[ Page 735 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Unified Family Court Act (Bill 49). Hon. Mr. Hall.

Introduction and first reading — 735

British Columbia Day Act (Bill 61). Hon. Mr. Macdonald.

Introduction and first reading — 735

British Columbia Tartan Act (Bill 62). Hon. Mr. Hall.

Introduction and first reading — 735

Legal Professions Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 33).Hon. Mr. Macdonald.

Introduction and first reading — 735

An Act for the Restriction of the Use of Spring Traps (Bill 63). Mr. Gardom.

Introduction and first reading — 736

Franchise Dealers Protection Act, 1974 (Bill 64). Mr. Bennett.

Introduction and first reading — 736

Oral Questions

Rail car shortage. Mr. Fraser — 736

Role of Labour Minister in Victoria Press strike. Mr. Wallace — 736

Negotiations with RNABC. Mrs. Jordan — 736

Income tax discounts. Mr. Curtis — 737

Producers' share of milk price increase. Mr. Gardom — 737

Burrard Inlet ferry crossing. Mr. Gibson — 737

Sale of material junk. Hon. Mr. Lorimer — 737

ICBC carpeting contract. Mr. Bennett — 738

Premier's knowledge of B.C. Egg Board controversy. Mr. Gardom — 738

Lousy political decisions by alcoholic executives. Mr. McGeer — 738

Location of warrant for Skagit rental. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 738

Mines Minister's talks with mining association re Bill 31. Mr. Smith — 739

Committee of Supply: Premier's estimates Hon. Mr. Barrett — 739

Mr. Bennett — 740

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 747

Mr. Bennett — 758

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 760

Mr. McClelland — 763

Mr. Gardom — 764

Mr. Cummings — 765

Mr. Phillips — 765

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 766

Mr. Phillips — 766

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 767

Mr. McGeer — 768

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 771

Mineral Amendment Act, 1974 (Bill 48). Hon. Mr. Nimsick.

Introduction and first reading — 772

MONDAY, MARCH 4, 1974

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): I would like to introduce to the House this afternoon one of British Columbia's youngest and hardest-working mayors, Mayor Brian Klaver of Port Hardy. I would ask the House to join me in welcoming him.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, today it's my very great pleasure to introduce two guests on the floor of the House. The first one is a young man who has already made a name for himself in the Canadian political scene and who is faced with similar problems, although at the other end of this great nation of Canada — the Premier of Newfoundland, the Hon. Frank D. Moores.

Accompanying the Hon. Premier is the Hon. John C. Crosby, the Minister of Finance — they have two people. (Laughter.)

And in the gallery, Mr. Speaker, are two of the Premier's staff, Mr. Wallace Reid, chairman of the Newfoundland and Labrador Power Commission; and Mr. Gerry Korbi, press secretary to the Premier.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to take this opportunity on behalf of the official opposition to welcome the first Minister of Newfoundland and the Hon. Mr. Crosby. As you know well, British Columbia and Newfoundland have much in common. Their province is comparable to ours in that it is on the eastern coast; we're often referred to as the book-ends of Canada. I have recently noticed that he's come out as a strong advocate of protecting provincial rights. I agree with the Premier of Newfoundland on this, and I welcome him on behalf of the official opposition.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure for me to join in welcoming the Premier of Newfoundland. We worked together in Ottawa as colleagues when we were Members of Parliament. When the Premier referred to similar problems, I thought of his leaving Ottawa, coming back and winning the government of the province that you were referring to. Mr. Moores is a little ahead of me but I trust I won't be far behind.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, as the leader of the British Columbia hordes in the Conservative Party, I take great pleasure in welcoming Premier Moores. We had a delightful luncheon and I'd also like to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for making your office available for a private little conversation where I worked out a plan whereby we're going to emulate Premier Moores. You're welcome.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): I'm afraid my guest today is not as distinguished as Premier Moores, but in our family he's a very fine person. As the House knows, many of us from the boondocks don't have that much opportunity. My brother is in the gallery and I'm sure the House will be interested to know that he is a teacher and that he has been on the wage-negotiating committee with the teachers. I would ask the House to give him a warm welcome.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): We have in the House today for the first time my daughter. I ask the House to join me in welcoming her.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, on behalf of the Hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) and myself, I'd like the House to welcome a group of students from McPherson Park School in my constituency along with their teachers, Mrs. S. Nelson, Mr. Charlie Hoo and John Wallis.

Introduction of bills.

UNIFIED FAMILY COURT ACT

Hon. Mr. Hall presents a message from His Honour the Administrator; a bill intituled Unified Family Court Act.

Bill 49 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BRITISH COLUMBIA DAY ACT

Hon. Mr. Macdonald presents a message from His Honour the Administrator; a bill intituled British Columbia Day Act.

Bill 61 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

BRITISH COLUMBIA TARTAN ACT

Hon. Mr. Hall presents a message from His Honour the Administrator; a bill intituled British Columbia Tartan Act.

Bill 62 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

LEGAL PROFESSIONS
AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

Hon. Mr. Macdonald presents a message from His

[ Page 736 ]

Honour the Administrator; a bill intituled Legal Professions Amendment Act, 1974.

Bill 33 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

AN ACT FOR THE RESTRICTION OF
THE USE OF SPRING TRAPS

On a motion by Mr. Gardom, Bill 63, An Act for the Restriction of the Use of Spring Traps, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

FRANCHISE DEALERS PROTECTION ACT,
1974

On a motion by Mr. Bennett, Bill 64, Franchise Dealers Protection Act, 1974, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions.

RAIL CAR SHORTAGE

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Speaker, a question to the Premier (Hon. Mr. Barrett) as president of the B.C. Railway. I would like to know if the Premier is aware that the rail car shortage has continued on the British Columbia Railway for 12 months and is now more acute than it has ever been. Where and when is the British Columbia Railway going to get 6,000 rail cars that are needed now to move the lumber products that are waiting for shipment to world markets?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I want to say that the government has moved with the problem that we inherited from the former administration. We have leased cars, we are going to build our own cars, and we are making every effort to get cars from the other railways. I suggest that during my estimates later in the day, when the vice-president of the railway is here, we can go into detailed information.

ROLE OF LABOUR MINISTER
IN VICTORIA PRESS STRIKE

MR. WALLACE: I would like to ask the Minister of Labour, in the light of an approach from the management of Victoria Press, whether he can give the House any further information about a role that he might be playing to bring this three-month strike to an end.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I have no statement that I can make to the House at this time relative to the meeting I had with the press people. I am examining the representation they made to me but I really don't feet it would be helpful to comment any further at this particular point in time.

MR. WALLACE: A supplemental question, Mr. Speaker. Is it the Minister's intention to remain available and to play a part, or has he told the management that they must settle the issue with the employees themselves?

HON. MR. KING: I don't intend to become an alternative to collective bargaining; but based on consultation with both parties, if I feel there is a positive role that can be played by the department beyond the use of the mediation officer who is involved, why I certainly would consider that.

NEGOTIATIONS WITH RNABC

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address my question to the Hon. Minister of Health and ask him if, in view of the fact that negotiations have broken off between the RNABC and the B.C. Hospital Association — and the nurses have stated very emphatically that they are tired of getting the short end of the stick in wage negotiations — will the Minister follow the precedent he set when he stepped in without the hospital board's knowledge and negotiated on behalf of the HEU and use the same precedent to...?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Is this a question or a speech?

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, I am asking if he will use the same precedents to step in and assist the RNABC to come to a fair conclusion in their wage negotiations.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, this is the most confused question I have ever heard.

MRS. JORDAN: We are going to get a confused answer.

HON. MR. COCKE: In the first place, I will try to indicate the aspect of the question that I disagree with wholeheartedly: at no time have I or my department negotiated on anybody's behalf. At one time we were asked to mediate a situation and did so. As far as the question between the RNABC and the hospital association is concerned, that's precisely where it is; it is between those two bodies, and at this time I have no comment.

[ Page 737 ]

MRS. JORDAN: I believe it was the B.C. Hospital Association that was not aware of this intervention...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MRS. JORDAN: ...but nonetheless, in view of the fact that the nurses have stated they would be prepared to strike, are you not prepared to step in on their behalf?

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I am quite concerned about this situation, but it is negotiations, after all. This Ministry can't at this time make any prognostication as to where it is going to go.

Now I understand this morning that further talks were to take place, and I don't really think that anything said in this House is going to assist those talks.

INCOME TAX DISCOUNTERS

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): To the Minister of Consumer Services: has she or has her department received any complaints with respect to so-called income tax discounters within the past few weeks?

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): I will have to take that as notice, Hon. Member. I do know of one specific letter I received in which a case that occurred last year was outlined to me, but I am not personally aware of any complaints that I have received as yet,

PRODUCERS' SHARE OF
MILK PRICE INCREASE

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): To the Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker. We see that milk is going up two cents a quart in the Province of B.C. Has the Hon. Minister determined what percentage of that increase will pass on to the producer?

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, the whole amount of the increase is to be passed on to the producer. I am not sure if you understand that the....

MR. GARDOM: Totally?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, it's passed on to the producer every month as the formula calls for an increase. Then when you build up to a 38 cent increase, one cent is passed on to the consumer. So there is a certain amount left on the table the month before.

The February calculation showed increases of 48 cents going to the producer, along with what was left on the table from the month before. It added somewhere up to the neighbourhood of 76 cents, which is two cents to the producer.

BURRARD INLET FERRY CROSSING

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): I have a question, Mr. Speaker, for the Hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs to ask if he has any progress to report in the matter of the long-awaited ferry crossing of the Burrard Inlet.

SALE OF MATERIAL JUNK

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): No.

In regard to the question that was asked a few days back by the Hon. Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland), I do have a reply for him. I have the information that I was awaiting. It is in regard to the sale by the B.C. Hydro of material junk, or second-hand material, at Jordan River.

I want to thank the Member for the interesting question. It was something that was brought to our attention that the practices being carried out by Hydro are the same as were being carried out by the previous administration in which sale of this material was carried out without a tender being called. In fact, the material that he mentioned was sold without going to tender.

