exploration activities in the northeast. The impact of this decision was felt throughout the Fort St. John economy as jobs were lost and payrolls shrank. But a change in government in late 1975 brought a renewed hope and a promise of new policy stimulants to get the oil industry rolling again. The beneficial effects of this accelerated effort were felt almost immediately as oil companies once again shifted into high gear. Drilling programs were stepped up dramatically and oil services and supply firms were hard-pressed to keep up with demand.

"More than three years have gone by since this sharp about-face, and this black gold of northeastern B.C. continues to lubricate the wheels of the Fort St. John economy, this time at a record pace."

The regional economic director made the statement that when the NDP government controlled the investment dollars, the majority of the exploration companies withdrew from the area and there was little or no growth or development in the service sector. The return of the oil rigs, however, changed all that. The statement of a national magazine gives you some indication of what happened there, and I don't need that kind of evidence because I was there. I don't know all the statistics. I didn't study all the statistics, nor did I employ research people to look at the picayune little details, because I didn't need to. I was there when it happened. You can show a chart of the building permits in Fort St. John as further evidence. The only decline in those building permits happened from '73 to '74, and from '74 to '75, a very drastic decline if any of you want to take a look at that magazine. You might be able to see it from here. Here's the decline and then here is what happened since — pretty drastic evidence of what happens when investment is not afraid to come into the province. The Holiday Inn, a several million dollar project, was not yet under construction when the election was called. The owners said: "No way: we are holding until after May 10." This, of course, was interpreted as a threat in the election campaign. To those people it was an investment fact of life; they had witnessed what happened before, and they certainly were not going to start building a 120-room facility there if this type of possibility existed. I might add that right after May 11 they started moving the soil, Mr. Chairman, and it is now well under construction.

I'm rather sorry that the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), Mr. Chairman. has left the House. This afternoon he was so sincere and philosophical, almost Socratic in delivering such an illogical and irrelevant dissertation. He questioned the Premier about philosophy and then, just to give you an example, he asked questions like this: "When are we going to hear from the Premier? When are we going to hear about what he thinks? When are we going to be able to share some of the views of the Premier?" This was after the Premier had spent considerable time in the last day or so explaining philosophy, policies, practices, achievements and programs. But certainly I can see why the member for Prince Rupert couldn't understand all this. His party is high on philosophy, but when it came time to show some evidence of policies that make that philosophy work, disaster was the result.

The Leader of the Opposition spent considerable time, Mr. Chairman, criticizing the Premier for not answering questions. He also spent time saying that the Premier asked his own questions and gave his own answers. He spent a good deal of his speech asking his own questions and answering them with very simple answers. We had...well, I

[ Page 410 ]

was going to say creating dragons, but perhaps I should say we had ample evidence of creating great big mosquitoes and then, right before our eyes, slaying them. He went on and made much of the fewer foreign takeovers during his term. Certainly we've witnessed that in our area, Mr. Chairman, because nobody was prepared to invest in British Columbia at that time. Certainly foreign money was not buying anything in British Columbia at that time.

I am also going to take this opportunity to refer briefly again to the Leader of the Opposition, who on numerous occasions has made reference to my previous occupation as a principal. He seems to be obsessed with this. He must have had a problem when he was in school. He must have spent so much time at the office that something or other bothers him. Since I can't hide my previous occupation, I thought perhaps I might play the role.

I decided to rate the opposition leader for his performance this afternoon. I could only give him a B for delivery, because he was not his usual jovial self. I started out giving him an A for confidence, but I took that down to a C-minus after the Premier had pointed to his errors in the Mexican gas crisis and the interprovincial migration figures. I started out with a C-plus for content, but I had to take that down to a D, considering all the errors he made. I must admit I had to stay with an A-plus for the courage he showed in the face of overwhelming evidence. Near the end of his talk, he again criticized the BCRIC program in the face of the overwhelming vote of confidence the people of this province had given him — that takes courage.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

MR. BARBER: I don't see the Premier anywhere. Has he left town tonight? I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 21

NAYS — 29

Mr. Barber requested that leave be asked to have the division recorded in the Journals of the House.

MR. BARBER: I wanted to see the Premier back in his seat, handling his own estimates, as he should. It's an ancient parliamentary device, much employed by the Liberal leader in days of yore. I'm sure he's familiar with it.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: Never! I used to be in the galleries, and I saw you do it, Pat.

I'd like to raise four questions of policy and within each of them ask a few questions. But I'd first of all like to discuss the question of the Premier's comments the night he announced the election. I too strongly share the feelings of my colleagues about the disgusting remark and the disgusting reference made to national socialism in connection with our own party.

The only New Democrat I've ever met who was pleased that the Premier accused us of being national socialists was my own campaign manager. He said it was good for 500 votes for us in Victoria. As it happens, we have a great many war vets in Victoria. Many of them voted NDP or CCF and went overseas to protect this country and were insulted very deeply by a Premier who could be so callous or so stupid or so much both, as usual, as to accuse them and us of being national socialists. So on behalf of my campaign manager, the only New Democrat I know who welcomed that idiotic remark of the Premier, I thank him for giving us 500 more votes in Victoria. I do not thank him for fouling the record of genuinely democratic socialists around the world, who fought probably harder than anyone else against Nazism in Europe and Nazism in its forms in other parts of the world. As hard as anyone else they fought.

The Premier's remarks were either the product of a hopeless dunce who doesn't know history or a man who chose for the narrowest and unhealthiest of reasons to inflame the temper of the electorate the night he called the election. No good came of it; you lost support. Your own members — the more decent of them — were embarrassed. At least one MLA sitting opposite, to my certain knowledge, apologized for what you said during the campaign. It was a disgusting comment; it served no good or decent purpose. A good and decent man would apologize for it, and I ask you to do so tonight. You apologize for it tonight and we'll never raise the subject again. Continue, as did the former Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) with her trash about secret police forces, and we will remind her — and you — from time to time about those untruths and about the motivations behind the telling of them.

The second comment I want to make is to share the comments made by my colleague for Comox (Ms. Sanford). You made a promise to do a charitable, good thing for the children of a country that fought a civil war for 26 years. You made a promise, as did this whole Legislature, to do a decent and civilized thing in another part of the world. It was a good promise when you made it; it will be all the better when you keep it. I ask you: will you keep that promise? The whole Legislature made it. Through them, the whole people of British Columbia stood for something fine and compassionate a few years ago. You made the promise yourself again, as my colleague from Comox reminded all of us tonight. Will you keep the promise? If you'll do so, when?

Interjection.

[ Page 411 ]

MR. BARBER: So what? Because some small portion of greed, some small element of selfishness, some narrow circle of self-interest says, "No, don't give the money away somewhere else, spend it here on us," does that make it right or fair? Do you justify your policies on the basis of having a dozen calls on a hotline show and eight went against you, so suddenly the policy has to be changed?

It was a fine promise when it was made; it was a promise first stated by your own now Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams). Why don't you keep it? Why aren't you big enough to keep it? Why aren't you decent enough to keep it? You yourself said it was a promise made not in a partisan spirit, but a promise made more subtle and more humanely than partisan politics is ever able to represent. You said it yourself, Mr. Premier. If you meant it then, mean it now. If you meant it before, do it now. That's the second question I put to you.

The third is in reply to what I think was the most well-done, well-researched and well-presented government speech of the day, and that was by the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis). His own attempts to get into cabinet are at least not as hopelessly sycophantic as are those of some others who also want to get into the cabinet. The member for North Vancouver–Seymour made a presentation about the nature of an energy policy, about the extent to which, if at all, it should be tied to a two-tiered or two-priced system. The member for North Vancouver–Seymour made, I think, the best speech we've heard from the government all day, or perhaps all week. One may not necessarily agree with the details and the particulars of every one of his conclusions. But you have to admire the man's intellect, the depth and the quality of his research, the ability of its presentation. Were other government members as able, it would be a more interesting debate.

I want to talk about some of the questions he raised, and add to them some of my own questions to the Premier about aspects of policy and instruments of policy in the energy field.

I'm not aware — nor did the member for North Vancouver–Seymour do other than infer it was — that it was the original intention of PetroCan to put out of business all the other petrochemical extractors, processors, refiners and distributors in Canada. I've read the legislation, and that's not what PetroCan was established to do. I don't know if he intended to leave that inference, but did he, and were he here now, I'm sure he'd correct it. That wasn't the purpose of PetroCan.

PetroCan serves a very different, a very distinct, and a very bright policy purpose. I'I get back to that in a moment, but I want to raise in the form of a question, before I return to PetroCan as a particular illustration of a policy, some other matters.