I wish to assure the House that directions have gone to B.C. Hydro that all future sales in bulk of any value would have to go through public tender. I want to thank the Member for the question.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, to the same Member, a supplementary. I asked a number of questions in regard to that — at a later date — with regard to the involvement of an American Company called the Alaska Junk Company and the involvement of American crews on that job. I wanted to also ask the Minister whether or not that job has been halted at this time; also, whether or not it will be halted so that that job can go to public tender.

HON. MR. LORIMER: As far as the Alaska Junk Company is concerned, I'm sorry, I do recall that there was a second question you asked at a later time. I don't have the answer for that at this stage.

As far as the canceling of the contract goes, we feel we cannot do that because we believe in the sanctity of contracts.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. LORIMER: I would suggest that you put your questions on the order paper and I will be

[ Page 738 ]

sure to answer them all.

ICBC CARPETING CONTRACT

MR. BENNETT: To the Minister of Transport and Communications. The other day I asked the Minister a question regarding the granting of contracts for ICBC and the policy regarding B.C. Industries as it was a matter of some urgency to an industry in my constituency. Because this is of such urgency to them and involves the jobs of B.C. workers, I wonder if he could enlighten us as to the policy and as to that specific contract dealing with carpeting and floor coverings for the ICBC offices in B.C.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): No. I'll file the answer. I'm asking for more information, as a matter of fact....

Interjections.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: What's so funny? That's right. That's right.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, that's right. I inquired and I got part of the answer. I am looking for the names of the three British Columbia companies who tendered. They evidently didn't go to the factories.

A call for tender went out. There were three B.C. companies who tendered. So when they came in, they were from three B.C. companies. Now, as I say, I am looking for more information, more background, to that.

MR. BENNETT: What I am concerned about is although the tenders were by B.C. applicators, I am talking about the use of B.C. products against the use of a product, a floor covering, manufactured in Quebec. The fact is that between the use of these two materials on the contract of $129,000 there is only $611 different in the use of B.C. materials. Specifically, I wasn't concerned with the B.C. applicators but the use of a product manufactured in B.C.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's why I am asking for! more information as to the exact wording.

PREMIER'S KNOWLEDGE OF
B.C. EGG BOARD CONTROVERSY

MR. GARDOM: A question to the Hon. Premier. I would ask the Premier if he has read the material that was tabled in the House last week and specifically the affidavits of Mr. Brunsdon, Unger, McAninch and Stafford?

HON. MR. BARRETT: (Mike not on) ...affidavits where statements are made and then following the statements the words "or words to that effect." Or "similar words" or whatever it is....

MR. GARDOM: The question to the Hon. Premier is: has he read the material that was tabled in the House last week? Yes or no.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, I have read the material and I know of its contents, which I disagree with.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! This matter would not be normally in question period but during the estimates of the Minister.

LOUSY POLITICAL DECISIONS
BY ALCOHOLIC EXECUTIVES

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Question to the Minister of Human Resources: with respect to the Stein report, where it said that alcoholic executives in the parliament buildings were making lousy political decisions, does he know of any such executives.

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): That will be taken under advisement. (Laughter.)

LOCATION OF WARRANT
FOR SKAGIT RENTAL

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources: I'd like to ask him whether he's had the time since I questioned him on Tuesday last to determine whether the warrant from Seattle City Light for the rental on Skagit has been returned or whether it still is in British Columbia.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): The question of a suitable reply . Is being considered by officials of our department and the Attorney-General's department. However, the cheque has not been cashed; it's in the vault.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, how long this cheque or warrant has been in British Columbia?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I'm sure that your sources in Seattle might provide you with the information,

[ Page 739 ]

but I take it as notice.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MINES MINISTER'S TALKS WITH
MINING ASSOCIATION RE BILL 31

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): The question is to the Hon. Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources: since introducing Bill 31 to this House, have you or any of your department members met with the mining association in the Province of British Columbia to discuss the ramifications of the intended Mineral Royalties Act on their business in this province?

AN HON. MEMBER: He's debating a bill.

MR. SMITH: No, I'm not. Have you met with the B.C. and Yukon Mining Association, or any mining association, since this bill was introduced to discuss the ramifications of the bill?

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): I've met with individual companies that have asked me for conferences, and I've discussed the bill with some of them. But it's not for publication; it's just for information. They're asking me for information as to what the bill announced. The Yukon Chamber of Mines I have not met with, and officially I haven't met with the mining association.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to Members that we must not anticipate any order of the day or other matters before the House on the order paper.

MR. SMITH: No, I'm not anticipating that.

MR. SPEAKER: I realize that at the moment.

MR. SMITH: I have a supplemental question to the Minister. After the bill was introduced there was a statement by members of your department concerning the amount of revenue that would be realized from this source. As a matter of fact, you made a statement yourself. Now, the statement you have made concerning revenue in the amount of around $25 million and the statement that has been made by members of the mining association and profession in British Columbia, where they say the amount of revenue is closer to $150 million, are miles apart. Do you agree with their interpretation of the Act?

HON. MR. NIMSICK: (Mike not on.) ...any answer you like.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: PREMIER'S OFFICE

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

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Chairman, on Friday last as Premier of the province I had the opportunity for the first time to tour the offices of the ICBC. I had been there once for a meeting but not had an opportunity to tour the operation.

I just want to express a few impressions to the House as Premier of this province about the ICBC and about my feelings and attitudes towards the government that I am responsible to head in terms of the ICBC.

During the election campaign we had promised that we would bring in government-owned car insurance.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): With an option.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, we laid out our policy, we went into the campaign and we then were elected to office and announced that we were going to carry through on our campaign promise.

At no time did we receive the co-operation of the large insurance corporations which had, in fact, stated that they had been losing money for years. As a charitable act we decided to save them from themselves and go ahead with our own plans.

Over the months that the insurance corporation came into being, after I'd asked the former Leader of the Opposition and now the Minister of Transport (Hon. Mr. Strachan) in this House to administer that programme, the programme came under severe attack from opposition Members and from many people in this province who, for political purposes, did not wish to see the programme get launched or even become successful.

There must then, Mr. Chairman, be a great deal of apprehension in the community, and were times during the last few months, when I heard the comments and the criticisms, that I felt the Minister must have been under severe pressure and that the community was facing, if we describe it in the opposition's terms, a disaster.

There were believers in this province of the idea, Mr. Chairman, that this province did not have the ability, the nerve, the drive, or frankly the guts to put together an insurance corporation that could possibly work, or even do better than the private companies.

Over the past few months we have heard nothing more than a barrage of attacks about the pitfalls, the

[ Page 740 ]

dangers, and most of all about the chaos and the line-ups. Yes,"chaos" was actually used in a headline in an unnamed Vancouver paper.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Morning or afternoon?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Afternoon, and it wasn't The Highland Echo. (Laughter.)

Mr. Chairman, there was an atmosphere created that this insurance company wouldn't really benefit British Columbians, and yet I met young people under the age of 25 who came to me and said that they were paying half of what they paid last year.

We became the subject of personal attacks in the House, Mr. Chairman. I remember and recall the Member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) coming into the House and announcing that my brother-in-law was an insurance agent and had been, I informed him, for 20 years. And now my brother-in-law informs me, Mr. Chairman, that he's also had on his staff the brother of the Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder). (Laughter.)

Oh, Mr. Chairman, I didn't want to bring this up because I'm not the kind to play politics with this kind of a shoe (Laughter) — just like the Member for North Peace River said he didn't want to play politics with the fact that my brother-in-law had been an agent for 20 years. My brother-in-law had also been, sin of all sins, a Social Credit voter. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BARRETT: But that's all changed, Mr. Chairman. After the attack by the Member for North Peace River, he's now going to vote Liberal. (Laughter.) So you can't win 'em all.

I'm not responsible for my brother-in-law's bad political judgment, but he tells me that the government insurance plan is first class and he's proud as an agent to represent it.

I went to the ICBC office and I expected chaos. I expected all of the terrible things that the doom-and-gloom — the D and G gang over there....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, there it is!

MR. GARDOM: Chaos is two seats away from you.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Up until last week, every single day the Minister of commercial transport (Hon. Mr. Strachan) was barraged with questions about the ICBC. What was the only question asked today? "How come my constituents aren't getting a hunk of the business?"

Now, I also want to talk about the politics of the ICBC, but before I get onto that I want to say that, despite all the doubters, despite all the fears, a miracle has been performed in terms of straight business administration, because within a matter of months that Minister pulled together and created the largest insurance company in all of Canada — 1,500 employees working very, very hard and smoothly producing a first-class insurance programme.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Now, Mr. Chairman, now that it's all happened....

AN HON. MEMBER: A new Crown jewel.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, it's not a new Crown jewel — that's an old line. Now that it's all happened, and now that it's here, I want to publicly thank that Minister and the staff that he brought together for creating the ICBC.

Then I want to say one further thing...

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Onwards and upwards. Onwards and upwards to London.

HON. MR. BARRETT: ...to all the voters in British Columbia who must witness where decisions are made, let it be clearly understood...

MR. CHABOT: Bye-bye, Bob.

HON. MR. BARRETT: ...that we are in favour of the people owning their own car insurance programme. And I challenge any Member of this House to go into the next election representing a party that is opposed to this plan and say,"Vote for me, and we'll do away with ICBC." That will be the choice: those are the wreckers, and here are the builders of British Columbia. That will be their choice. There will be a choice. Those who had the vision, those who had the faith — they supported the policies and they brought this great corporation into being. I say to you and to every voter in this province, remember who was against it and, come next election, decide whether or not they'd be out to wreck the people's corporation that has done so well. What line-ups? What chaos? The people know better, and they will remember. And just in case they forget, we will remind them.

MR. CHABOT: Call an election on Bill 71 right now.

Interjections.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, through you to

[ Page 741 ]

the Premier, in discussing his estimates, I really didn't expect the Premier to get up and cry and whimper to protect the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan).

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, no!

MR. BENNETT: I don't think there's anything wrong with the opposition asking legitimate questions about the setting up of ICBC.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Are you against ICBC? Yes or no. Are you against it?