Government has, in its wealth of options, several that can create for us here in British Columbia, and across the country as well, instruments that make public choice. Let me illustrate. Government can, if it will, protecting our own energy interests, needs and commitments, use taxation as the principal instrument of public policy. It can restrict its whole activity to taxation, if it wishes. It can combine that, if it chooses, with a tariff and duty policy that gives preferential treatment to Canadian consumers, or could, if it were done, give some preference to non-Canadian consumers by virtue of a pricing policy that failed, or was so slow or so clumsy that it didn't take into account rapidly changing world market conditions. Those are some of the options a government has. They have the option of creating import and export pricing systems in energy, and in other fields. They can do that, too. Taxation, tariffs and duties, import and export pricing are among the several choices that a government could examine when it comes to protecting interests of Canadian consumers, Canadian investors in a world market where, to say the least, Canada has always been at a disadvantage by geography, the cost of extracting these resources, and the numbers of our people.

There is another option and that option is public ownership. It's not an option much dealt with by the member for North Vancouver–Seymour. It's an option, it would appear, only dimly understood by the Premier.

If, in the energy field in Canada, we were dealing with a situation where the basic resources, the basic refining capacity and the basic distribution network were not owned 90 percent and more by foreigners, it would be fairly hard to make a case for public ownership in that same field. But the unhappy fact is this: in Canada we have stupidly allowed foreign ownership to take advantage and control of better than 90 percent of the petrochemical and refining industry. Surely no one is going to dispute that. It's been a matter of unhappy public record for a long time.

What is a government that cares to protect the interests of Canadian consumers and Canadian investors to do when confronted with that? Let me reiterate: they have the options of taxation, of tariffs and duties, of import- and export-pricing systems. They also have the option — theoretically, at least — of public ownership to some extent for some purpose. It's not an option that this Premier seems to comprehend. I wish he did, because it's an option that many other capitalist, mixed economy and many other democratic socialist nations have chosen around the world. They've done so for perfectly good and rational purposes. They have not always succeeded. Public ownership is a very difficult thing, and I'I get to that in a moment, if I may.

Public ownership can and does create, by itself, enormous problems: problems of management and accountabilit;, problems of proportion, when it comes to its place in the market; problems of accountability to the trustees of all the people, say a Legislature like this. Public ownership has many problems in its execution, but it does remain, all the same, one of the fundamental choices that a competent administration can make to protect Canadian and British Columbian interests.

It's a choice that this government seems not to know much about. save in those rare instances where they were lucky enough to inherit a really fine public corporation. I think, for instance, of the B.C. Petroleum Corporation created by the previous administration. They've been wise enough not to change it. It works. Good for them; they've had the wisdom to ignore their own nonsense when in opposition, and they've kept it in government.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: We'll talk about ICBC as well in a moment.

In any case, I want, if I may, to keep it to debate about the role, if any, of competent public ownership in the energy field. Now if it were not the case that the Canadian energy industry, using the term generically, is 90 percent owned by foreigners whose interests are not Canadian, but

[ Page 412 ]

foreign, whose loyalties are not Canadian, but foreign, whose decision-making is not Canadian, but foreign, then it would be hard to make the case for some considered and appropriate public ownership in the energy field. Our energy industry is owned and controlled by aliens, persons whose fundamental loyalty, conviction and commitment is not to Canada.

AN HON. MEMBER: A racist remark.

MR. BARBER: I use "alien" in the sense of Canadian law that distinguishes between Canadian citizens and those who are not. Did you know that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Perhaps the debate would be more in order if you would address the Chair.

MR. BARBER: It certainly would, Mr. Chairman. If the whole engine of the Canadian economy is fundamentally resource extraction and processing, if we remain a country of such a tiny population in such an enormous area, then is it not possible to consider for just a moment that the ancient, conventional and ordinary options presented by taxation, tariffs and duties, import and export prices, are simply limited? Is it not possible to think originally for once? Is it not possible to conceive that we may have something to learn from the other great democracies that have experimented with forms of public ownership in the energy field?

AN HON. MEMBER: Like the Arabs.

MR. BARBER: It would certainly appear that the Arabs are managing and controlling their own energy resources and their energy interests better than we are. It may not be in our interest, but it certainly appears to be in their own. By that particular standard and measure, their policy would appear to be more successful than ours. They serve their own interests better than we seem to know how to serve ours. It's fundamental to ask always in whose interest decisions are made. It's one of the bedrock necessities of public policy debate that you always ask first, and then again at the end, in whose interests are decisions made.

I'm glad the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) is back. I would like to reiterate that I think you gave the best government speech we've heard all week. Congratulations to you. It was an intellectually disciplined and analytic speech, and I think that's a good and welcome thing. It was certainly a speech we never expect to hear from the Premier. He spoke in whole sentences; the whole sentences became whole paragraphs; the whole paragraphs had structure and formed whole arguments. We're not likely to see such intellectual discipline from this grammarian Premier we have.

Let's talk about the role, if any, of public ownership in the field of energy. Part of the debate that's going to take place is on the distinction, practical and applied, theoretical and understood, between public ownership and public control. Let me illustrate. All of the people are presumed to own B.C. Hydro, and yet one reasonably has to ask whether or not Hydro is in every aspect accountable to all of the people through this place.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: When Candide makes your notes for you and Jim helps, perhaps you could reply. Until then, would you listen?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BARBER: Hydro is in a very significant way a failure of public ownership. Hydro is a failure of public ownership, because we seem not to have learned the ways in which public ownership becomes public control acting in the public interest. If ever there could be illustrated a problem with applied public ownership in the energy field, it is that of Hydro itself in British Columbia.

A further problem, however, is raised: the ancient debate of babies and bathwater. Do you want to throw out the whole thing? It's probably not appropriate to do so. There may be new ways of governing Hydro, new ways of breaking up its decision-making, new ways of recreating accountability that would allow us to get the best of both worlds. So too with PetroCan, surely. So too with any other public enterprise. If the problem is lack of control, lack of genuine accountability on the part of that public enterprise to the public interest, then what new forms can be created? What new devices and structures can be applied?

In other parts of the world, the new structures are already in place. We've debated in other estimates the role of worker participation, the role of co-determinism, and the role of what is occasionally referred to as industrial democracy in recreating and restating and at another level in another and more subtle way genuine public control of this public enterprise.

PetroCan lacks that altogether. At the moment, PetroCan has no such operating principle; neither does Hydro. Hydro fails as an instrument of public ownership to the extent that it fails to be accountable to all the people. I suppose that's almost axiomatic. But the questions raised by the member for North Vancouver–Seymour don't necessarily lend themselves to the answers provided by the member for North Vancouver–Seymour.

If the law is inadequate, you make it a better law; you don't abandon the use of law altogether. If the legislation that created PetroCan is not adequate to the purpose, you amend the legislation. You don't throw it out altogether. If PetroCan doesn't serve enough of the Canadian interest because it doesn't occupy enough of the share of the marketplace, you don't privatize PetroCan. You make it larger. You make it more appropriate. You give it more weight, more leverage and more power. That may be one way that you solve the problem. That may be one way you answer the questions posed by the member for North Vancouver–Seymour.

If the failure of PetroCan is that it cannot have enough influence in a field where 90 percent of the ownership of our energy is alien, then maybe part of the answer is to make PetroCan larger and more influential. There are many models to public ownership. Creating a Crown corporation is not the only model at hand. There are new forms of public enterprise; there are new kinds of public ownership. PetroCan was one and still is one until Mr. Clark and the current government find a clever way to dispose of it.

MR. LEA: Free shares.

MR. BARBER: Yes, free shares in PetroCan.

[ Page 413 ]

What a shame it would be if we were to dispose of and discard the only serious attempt ever made by the people of Canada to control their own energy industry. What a shameful thing that would be to have to turn around in 20 years' time, when it's all owned by foreigners, when they control the price, they make the policy, they determine the investment, they determine where the drilling takes place and they determine what we'll pay for our own resources. What a shame if we had to admit that 20 years earlier we were so dumb and blind as to let it fall apart, as to negotiate it away, as to sell it to the Premier of a province who wants to tie it into a resource portfolio for his own political interests. That would be a purposeless and dumb thing to do.