MR. BENNETT: I will tell the Premier, I will tell the Minister of Finance, the president of the railway and the interferer in marketing boards exactly what we do believe. But right now I would like to discuss the estimates.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BENNETT: It is nice to know that the Highways Minister has served some function in this government; it certainly isn't in repairing the roads of the province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. BENNETT: Now, in discussing the financial conditions that our province operated in last year and this year, I think we should reflect on the economy of the world and the economics that have created the prosperity in B.C.

Certainly the world market in 1974 was one of boom and prosperity, but also inflation. That boom and prosperity brought to British Columbia a great deal of money. It was a year in which natural resources on the world market moved up from being low priced to their true perspective in world economics. British Columbia, with a prepared economic base for manufacture of its resources, for the control of its mineral resources, was able to take advantage of the world economy, and British Columbia revenues boomed as never before.

Mr. Chairman, we received record prices last year for our mineral ores, and we watched the price of gold and the price of silver on world markets skyrocket and, of course, of more interest to British Columbia, the price of copper. This reflected in more money to the companies of B.C., more money to the workers of B.C. and more money for the government of British Columbia in their participation in the share of our resources.

This share wouldn't have come to British Columbia if there had been no mines. This share wouldn't have come to British Columbia if there had been no secondary manufacturing in the forest industry, any process of dimension lumber, any pulp mills. It was just a few years ago that we heard the cries in B.C. that we were over-establishing our penetration in pulp facilities. Now we are paying the benefits of the attempt to set up in advance of world markets the harvesting of our resources in lumber, timber and pulp.

The returns to the people of B.C. In the way of their government gave us tremendous surpluses. Those tremendous surpluses were far and above the estimates that this government and this Premier and this Minister of Finance estimated last year. We feel that in a situation like this, particularly where the government is committed to two sessions a year, that in a situation where the Minister of Finance has access daily to the income of the Province of British Columbia by way of taxation, these moneys, these surplus moneys should have been allocated to the benefit of programmes of urgency in the Province of British Columbia. We've already discussed in this House and are well aware of what those programmes are and where that urgency is.

We know that we have a housing crisis. We know that housing is a problem in all of Canada. But with the tremendous surplus from our resources.... And we know that last year from timber they estimated we would get $90 million, and we know that when the fiscal year has ended it will be somewhere over $200 million. These resource profits, these resource moneys, should have been allocated to solving some of those problems instead of waiting for spring. The "Why wait for spring? Do it now" attitude should apply to government. We should have had the use of those tax moneys. Rather than them being built up to report record surpluses in the spring, we should have had them allocated to solving the loss of income through inflation to people on fixed incomes. New directions in education and health could have been taken at that time, because if there's a reason for two sessions for legislative programmes, surely there is a reason for bringing in two budgets in a time of major change in our economy, a time of major change in the moneys that are coming to finance our province, our government, for the benefit of our people.

But not only should these surpluses have been used, Mr. Chairman, through to the Minister of Finance, not only should they have been used to provide services, but perhaps some of the benefits could have been passed on to our people by way of tax cuts. Now, we know that part of the increased revenue to the province was because of the change in energy prices in the world. Now, those price changes weren't caused by British Columbia. They weren't caused by British Columbia.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

[ Page 742 ]

MR. BENNETT: Energy prices in the world were raised by the action of the Arabian countries in raising the price of oil, and all other energy requirements reflecting that price increase became more valuable.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Would you say the 32 cents was justified in the last 5 years?

MR. BENNETT: I'll deal with that, Mr. Attorney-General, I realize, just as you did during the Agriculture estimates, that you wish to cloud what we're trying to say.

But I would like to continue, if I may, and talk about the world energy prices increased by the action of the Arabian oil countries. All other energy forms rose or were worth more money in relation to this. They didn't have competition from the cheap fuel.

Now, I must commend the British Columbia government for, in the absence of the National Energy Board, taking action to get more money for B.C. gas in relation to the new higher prices in the world. But I also would like to....

HON. MR. BARRETT: Why did you vote against the bill?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BENNETT: Because, Mr. Premier and Minister of Finance, through the Chairman, there were provisions in that bill which were unacceptable.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Weak, weak, weak!

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You missed your chance.

MR. BENNETT: There were sections in that bill that were unacceptable, and we've seen this government's action...

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. BENNETT: ...because where we've supported a bill but opposed it in committee, they take one action and the Premier puts on a circus performance and he goes: "And here we are, they voted for the bill...." And when we take another tack, they talk the other way. But that's in keeping with the attitude of the Premier and Minister of Finance, and it is in keeping with the way he talks out of both sides of his face at the same time.

MR. CHABOT: Hear, hear!

MR. BENNETT: And I can agree that he's under some pressure lately. He's under question as to certain affidavits and other sources, and it must be very upsetting to him that his word may be doubted in this province. But back to the national energy prices.

When the government, through its action, put up the prices for the citizens of British Columbia for gas in an attempt to get more money from the export market, they had an obligation to the citizens of B.C. to pass on a resource dividend to the citizens. But what did they do? No resource dividend, but an increase in gas prices all over the Province of British Columbia.

MR. CHABOT: Shocking!

MR. BENNETT: Thirty per cent, 13 per cent, 70 per cent. If the government wasn't going to pass along a resource dividend, as they are so fond of talking about, why could they not — why could you not, Mr. Chairman, through to the Minister of Finance — have passed along an equivalent amount of money to the users of natural gas in this province so they didn't have to pay these exorbitant rate increases?

Why should the money come out of the pockets of the citizens of British Columbia in an attempt to get more money on the export market? You've got these extra surpluses, why not pass them along to British Columbians? Why not pay payments back directly to the utilities that could be passed along with the condition that they are passed along to the users so that they don't have this major increase in their gas bills in this province?

I ask you why not.

We've got tremendous surpluses. Why continue to pad the surpluses? Why penalize the gas users of this province? Why not, indeed, when we've got record revenues from resources, record revenues in British Columbia — we see the price of gasoline and diesel fuel going up — why not take this opportunity to use some of the surpluses and reduce British Columbia's tax on gasoline and diesel fuel to prevent the staggering increases that they're going to see in their motor fuel'?

Why sit on those surpluses? Why not reduce some of these taxes? You have the opportunity. You have the money and you have the obligation.

AN HON. MEMBER: They're the lowest in Canada.

MR. BENNETT: Why can't they be even lower?

Instead, where does the Premier and Minister of Finance, Mr. Chairman, choose to use B.C. surpluses? For the people, in benefits? For the people, in reducing taxes? No, for financial adventuring into the stock market and into buying companies out of the

[ Page 743 ]

private sector. This is a whole new area....

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): It used to be lumps under the mattress.

MR. BENNETT: Well, I don't know, but apparently the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources knows something about it, so he must have slept on that mattress, or maybe he was under the bed.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Woody Woodpecker — we've heard from him.

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

MR. BENNETT: Which one, Mr. Chairman?

Instead of using these surpluses for financial adventuring, here's the government now in a whole new area of financial involvement not known to provincial government. Knowing that this government has as its policy this philosophy, I won't continue my opposition to that philosophy on the floor of this House, because it is known. There we disagree, but I do feel that I should discuss the way our public business is conducted, the way that those acquisitions are made and the rules and conditions that guide the financial activities of this government, because they are much in discussion in this province today, as the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) knows.

We have the government now buying on the stock market in small amounts, or in equal amounts, or taking over, wholly, stock companies. We have this activity authorized by new legislation through amendments to the Revenue Act but they have a responsibility to conduct this business and to conduct the activities of the province so that there is no suspicion on themselves, their advisers, or the people with whom they choose to do business, who may or may not be unwilling vendors of companies or stock.

MR. CHABOT: On the table, not under the table.

MR. BENNETT: Now, there's much public discussion and questioning about the financial activities of the government.

Interjection.

MR. CHABOT: Not in here. You've got to take me to court.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, major newspapers in this province — the two major newspapers in Vancouver — have had editorials and articles questioning and dealing with the activities of this government and the Minister of Finance, in the way they acquire companies and the way they acquire stocks. They've questioned the fact that there may be cabinet leaks. A major New Westminster radio station has questioned these facts.

Now, I don't believe that speculation should continue that puts into disrepute those people who may have sold stocks, those people who have advised the government, the government itself, or any citizen of British Columbia. What I'm saying is that we must question them because of the discussion that has been going on, and is going on now, among the citizenry of this province that we perhaps don't have the correct procedure for conducting the business of the province in this new financial adventurism.

There are several areas of problems. First of all, this government, the Minister of Finance and the Premier have said they're going to use, outside of government service, financial advisers, negotiators and consultants to advise them on stock purchases or company acquisitions. That's fine if we have a set of conditions to cover their activities in this field. We know that the cabinet's covered by an oath of secrecy; we know the civil service is covered by an oath of secrecy.

When the government is doing business, they have an obligation to set the rules and conditions for this new category of super-advisers making major financial discussions in this province, to protect them and the public from any doubt in their capacity in this regard. I feel that the government should be taking steps to provide the mechanics of conducting government business, to protect us against just that.

We've talked about leaks from cabinet. I don't know, but some time ago in January I became concerned, Mr. Chairman, that there may have been a leak in the mining legislation. Leaky Leo (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) knows what I'm talking about; I'm talking of the Bache & Company report. Now, I can't tell if there was a major leak, but I'm concerned about the specifics of the amounts involved and the manner in which this newsletter was presented, and the fact that I couldn't get a direct denial from any responsible Member of this government about this alleged leak. I'm concerned and many British Columbians are concerned.

Let's go back to this Bache & Company report, because they talk about things like this:

"We have recently conducted an in-depth, two-week, fact-finding mission in British Columbia and can confidently report that the new legislation will be passed in the current legislative session."

Well, I can remember when predictions were being made last year among the public, or the government was saying that it was going to pass legislation, but it never came in in the fall. So these people must have had extra information not available to the rest of the

[ Page 744 ]

public.

What upsets me is that further on they talk about those royalties. They talk about those amounts — amounts like 2.5 per cent and 5 per cent — and then they go along to recommend to their selected list of investors that they do certain things in the stock market and they can make a profit because of this information.

If there was a leak inadvertently, if there was a leak intentionally, if there was a leak by some other means, that's not for me to say, but it's up to the government to take action to make sure that leaks such as that one, which seems to be so blatant, and other leaks which are rumoured, cannot happen and do not happen again. That's the obligation; that's why we have an oath of secrecy in the cabinet; that's why it's so important that the cabinet be careful in both deed and word so that they will not be suspect among the citizens of British Columbia that someone is making money in the marketplace.

There again, I'm not concerned about the individuals involved. I'm concerned that perhaps, Mr. Chairman, they're not aware of the power they have as a government, and over their obligation to set strict rules for the conduct of public business now that we're in this new area of public financial involvement.

Interjection.

MR. BENNETT: Millions — most of them outside the House.

I'd like to go on, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Premier and Minister of Finance, because we're concerned too that when the government.... Obviously there are some recommendations as to how they should conduct their business, and some recommendations for the future. But I think that to clear the air on these conditions, as they've been discussed in the past and as they're being discussed now, the public wants a full explanation.

They want to know why there was an unusual trading pattern with Columbia Cellulose and why there were unusual trading patterns in other stocks. They want to be concerned, and I think it's the obligation of the government, the Minister of Finance, to have an independent public inquiry to clear the air, to protect the public at large, to protect those vendors to the government who may have willingly or unwillingly sold, to protect this new group of advisers outside the scope of government, who don't have the oath of secrecy, and if all that fails and they're not concerned about them, to protect the government itself and its reputation for conducting public business.

From this independent public inquiry, we can establish new rules of conduct for business adventures of this kind in British Columbia.

I think there's an obvious area the government should move quickly and an obvious recommendation of this commission: that immediately the government will ask to have the stock suspended from trading. I don't mean when the government first starts to talk to them, or when they reach the meeting of the minds, or when they have finally agreed on a formula and they're ready to make the announcement that they suspend the stock from trading. I say suspend it when you first get the idea, when you make the first approach. That would alleviate the chance of anybody committing any untoward act, whether they get the information by accident or whether they got the information through some other means.

I think it's just good business to conduct the public's business in an open and fair manner. The suspension of the stock would alleviate the concern of a lot of citizens of British Columbia and we wouldn't have the discussions that are going on now in the Province of British Columbia.

Again, I suggest that another recommendation might be the establishment of some sort of oath of secrecy for these new advisers and new special consultants that the government's going to use. I've got nothing against special consultants. I think that from time to time all governments have to use them. But where they involve large amounts of money and where large amounts of profits can be made, then new rules and new sets of conditions for their activities must prevail.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to say a few things about the B.C. Railway, because it was discussed earlier by the Premier and president of the railway. He mentioned that it could come up later in his estimates. I want to be brief because we will be bringing these questions up on a more detailed basis later. I want the other Members of the House to have an opportunity for statements.

But I'd like to clear the air as to the government's position — the Premier's position, the president of the railway's position — as to the financial arrangements with Ottawa in relation to the railway development. In this context there seems to be a severe change of direction from the president of the railway and the Premier of the province.

Now last spring in Hansard, the Premier said this — and I quote from Hansard:

Now back to the economics of the railway. It is a fact that since coming to office, we have discovered quite a great deal of correspondence between the previous administration and the federal government, asking that the people of British Columbia have the same benefits that other provinces have had and other jurisdictions have had when they've built railroads.

As a matter of fact, the former Premier totaled an estimate re the government that the federal government owed British Columbia, on the basis of equal treatment to British Columbia in terms of its railroad construction, a total of $19 million in the

[ Page 745 ]

minimum and perhaps as high as $27 million right now.

Now I say this as a British Columbian, along with political philosophy, that I agree completely with the position of the former government. The federal government does have a responsibility to pay its fair share of what we're doing here and what was done here in British Columbia. I have made this a condition, and I'll say this publicly now that before we complete any arrangements with the federal government on integrated use of the railway in the north and the northwestern section of British Columbia, there must be a lump sum payment to the people of British Columbia to make up the money in the past that they owe the people of British Columbia from the Government of Canada.

That's my position. It was the position of my predecessor and I agree with him completely.

Now then we have the filing of the agreement in principle, the Joint Transportation Development Programme, Northern British Columbia, between the Government of Canada and the Government of British Columbia. Specifically, in No. 6 on page 8 it says this:

"British Columbia waives its prior claim for federal construction grants towards former Pacific Great Eastern Lines in recognition of the funding arrangements and considerations which are effective for the northern railway development programme."

Now this is a major reversal of policy...

MR. CHABOT: Sucked in.

MR. BENNETT: ...from the statement of the Premier to this Legislature last spring which I've just quoted to this agreement, and it says it quite clearly here.

If there is an explanation, that's why I'm posing it to the Premier and president of the railway now, because to me it's clearly opposite. It says that British Columbia waives its prior claim.

Now I think those two positions are not consistent with one another. I have the copy of the claim that British Columbia has made from time to time to maintain nothing special from the Government of Canada but the $25,000 dollar-per-mile grant that other provinces and other resource railways have received.

There are many other points dealing with this financial arrangement the Government of British Columbia has signed with the federal government that I'll be going into detail on later, but it's this position of inconsistency that concerns me now.

I'm also concerned because last fall I was here and heard the Premier and president of the railway speaking about the way the finances of the railway were run in the past and the fact that they'd had an inquiry on the financing and some recommendations from auditing. Yet here we have the annual report for 1973 from the president of the railway — and I'll read the auditors' report. It says:

"In our opinion and according to the best of our information, the explanations given to use and as shown by the books of the company, the accompanying balance sheet and statement of consolidated income present fairly the financial position of the company as at December 31, 1973, and the results of its operations for the year ended on that date in accordance with the generally accepted accounting principles applied on a basis consistent with that of the preceding year."

Now here we have the same accounting methods that have always been used presented in the same way by the same accountants. After all the discussions and all the politicking and all the presentation to the press that there may have been something wrong with the financing of the railway, here it's conducted and presented in exactly the same way.

The only difference is that after years of the same accounting method, that the government's using now, and knowing that we had the most prosperous year that British Columbia ever had — the most car loadings out of the Interior, the most railway activity ever, and with the same accounting methods — we go from a profit of $992,000 in 1972 to a loss of $3,302,344 in 1973. No change in accounting method — and in a year that was the most prosperous in B.C.'s history.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

Interjection.

MR. BENNETT: I would like to question that inconsistency in regard to the British Columbia Railway.

Now I'd like also, before I sit down, to just question — because we're discussing the Premier's office — to discuss the Premier's authority and how he conducts that office, because it was much in discussion last week.

We knew very well that the Premier had to be absent from this chamber during the agricultural discussion because of a commitment in the east. His conduct with regard to the Egg Marketing Board and the whole chicken-and-egg business was well discussed in this chamber.

But I felt that in the agricultural estimates the issue would be confused — as was attempted — by correlating or relating it to the marketing programme, to the quota system, to the permit system and to marketing of poultry products in the province. That wasn't the question that was under discussion at all. The question that was under discussion was the

[ Page 746 ]

Premier's activity in dealing with those areas, his activity in dealing with members of those boards.

I refrained from comment until the Premier was here to give us his comments, because from the time he left British Columbia until he got back, more affidavits were published in public and made public — signed by responsible citizens. Motions were passed by producers in this province and sent in resolution form to this Legislature supporting that stand.

I feel that the time has come now with the Premier here, during his estimates, that this question should be discussed in this chamber. It is not a question of reduced levies; it wasn't a question of expansion of the industry; it wasn't a question of marketing boards. It's a question of the Premier's use or misuse or abuse of his authority in dealing with responsible officials and citizens of this province — in the fact that he may not have advised but threatened.

The question is that they've questioned his version and now the public needs to know who is telling the truth. It's a question of the Premier's credibility; it's a question of the acceptance of his word from the public. And I think that it has to be asked today.

I think also we have under discussion the question from the Premier of perhaps civil suits that were threatened in the paper to a New Westminster radio station and to employees of that station. Now when things are said outside this House, I don't think discussion should be thwarted by the frivolous use of law suits or threatened if they're not going to be used.

We've seen in the past in this province public discussion thwarted by law suits that were started and then dropped. I would hate to think....

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Ed Lawson feels the same way.

MR. BENNETT: I don't know what the Senator Lawson — Ed Lawson is Senator Lawson? I don't know what Senator Lawson has to do with this discussion, but what....

Interjections.

MR. BENNETT: I wasn't going to talk about law suits, but I think that law suits are not something that should be frivolously threatened or used to prevent public discussion. I think that there should be some clarification of this point in the Legislature as to these remarks outside this House and as to the continuing discussion between the Premier and this station and the people, because this has gone on for some time.

Then we have the further proceeding in this House of a censure motion brought against one of my colleagues (Mr. Phillips). I feel it would be unfortunate if the current discussion about questioning the methods of the government's financial adventures should be reduced to squabbling and then threatened censure motions against a Member of the House rather than meeting issues squarely on in an independent inquiry.

If you are going to bring a censure motion against a Member, don't put it on the order paper and leave it as a threat; don't use the authority of the government to hold it over a Member's head. If the government chooses to use a weighted committee — weighted in favour of government Members such as was the inquiry committee last year with its seven-to-four vote registered on strict party lines — if it chooses to use that to clear the air, then let it. If it feels the public will be satisfied that it has used its authority to discuss public business and that the people of the province would believe the government is clearly trying to get at the truth....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: State your point of order.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The point of order is this, Mr. Chairman: the Liberal member of the committee to whom the Hon. Member for South Okanagan referred was acting entirely according to conscience. He had no direction from me or any other Member of this party when he sat on that committee. I believe the same is true, although he is not present, for the Leader of the Conservative Party (Mr. Wallace). I would dislike the thought to be left in the minds of the public or the people in this chamber that somehow or another our man was acting on strict party lines. He voted against the Minister entirely in accordance with the evidence presented and in accordance with his conscience.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I am sure your point has been noted. Continue with your speech.

MR. BENNETT: I agree exactly; that was my opinion of the Member's participation in the committee. I think he made himself clear and I am sure he acted independently.