The member for North Vancouver–Seymour raised some really important questions about the problems of a two-price system. He asked, reasonably enough, why it should apply to energy alone. Could it not also apply to salmon? Could it not apply to the agricultural industry generally? Could it not apply to lumber and so on? Those are fair questions. Maybe, in fact, two-pricing finally is not the most appropriate solution to the problem of an utter lack of Canadian ownership and Canadian control in the energy industry. Maybe the traditional and ordinary forms of public ownership aren't the answer either. There may be new forms of public ownership already being experimented with in other great democracies that point some of the way and offer some of the direction.

The law, in the ordinary sense, can never be adequate to explain, to envision and to create some marvelous view of the way the world could work if we were only all fair. I think, for instance, of a fine poem — I am sure the member for North Vancouver–Seymour knows it — by W.H. Auden. Mr. Auden was a great Anglo-Canadian poet; he was a great political thinker; he was a man who had some understanding of the limitations of law as an expression of the human spirit. As part of the philosophic debate — well and appropriately raised by my colleague for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), and to some extent handled by the member for North Vancouver–Seymour — I want to talk about, and I would appreciate the Premier's reply, whether or not in the field of energy policy, in the debate about public ownership, in the original thinking that must take place about new forms of public ownership, some of the questions raised, if I don't do it well enough, by a guy like Auden might be of some value.

I would remind the Premier that Mr. Auden was one of the socialists who struggled a while in a country called Spain. He was in the ambulance brigade, in his case — he was a pacifist — but he was a socialist who cared about what happened to human beings. I'm sure the comments about national socialism would offend him as well.

Auden wrote a poem called "Law Like Love". He tried to raise the philosophic problem of how love as a human principle becomes law as a governing principle in a democracy.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. I'm having some difficulty in relating the poems of W.H. Auden to the estimates of the Premier.

MR. BARBER: The Premier is the principal lawmaker in British Columbia. If the Premier's vision of law is as narrow and ordinary and banal as it appears to be, then there's something wrong with the Premier. We won't pass his estimates until he takes a new look at the nature of law in a democracy. Is it possible that law can mean more than a simple statute? Is it possible that law as a human principle can mean more than an order-in-council? Is it possible that law has another complexion in democratic human governance? If it's possible, then what form should that law take? Let me talk about law as one of the great political thinkers of our century, W. H. Auden, saw it. I think it's fair to refer to other political authorities and, in this case, a most poetical one:

Law, say the gardeners, is the sun.
Law is the one
All gardeners obey
Tomorrow, yesterday, today.

Law is the wisdom of the old
The impotent grandfathers shrilly scold;
The grandchildren put out a treble tongue,
Law is the senses of the young.

Law, says the priest with a priestly look,
Expounding to an unpriestly people,
Law is the words in my priestly book,
Law is my pulpit and my steeple.

Law, says the judge as he looks down his nose,
Speaking clearly and most severely,
Law is as I've told you before,
Law is as you know I suppose,
Law is but let me explain once more,
Law is The Law.

Yet law-abiding scholars write;
Law is neither wrong nor right,
Law is only crimes
Punished by places and by times,
Law is the clothes men wear
Anytime, anywhere,
Law is Good-morning and Good-night.

Others say, Law is our Fate;
Others say, Law is our State;
Others say, others say
Law is no more. Law is gone away.

And always the loud angry crowd
Very angry and very loud
Law is We,
And always the soft idiot softly Me.

If I no more than you
Know what we should and should not do
Except that all agree
Gladly or miserably
That the law is
And that all know this.
If therefore thinking it absurd
To identify Law with some other word,
Unlike so many men
I cannot say Law is again.
No more than they can we suppress
The universal wish to guess
Or slip out of our own position
Into an unconcerned conditiontion

[ Page 414 ]

Although I can at least confine
Your vanity and mine
To stating timidly
A timid similarity,
We shall boast anyway:
Like love I say.

Like love we don't know where or why
Like love we can't compel or fly
Like love we often weep
Like love we seldom keep.

AN HON. MEMBER: Beautiful!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! If we are to assume that the entire universe is in the realm of the responsibility of the Premier's office, then I presume that everything is available for debate under this particular estimate. However, regarding reading of poetry, the Chair has great difficulty. I appreciate the member might like to read poetry, but I have difficulty relating it to the Premier's estimates. Please proceed.

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: It says something more self-damning than those dummies will ever know.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I must ask you to withdraw the unparliamentary language.

MR. BARBER: I withdraw the word "dummies" — a vicious attack. I apologize. I will say: than those well-educated people opposite will ever know.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:57 p.m.