Can there be justice on a political issue when the committee is struck by the government and weighted in favour of the government? I would say it is to the benefit of the government to appoint an independent public inquiry. If they wish to question the conduct of a Member of this House, make that a part of the inquiry and then have the House discipline him later. Why confine the general discussion of public business to a House inquiry which may or may not have the confidence of the citizens of British Columbia that the whole area of their discontent and concerns are being covered?

I believe, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Premier, that

[ Page 747 ]

these should be broad areas under which questioning will come from myself and others as to the budget and as to the use of the Premier's office.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I think that it is appropriate to answer a number of the comments raised by the Leader of the Opposition.

First of all, it does not sit easy with me to hear the official opposition's position on the increased revenues from natural gas. Although I don't wish to violate the rules of reflecting on the votes of Members of this House, it is a matter of record that the official opposition did vote against the British Columbia Petroleum Corporation. It was only through that vehicle that we would have been able to raise the prices of gas to our American customers.

We are still bound by the federal regulation of 105 per cent. We did not act like the Columbia gas company, which is a private company, and pass on that major increase; we passed it not to the consumers but to the industrial users. They were paying a low price for their energy and had been sheltered by that low price by the policies of the former administration.

That is our policy; I defend that policy. Industry must pay its fair share in this province. We have removed all the tax concessions given to industry by the former government. We did that too because industry should not be given tax concessions or energy price concessions by any government.

We welcome the division on this point and we are pleased the Member puts himself foursquare on the side of big business.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, you voted against the petroleum corporation.

The next matter raised by the Member is the purchase of shares. It was the former Social Credit administration that purchased shares of the Bank of B.C. under the amendment to the superannuation Act brought in by the Social Credit administration. The Social Credit administration also amended the Revenue Act to allow the purchase of bank shares under that Act.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): They did that!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, they did, and it is a matter of record. It is a little bit less than hypocritical (the Member refuses to examine history as a record for the basis of his speech) because the former administration had made the moves in this area.

Now, the Member wants to talk about political interference in the matter of purchase of shares and the stopping of the stock market. We have only had one previous experience prior to this administration

in terms of using the amendments passed by Social Credit under the superannuation Act. I and this government used, to purchase B.C. bank shares and B.C. Telephone Company shares, the amendment to the, superannuation Act passed by Social Credit — the same Act passed by the former government. So if he is attacking that, he is attacking the former government.

Let's take a look at the record of the share purchase by the former government. I want to refer you to, first of all, the directors names. Surely to goodness no one would suspect politics on the names of the directors of the Bank of B.C. as there were in May, 1967. Politics? Why, of course not. These names appeared by coincidence: Einar Gunderson...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh! Russell James Bennett

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BARRETT: ...brother of the present Leader of the Opposition and son of the former Premier; William C. Mearns (do you remember him at the time of the B.C. Electric takeover?); John A. McMahan, one of the brothers; and so on, down the list.

We continue to buy B.C. bank shares, but we never phoned anybody and said,"Get in on the good deal." At no time is there any record of the Premier or the cabinet attempting to influence the market in any way in the purchase of shares.

What is the record of the former government? It should be known publicly. I report from the Vancouver Sun of August 15, 1967. The Member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) remembers this; both Members from Point Grey raised this in the House. So those with messy hands had better wash their hands in the light of history rather than in the dark in terms of how they interpret the present and the future.

On Friday, June 30, Bennett phoned the chief executives of major Vancouver corporations and suggested the company purchase $1,000,000 in stock in the Bank of B.C. That was political interference the like of which we have never seen before or since. The former Premier picked up the phone and called businessmen in Vancouver and said it was a good idea to buy into the Bank of B.C. when he was trying to buy the Bank of B.C. How is that for a low in government influence?

He also phoned Mr. Richardson, president of the B.C. Telephone Company, and suggested that B.C. Telephone's announced decision to invest $100,000 wasn't good enough! He telephoned the B.C. Telephone president and said his investment of

[ Page 748 ]

$100,000 wasn't good enough. A figure of $1,000,000 was suggested. The call was made from the Premier's office.

Influencing the stock market directly from the Premier's office; suggesting to people they buy shares in the Bank of B.C. While at the same time he was considering investing the public's funds, he was on the phone in a broiler-room operation pushing the Bank of B.C. shares. It's a matter of record. He phoned Mr. R.G. Rogers, president of Crown Zellerbach, and suggested the bank stock would be a good investment. He phoned C.B. Delbridge, chairman of the board of the Vancouver Sun at the time, suggesting a $1,000,000 figure and urging the Sun to print a front-page editorial pushing the bank. Print a front-page editorial page pushing the bank while he was in the marketplace with B.C. funds.

At no time has any cabinet Minister or myself talked to anybody about purchasing shares while we were in the process of purchasing shares for the people of British Columbia.

The former Premier is also on record as having phoned Alex Hamilton, president of the B.C. Forest Products, and offering another suggestion. It sounds to me like a movie we used to hear about called "The Godfather." Make them an offer they can't afford to refuse.

MR. GARDOM: Buy-line.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, it's a good line, Mr. Member, because you were here and you remember the history. It's a little bit pious and a little bit much to forget that history.

"The repercussions of this attempt at coercion" — and I am still quoting the Vancouver Sun — "are still reverberating in business circles. The fact that the bank is in the $12 million range rather than the hastily revised $25 million target, the original $75 million target or the Premier's personal goal for a private bank of $250 million is due in large part to the refusal of Premier W.A.C. Bennett to lift the political taint from the bank.

"The executive suites were surprised — not that the pressure came from the Premier's office but that it came personally."

It was a very clumsy move. It was brazen political interference and the only time of the use of this authority under the superannuation Act in the history of this province, except in the purchase of B.C. Telephone shares which we've used the same authority for — the same authority which this Member misquotes in this House leaving the impression that we have purchased B.C. Telephone shares out of surplus funds, which is simply not true. We've used the authority that we received from the former administration itself.

Now, Mr. Chairman, the record also proves that the former Premier when he used this authority was on the phone shilling for the Bank of B.C.

MR. LEWIS: That's pressure.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It was more than that; it was a suggestion from the head office itself.

MR. BENNETT: I think he admitted it...

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, I tell you this: I deny that I have ever phoned anyone suggesting them that they buy shares in any corporation that was dealing with this government. Whether he admitted it or not, based on the standards that you are espousing today, he should have resigned and you shouldn't even belong to that party!

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You know, Mr. Chairman...

MR. BENNETT: Are you going to answer my question?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Certainly I'm going to answer your question. There was no political interference in the purchase of the B.C. Telephone shares. I have not suggested that these shares were bought with anything other than the authority left to us by the former government. Now, let's deal with the purchase of those shares.

MR. BENNETT: I didn't mention... I said the Revenue Act.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, don't be nervous — I won't phone Daddy and tell him. (Laughter.)

Mr. Chairman, I want to deal with this by going on to the records of those shares. Since the Member raised the share purchase, let's deal with their business acumen.

AN HON. MEMBER: You'd better go off your diet.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Up to September 15, 1972, 38,100 shares of the Bank of B.C. were bought. I think the purchase was made in 1968...

AN HON. MEMBER: What date in '68?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I don't know. We'll get you the exact date.

...months after the former Premier had been on

[ Page 749 ]

the phone calling people telling them to buy shares. Not days, not weeks — months after.

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver–Little Mountain): Who was the director of that bank?

HON. MR. BARRETT: The director? I read the directors of the bank, Mr. Member.

MR. CHABOT: You are the director, Fat Boy!

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the interruption here of calling a Member a name across the floor is wrong. I wish the Member....

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I'm on my feet and I would suggest to the Member who was offended that he just get used to it — it already cost him $4,000 for the same kind of thing. (Laughter.)

MR. CHABOT: Carry on, Fat Boy.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that up to September 15, 1972....

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Treat both sides equally. I'm only quoting a court record.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I just want to say that I try to treat both sides equally and I don't want to be accused of not doing so. If you feel that I'm doing something wrong, challenge what I'm doing, but don't accuse me of being partial in this chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, the record was up to September 15, 1972. Under the authority passed by the Social Credit administration allowing the government to use funds from superannuation funds to purchase shares, the former government had bought 38,100 shares in the Bank of British Columbia, at the total cost of $819,292.37, the average cost per share being $21.50.

We have moved to go up to our federal limit in the bank, because we believe in a publicly owned bank, or at the very least the presence of the public in a bank, and we are on record of supporting that concept right from the very beginning — as a matter of fact since 1933, the founding of the CCF and the NDP.

We have never been opposed to a publicly owned bank and it is a matter of record. We are opposed to the Premier shilling on the phone, calling people and telling them to buy shares in the bank.

MR. FRASER: Rubbish!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Now, the number of shares we have purchased takes us up to our federal maximum limit — 12,955 shares, the total cost being $323,445.51 for an average per share cost of $24.97. Out of the 51,055 shares we own, the former government purchased 38,000 of them.

The asking price on March 4, 1974, was $22.25. The value of the shares on March 4, 1974, at the asking price is $1,135,973.75. The total of cash dividends received to date is $30,000. If you deduct the share cost replacement of $6,700 we would have made on that money invested by the former government and by this administration, there is a total of $24,000 return for a $1,142,000 investment.

That Member is attacking us for business acumen. The purpose announced by the former administration to buy bank shares was to have a presence in the banking place on a non-political basis. That has not been the record when you see the list of the board of directors. Nonetheless, we agreed with that and we agree that we should be in the bank, but, Mr. Chairman, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) shouldn't talk to me in this House about the idea of losing money on bank shares, or on share purchase. Their share purchase was not a smart business move; it was a matter of principle and policy.

Now we move to the B.C. Telephone shares.

AN HON. MEMBER: You haven't answered the question.

HON. MR. BARRETT: On the same basis, Mr. Chairman, we purchased B.C. Telephone shares on the basis of principle and policy, as we clearly stated to the people of this province, and we used the same authority that was invested in the government as to the laws passed by the former administration. So let's have that clear on the record: our purchase of the B.C. Telephone shares was made through existing amendments to the finance Act by the former government. Let's have that on the record.

Now, our purchase of the B.C. Telephone shares based on our principles and our philosophy has come to this. From August 1, 1973, to March 1, 1974, we have purchased 104,830 shares for a total cost of $5,418,942.54. The average purchase of shares through the Deputy, as instructed by the Treasury Board, is $51.96. The market price today of those shares is $55 per share.

Remember that the purpose is not for profit or loss, but it's a matter of record that the one deal that was made before is a pretty lousy business deal. Let's take a look at this one in terms of a business deal. The value of the shares at market price today is $5,765,650 — an increase since August 1 of

[ Page 750 ]

$346,000. We have received on top of that, cash dividends of $49,000. It's been a very good business deal, unlike the Bank of B.C. purchase which involved attempts at coercion by the former Premier. There were no phone calls by myself to anyone suggesting they buy Bank of B.C. shares; we did it under the existing legislation and we have an increase in terms of the stock value of $346,000 and cash dividends of $49,000.

Why should we not be owners of shares in B.C. Telephone? It is a monopoly utility that ultimately should be owned by the people of British Columbia totally.

It is in the same category as Hydro. It is a monopoly and the people should have a fair share. We have not done anything more, nor do we intend to do anything more at this point than buy shares in the B.C. Telephone Company. It's a matter of public record that when there's a good buy on B.C. Tel. shares, we'll buy.

Now we'll deal with the agreement of the B.C. Rail. The Member is absolutely correct in relating my position on the moneys owed in the past, but we've signed an agreement in principle with the federal government on the B.C. Rail. We have said that B.C. has not received its fair share, but we have never considered British Columbia to be a separate island from Ottawa.

It is a matter of fact that the federal government, albeit Liberal, has been on record as willing to negotiate with the Province of British Columbia in joint development of that railroad. We have signed an agreement in principle. I hope that that agreement in principle leads to a total completion, of joint co-operation. But if it doesn't, if they don't live up to the terms of that agreement in principle, then there is no agreement and we go back to square one, and we will appeal to the federal government for the $20 million.

Why is that section in the agreement in principle? Because instead of asking Ottawa for $20 million, and fighting phony wars with the federal government, as the former administration did, we have come up with an agreement in principle which, if consummated, will have the federal government pay a share in the extension of that railroad. And what is the share? Not $20 million, but 10 times $20 million — $201 million, Mr. Chairman.

MR. BENNETT: Grants or loans?

HON. MR. BARRETT: They will not be transfer loans, and I want to make this very clear. Mr. Chairman, there will be no way that those will be loans...and I'm choosing my words very carefully. If the agreement is not consummated in principle and in detail, in terms of those funds being granted to British Columbia, then the final agreement will not be signed.

MR. FRASER: You're going to welsh on that deal too, then.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, sir! If there's any welching on the deal it will be on Ottawa's part, because it is clearly understood that we are accepting $200 million in grants, not loans. If the deal is not consummated on that basis, then there will be no deal at all. Let's have that clear.

Now we have abandoned the $20 million for the $200 million. We will bargain tough, and we will continue to bargain on the basis of British Columbia being a part of Canada, not something against the rest of Canada. British Columbia's share, if the deal is consummated, out of the arrangement at principal, will be an additional $163 million.

We see no reason why the federal government should not be involved with us. We do not see the railroad as some great jewel in the crown of some personal ambition of a politician. The railroad is an extension of the dreams and hopes of all the people of British Columbia that wanted it to be a success.

One of the greatest supporters of the railroad was the former Leader of the Opposition who consistently fought, as well as the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey. Although they disagreed in terms of financing, both Members of this House have a record of supporting B.C. Rail. As a matter of fact, they joined me, I think, in opposing the name change. I don't know if you did or not, but I recall fighting against the name change because of the history that was involved.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, that's good sentimental value. There are some people who still think the Socreds could rule, and that's why they want to split the Cariboo off. (Laughter.)

Mr. Chairman, there are people who must understand that history conditions the actions of today. So I want to make the record straight in terms of the shareholdings and the purchases., The only shares that we have purchased under the expanded authority, initiated by the former administration under the Revenue Act, are the Westcoast Transmission shares.

I want to say this: as a matter of policy and a matter of principle, those Westcoast Transmission shares do belong in the hands of the people of this province because it is dealing with the resources of the people of this province.

That purchase also is a good business purchase. So in terms of three purchases and in a business sense only, not on the basis of philosophy or government policy which every government must act on — but the

[ Page 751 ]

Member has complained about the business approach — on a business approach, on two out of three we've made money; the two which made money have been made by this side and the one loser has been made over there.

But, Mr. Member, I ask you not to use that as the criterion of the purchase, because I believe that the people of British Columbia should have presence in a bank, and this bank happens to be the one that we have presence in at this time. I believe it is the people's right to have a presence in a bank. I said so at the Western Economic Opportunities Conference, and the federal Minister of Finance has announced that in agreement with the policy of the new government of British Columbia, there will be an option to amend the Bank Act and allow the provinces to become directly involved.

Now the question raised about the egg-and-chicken war. Mr. Member, I think it is important to deal with a bit of history before we come to my involvement.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): Wait till the Liberals come back.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, it's quite all right. I think we should deal with it.

First of all, let me say at the outset that I have not ordered anyone to do anything in the one meeting related to the affidavits; and at the other meeting I was not present at all.

In September of 1972 a report was given to the Government of British Columbia, which was just changing hands. It was a report requested by the former Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Shelford, dealing with the independent Egg Marketing Board.

Mr. Shelford, it seems, and Mr. Richter before him, had some trouble with these boards. (Laughter.) That is why Mr. Shelford asked for the independent study, because there had been a problem with these boards from their very inception. There had been bitter fights, rivalries, power plays, and other things that Mr. Garrish writes about in his report, some of which I will refer to as I go along.

When I became Premier of this province, I had just finished two years of touring this province. I had found, much to my surprise and disappointment, that there were many businessmen, farmer-businessmen, who wanted to get involved in egg production but they claimed they were fighting a monopoly in the Fraser Valley in terms of the control of those quotas.

The former Minister of Agriculture said,"I'll find out whether or not that is true." And he authorized this report. I heard about this throughout the Interior of this province.

I'm surprised, Mr. Member, that you haven't got up, as Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett), and fought for the Interior, for the north, for Vancouver Island. But you have looked upon this diversion as an attempt by the board....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Member, I notice also that while I was away the Land Commission was debated. Last year I was called a fascist, a communist and everything in between because of the land bill, and so was the Minister of Agriculture. This year the opposition spent one half-hour on the Land Commission — one half-hour.

Now there was a problem, and I'll tell the people that they were up — the great freedom fighters — for one half-hour on the Land Commission.

Mr. Chairman, I want to quote extensively from this report from Mr. Garrish, because the government was asked by Mr. Garrish, who was ordered by Mr. Shelford to prepare this report, to act. This is what Mr. Garrish said about the board:

"While their representations did not appear to come directly within the terms of reference of this survey, they did point out that the board has become deeply involved in side issues"

— perhaps like affidavits —

"deeply involved in side issues which have little direct bearing on the board's original purpose of controlling the flow of eggs to markets and stabilizing the price to the producer."

That's Mr. Garrish's report. He went on to say that:

"Regulations issued by the board should be confined to matters for which it was established and should only use those which are vital to the discharge of its duties. Some of the regulations affecting the allied trades, particularly those concerning quotas that apply to hatching eggs, are very confusing and uneven in their application, and could be construed as being designed to help maintain a market for quota rather than having anything to do with the sale of eggs."

Mr. Chairman, that was the charge of the Interior small businessmen, whom you should be fighting for; for the Peace River egg producer, for whom you should be fighting; for the Vancouver egg producer, for whom you should be fighting; and for the West–Point Grey egg producers that the Liberals are fighting for. (Laughter.)

There is a list of 12 specified areas that Mr. Garrish was asked to look into. He had hearings in Abbotsford on June 20 and 2 1. Then they had survey meetings in Dawson Creek, where they heard complaints; Prince George, where they heard complaints....

AN HON. MEMBER: What year was this?

[ Page 752 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: It was in 1972.... Vernon, where they heard complaints; Nelson and Duncan, where they heard complaints; and they returned to Abbotsford.

Throughout the hearings there was general agreement that the board had introduced a great degree of stability in the egg marketing in British Columbia. The continued operation of orderly marketing was conceded to be of overriding importance to the egg producers.

Two of the three people who appeared before the survey team qualified their support by stating that "unless certain changes were made in the constitution and policies of the board, they would prefer to return to open marketing...." There was a near revolt against the use of the Egg Marketing Board just a little over a year ago. That was the purpose of the study ordered by the former Minister (Mr. Shelford). There were statements made by and against board members. Generally speaking, the board was impressed with the number that it heard from. I'll table this report.

"Three areas of the board's policies and activities provoked the most criticisms and discussions and, in my opinion, the criticisms have a solid basis." This is what Mr. Garrish said about the Egg Marketing Board. The date is September, 1972. The former Minister received it and we had to act on it.

"These three areas are as follows:

" 1. The trafficking in quotas contrary to the provisions of the scheme."

Well, you agree and I agree, and it should have been stopped. As a matter of fact, Mr. Minister, you had the guts to order that it be stopped. He interfered with the board. Bring in the affidavits. The Minister was doing his job; let's find out about it.

You ordered the board that if they didn't do it, you'd have to consider dismantling the board, Mr. former Minister of Agriculture, and that was implied in your order. At no time did I order anything.

MR. CHABOT: Kick the "censored" out of them.

HON. MR. BARRETT: "Kick the ‘censored' out of them." says the Member. Mr. Member, you must clean up your language. (Laughter.) You've had enough trouble in court.

Mr. Chairman, I want to go to No. 2 said by Garrish:

"2. The dumping of quota pool eggs at distressed prices into the Kootenays and the Peace River."

The Kootenays and the Peace River. Where is the Peace River now? Are they here fighting for their little small businessmen egg producers?

"3. The arrangement between the B.C. Egg Marketing Board and the Fraser Valley Egg & Poultry Co-operative Association.

"These three points are very largely responsible for the position in which the board now finds itself in and have done much to blur the recognition of the solid accomplishments of the board and the degree of stability it has brought to the industry as a whole."

This is the atmosphere that you must understand when we came in: tempers were inflamed; names were being called; personal attacks in terms of name-calling were taking place between egg producers in the Interior and the north, and name-calling between producers in the Fraser Valley. That's a matter of record: a highly-charged atmosphere that the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) can attest to as a former member of the board. He was there and he knew what was going on and so did Mr. Garrish.

Mr. Garrish said:

"However, I feel the present situation in which the board actively assists in the transfer of quotas" — actively assists in the transfer of quotas — "by the sale of 'layers' is detrimental to the best interests of the producers. The quota system, after all, is only a marketing tool."

Now, you listen to this carefully, through you Mr. Chairman. This is the atmosphere we're dealing with. This is the atmosphere preceding the meeting in my office. Then the silence. Then the affidavits months after the meeting, claiming that I said so and so and such and such or "words to that effect," months after the meeting. But this is the report:

"The more quotas come to be regarded as personal assets worth so many thousands of dollars to the individual, the less real freedom the board has to use the quota system for its true purpose as the major instrument in its marketing programme.... It has aroused the suspicion that if one basic point of agreement in the original plan on which the marketing board concept was sold to the producers can so easily be circumvented, what is to stop other provisions from being disregarded in the same manner until nothing is left?"

An independent study of that board's activity was ordered by the former government. If we didn't act on this report, we would be in dereliction of our duty to the producers throughout the province.

"Certainly this situation should be remedied. Either the scheme should be amended to recognize what is in fact happening, or the board should be directed to return to the original concept and eliminate the trafficking in quotas through the sale of so-called 'layers.' "

Interference? It was recommended to the former government. It already has an admitted record of interfering and ordering the board to do something. That was the atmosphere. Don't shake your head, Mr. Member. You already know that you ordered the

[ Page 753 ]

board to do certain things. In fact, you just admitted it today.

MR. FX RICHTER (Boundary-Similkameen): Never did.

HON. MR. BARRETT-: Now you're changing your mind.

MR. RICHTER: You're wrong.

HON. MR. BARRETT:

"In fact, if the federal. marketing scheme for eggs comes into operation, it is quite foreseeable that the going price for weekly quotas could rise in a very few years to the neighbourhood of $1,000 per case."

You tell me how the small farmer in the Peace River, how the small farmer in the Interior, how the small farmer on Vancouver Island, how the small farmer anywhere else is going to get a break if the board looked upon, as this report says, quotas as personal things.

MR. LEWIS: It would make me worth $140,000.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It makes the Member worth $140,000 almost overnight. You shouldn't have come into politics, Mr. Member. (Laughter.) And why was that Member elected, and why were Members from Prince George and Vancouver Island and the Interior elected on the NDP? Part of the reason was that the small businessmen were fed up. The quotas were going up to $ 1,000.

"As a result of representations to the then Minister of Agriculture, the Hon. Frank Richter, he directed the board to make provision for quota for these producers."

Yes, the Hon. Minister of Agriculture directed the board to make quotas.

MR. LEWIS: That's interference.

HON. MR. BARRETT: He just denied that? He has a short memory and I'm trying to remember for him. What was the purpose of his interference and ordering and direction? His purpose was to make an attempt to see that those small businessmen in the Interior, in the north, in Peace River and on Vancouver Island had a fair chance at the market. That's what it was.

It goes on to say that the board marketed this and the board marketed that. Then the Minister ordered them.... Now, listen to this. These are the same board members.

"However, the letter of March 26, 1968, sent by the board to all Interior registered producers soliciting this information never once mentioned the possibility of quotas being issued on the basis of this information, although it could be argued that it is implicit in the letter. Once again those who understood what was going on reaped the benefit and once again the board will, no doubt, contend that there is nothing 'immoral, unethical or illegal' in what happened."

Similar to insider trading, Mr. Member. Emotionalism? Personal interest? Accusations made by Mr. Garrish in this report. When they came to my office, if you don't think they were in an emotional state, brother, you better believe they were.

Why did it take so long for those affidavits? Because these Members here have been fighting as they fought in the election campaign so the small businessmen in the north, on the Interior, in the Kootenays and on Vancouver Island could have a fair shake, because Mr. Garrish said those board members were looking upon the quota as personal assets.

I asked the Minister to call them into my office and I asked the Minister that we should discuss this matter in front of the board because we were aware that the former Minister of Agriculture had directed them to do something, ordered them to do something. I said at that meeting that they were behaving like children. I remember it very clearly. And I didn't say it in words to that effect. I remember what I said: I told them they were acting like children. I did not order them to do anything; I suggested that this kind of fighting had to stop.

MR. GARDOM: What else did you say?

HON. MR. BARRETT: What they said I said is their opinion. I know exactly what I said, and I said that they were acting like children. I tell you this: I didn't order like the former Minister of Agriculture.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, Mr. Member, you can interpret it any way you want. Those board members who waited a whole year can interpret it any way they want. But let's face the fact: the evidence was that they were considering their quota as personal assets, and this report was on the Minister's desk in June of 1972.

Mr. Garrish goes on to say:

"...I happen to feel that a marketing board — any marketing board — has an overriding obligation to make sure that it informs all of its producers in the simplest and clearest language what it is doing and what it is intending to do. Had this letter stated quite clearly that this was an opportunity for Interior producers to increase their quotas...and that it was the last such opportunity from here on in quota was

[ Page 754 ]

going to cost a substantial sum of money per case."

But that was never told to the Interior. That was never told to the north. That was never told to Vancouver Island. It just happened.

Mr. Garrish goes on to say:

"The matter of quotas being transferred between areas within the province has been the subject to change the policy of the part of the board. The original intention was that the quota could only be transferred within the area.... The board has been very reluctant to tackle the question of revocation of quota....

"Throughout all the hearings in the Interior and also on Vancouver Island the statement was made by producer after producer" — and I heard the same things when I travelled around this province — "producer after producer that they were assured when the board was being established they would be given an opportunity to grow with their market, and that, apart from additional quotas issued to some Interior producers in the spring of 1968, this had not been honoured."

This is Mr. Garrish accusing the board of not honouring a promise — Mr. Garrish, in any independent study. We get a measure of the board and its operation and a history of what we were coming into as government.

Instead they are now told by the egg board — that is the small producer out there in the north, and elsewhere — that if they wish to increase production and meet the market requirements, they must purchase additional quota at the price of around $350 per case.

A small farmer was being told by the board that you can't come in unless you buy quota at $350 a case, an accusation made by Mr. Garrish. Also Mr. Garrish saying that the board considered the quotas to be assets, not regulation of the market place.

MR. GARDOM: He didn't say he was going to deny everything when he got outside, did he?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to file the report for the Member to read for himself and read what Mr. Garrish has to say about the board and its statement and its history, and then everybody can judge for themselves. You judge for yourself. I'll make my statements, you make yours.

"The repeated statement by the producers that they were given the assurance of being issued additional quotas so that they could grow with their markets had the ring of truth about them and I believed them. Whether or not the people who gave these assurances had any real authority to do so is another matter. People promoting marketing schemes are invariably optimistic and expect more than any such scheme can produce.... Whatever may be the reasons for the tremendous concentration of B.C. egg production in the Fraser Valley area at the present time, long-term thinking must surely concede that a distribution of production more in line with market requirements would result in better service to the wholesaler and retailer, and a fresher product to the consumer....

"One thing appears certain" — and I'm quoting from Mr. Garrish's report — "if the present board policies are unaltered and in view of the almost total control which the Fraser Valley producers have over the Egg Marketing Board, they are not likely to be altered by the board itself. Production will continue to be concentrated in the Fraser Valley until questions such as pollution control, zoning and so on, forces a change in the economic pattern."

The board itself, according to Mr. Garrish and the report we have and we must act on as a responsible government, said that they were not prepared to give up their control in the Fraser Valley to allow the small farmer in the Interior, the north and Vancouver Island.

Now, I can't tell you that the board members are happy with me, but why should they be happy with me? Because I asked the Minister and I asked the MLAs, don't you think that we should sit down with them and ask them what they're going to do about this report to ensure that the small farmer in the Interior and the north and Vancouver Island have a chance? That's what it's all about.

AN HON. MEMBER: You scared them.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Scared them, Mr. Member? They should have nightmares of guilt after having read this report.

"Study must be given to a formula arrangement," said Mr. Garrish,"whereby a producer in a deficit area wishing to expand production would be able to obtain a permit from the board, not necessarily free of charge but certainly at a fraction of the existing quota price of $350 per case."

The second point relates to the Peace River country. Social Credit area, where the Members should be down here fighting for those areas. That's the purpose of an MLA. He's to come down here and fight for the people in his area. It's not a party obligation first, it is a matter of coming down here and representing and fighting for the people you represent.

Peace River, this is what happened in the Peace River area. And will we hear the Leader of the

[ Page 755 ]

Opposition (Mr. Bennett) fight for the Interior? Will we hear the other Members fight? I fought for equity in my office and outside of my office, and I'm not ashamed for fighting for that equity.

"The second point that brought the problems of the board to a head is the dumping of quota pool eggs at distressed prices in the Peace River and Kootenay area."

Trying to break the local farmers. I told them exactly what I said, Mr. Member, and the board members can say that it was "words to that effect" all they want.

I know exactly what I said, I know what this report says about the board, Mr. Member. They are couching their words in the statement of "words to that effect." I know exactly what I said: I called them in and said. "You're acting like children. We want some equity in this province and we want a chance for the small farmer to be able to produce right across this province." And if people want to swear affidavits, if people want to swear affidavits claiming that I said otherwise, I demanded otherwise, that's on their head, Mr. Chairman. But let you know and understand that this report was there, and they consider these quotas to be their personal assets when in fact it was keeping the small farmer who you should be fighting for, from having a chance to go into business in this province.

MR. LEWIS: Trying to break them.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What else does Mr. Garrish say? Before the meeting about this very same board who obviously had a vested interest in their own operations and were prepared to say things in letters and behave in other ways that raised Mr. Garrish's doubts to a point where I'll read his recommendations. Mr. Garrish is not an NDPer. He was appointed by Social Credit and I understand that he's a Tory.

"Quite frankly," said Mr. Garrish, "I find it incredible that the board did not recognize what a storm would be stirred up by their action, and did not realize that the marginal gains to be achieved did not justify jeopardizing the very existence of the board itself. Such tactics of the board" — he's accusing the board — "such tactics would be roundly condemned if practised by a private business corporation and should be even more so in a marketing board operating under a compulsory scheme under authority derived from the government of the province."

This board has been decried for its tactics and when it was confronted with these problems and these issues, 18 months of silence and then tripping out with little affidavits which end up by saying,"Oh, I was under the impression of...."

I tell you, it's more then being under the impression of. I was aware what these quotas meant to that small group of Fraser Valley farmers and that's why they were called into my office, because we wanted a way, without ordering, like the former Minister did, without ordering a solution to those problems so that the small farmers in the north and the Interior and Vancouver Island should get a break. After 18 months of trying to find a solution, what do we get? A phony argument by the opposition and some affidavits that say,"I seem to recall that this was said and that was said."

I'll tell you what was said. I said they were acting like children and I wanted this problem solved and I still want this problem solved so that the little farmers of this province can have a break.

"Quite frankly, I find it incredible that the board did not recognize what a storm it created." That's what Mr. Garrish said. And it said,"Such tactics would be roundly condemned."

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): What else did you say?

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Self-defence.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Self-defence, Mr. Member? I tell you this, I agree with this report and I criticize the board and I criticize them again because I want the small farmer in the north, the Interior and Vancouver Island to have a break outside of the Fraser Valley.

"The third point of valid criticism of the board was the relationship between the board and the Fraser Valley Egg and Poultry Co-op Association.... In fact the Egg Marketing Board and the Fraser Valley Egg and Poultry Co-op Association at the operational level appear to be virtually one and the same.... The Egg and Poultry Co-op is for all practising purposes the alter ego of the marketing board."

An incestuous relationship. And which came first, the chicken or the egg? I don't know. But nevertheless, Mr. Garrish catalogued charge after charge after charge against that board. Certainly they would be in an emotional atmosphere when they came into my office. Somebody was going to ask them to do something about it.

"But again it has caused very much suspicion and distrust in many areas of the province. It is one that should be clarified and altered without undue delay." And that's exactly what we were attempting to do.

Mr. Garrish goes on to say this, and I want everybody in the House to read it:

"We were informed that the reason for the establishment of the co-op as the agency

[ Page 756 ]

owning the plant and the equipment was because of limitations placed on the board in its ability to own property and become involved in long-term investments of this nature. This should be the subject of a complete review and whatever amendments are necessary should be made to the board, as such, to carry out these pooling arrangements and to own whatever facilities are necessary for the proper conduct of them without the necessity of a separate organization."

Mr. Member of agriculture, you knew all this history too. You are glad that you don't have the problem any more. The composition of the board and the only direct order to ever come out of any government official of this board came from that Minister of Agriculture.

AN HON. MEMBER: Prove it.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Are you calling Mr. Garrish incorrect?

AN HON. MEMBER: Show us the documents.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, we certainly will dig out the documents. If Mr. Garrish is wrong, we'll find out if Mr. Garrish is wrong. You ordered the report from Mr. Garrish. Didn't you read it? Shelford did. "He only believes in one week out of two," says the Member. You think that this kind of problem is operating in a vacuum. Next in the report was a public hearing on the composition of the Egg Board itself. What did Mr. Garrish say about that?

"The composition of the board only became an issue because of controversy which developed over board policies, and the impossibility for either the Interior or Vancouver Island to alter board policy under present circumstances."

Mr. Garrish went on to say:

"At the present time, with three Members representing the lower mainland, one representing Vancouver Island and one representing the whole of the Interior, there can be no question that the board is quite effectively controlled by the producers in the lower mainland. They, of course, having some 80 per cent of the total production...."

That's the crux of the problem — a virtual monopoly in terms of the production, so that the small businessman, the small farmer who wants to go out and cut down some wood and build a house, the great mythical pioneer that those little free enterprisers talk about, never had a chance under this board.

On the other hand, the entire Island and Interior people recognized that when the chips are down, the control as to board policy and the carrying out of board policy is completely out of their hands. Oh, how they learned.

Let's consider the motivation of affidavits; let's consider the motivation of words that say "or words to that effect" 18 months after. I'll tell you that we are trying to bring justice to the egg marketing in this province, and it is our intention to bring justice to the egg marketing in this province.

If some people don't like it, then vote for another government. But I'll tell you that as long as this government's in office the small guy will get a break, and there will be no control.

You don't like me calling meetings in my office to attempt to solve problems. You don't like the fact that you refuse to refer yourself to the history. You don't like the fact that those board members were being attacked in this document in looking upon their quotas as assets.

Are you supporting the fact that the Fraser Valley has 80 per cent of the egg production tied up in their little hands and this doesn't allow the fellow in the Peace River and Vancouver Island and the Interior and the north to have a break? If that is what you are supporting, I'll have no hesitation in telling the people of this province where you stand on the Egg Marketing Board.

"On the other hand," says Mr. Garrish — listen to this — "if the present situation is allowed to remain...." These words are not said by Barrett, but by Garrish — a Tory, hired by that former government.

"On the other hand, if the present situation is allowed to remain, inevitably the board policies will reflect the views and the wishes of the majority of the producers presently concentrated in the lower mainland. If a change is to be brought about" —

listen to this; this is what Mr. Garrish said —

"it will certainly have to be as a result of a policy decision at some level higher than the Egg Marketing Board."

He is suggesting interference was ordered before and that the new Minister should order it again, which was not done. You didn't order anything, eh, Frank? You'd better check with Garrish's report.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Okay. Check it out. Start a whole new caucus. Go back and work over the facts. There is more to come. Wait till you hear the recommendations from Mr. Garrish. Some sort of review procedure or some referee.

"Some board of review or some referee on board policy matters must be established at government level to ensure that minority groups within the board's jurisdictions have

[ Page 757 ]

available to them a court of appeal from board orders and board regulations."

Now, who would be against that? The only ones who would be against that are those who have vested interests in the status quo that was the Egg Board and those are the people who were called to my office. They didn't like to hear that I told them they were acting like children. Apparently they heard other things or seem to have heard other things in their affidavits. They can't quite remember themselves — I tell you my statements were this...

MR. McCLELLAND: Did they, did they?

MR. PHILLIPS: Resign!

HON. MR. BARRETT: ...my statements were: "You are acting like children and I would suggest that this problem be solved with the Minister." They were not ordered to solve with my orders or anything else. The Minister, himself, then carried the problem from there. "Or else," Mr. Member, is in the Garrish report, not in my words. That is an interesting thing, Mr. Member, the Garrish report suggested that the government not play around and look for conciliation, that it order it be done. That's what the Garrish report asked for and the government did not act completely on the Garrish report.

MR. McCLELLAND: Tell us what you said. We can take it!

HON. MR. BARRETT: I told you exactly what I have said, Mr. Member, and if you are not prepared to believe it, that's your opinion.

MR. McCLELLAND: Are you calling them liars?

HON. MR. KING: Their credibility.

MR. McCLELLAND: Do you want to call them liars?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Those members don't even remember what was said by their own admission.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Listen to this — what Garrish said about the same group.

" It has been a general practice o f government, after producer-marketing boards have been established, to leave them to run their own affairs."

That's a general practice. Let them run their own affairs.

"On the whole, this has worked well. It is not a basic right of marketing boards; on the contrary, any delegation of power by government or any board, no matter how elected or constituted, carries with it any obligations by the government, to make sure that the delegated powers are not being abused."

Mr. Member for Peace River (Mr. Phillips), where were you to fight for the Peace River farmers who were not getting their fair share?

I'll tell you, Mr. Member, when I go up to Peace River, I'll read this report.

MR. PHILLIPS: Don't threaten me again.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh! Mr. Chairman, every time that Member says "Don't threaten him" because I keep on telling him the truth. That is what he is threatened with. He's not fighting for the small producer. If there is any degree of peace in the egg industry, some form of scrutiny at the departmental level is going to be necessary for some time to come and that has not changed one iota — not one iota....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, it said "the government" and we are all the government together in this group — not like the former administration.

MR. McCLELLAND: Tell that to your Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich). Surely that's not what they say.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, at least the Members of the Fraser Valley — listen to this — I'm not passing any judgment on it, I'm reading what Mr. Garrish said about those board members:

"Board members, at least some board members in the Fraser Valley, are more directly involved in administrative matters than I would have expected and this is reflected in the details of their per them... expenses which were examined."

Now, I have no idea what he means by that.

"All of the accounts appeared in order and salaries paid were in line with the responsibility carried. In summary, and to put things in perspective, it is generally agreed that the Board has done a creditable job in stabilizing egg marketing... but some of these matters, and particularly the problems affecting the allied groups could well be the subject of further study with a view to bringing about a compromise between the contending factions."

"A further study to bring about a compromise" and that is why they were called in my office to attempt to bring out a compromise which has not been reached at this point but it has reduced itself to

[ Page 758 ]

board members attacking myself, the Minister of Agriculture and Members of this Legislature.

And couching the words by saying, "Or words to that effect". The last words by Mr. Garrish are these, and I want everybody in this House to ponder:

"It may require some degree of intervention by the government" — of which I happen to be a Member, Mr. Member, with your shallow attempt at trying to divert the issue from where it belongs.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT:

"It may require some degree of intervention by the government to achieve necessary changes. If this is so, there should be no hesitation on the government to act for the continuation of a programme of orderly marketing. The egg industry justifies it."

I tell you this: I will be involved in attempts to solve problems with my Ministers and with my backbenchers as long as we are the government of this province. And I tell you this: we are determined to bring about, regardless of offshoots in the opposition, regardless of anything else, we are determined to bring about equity for that small farmer-businessman in this province, and there it is right on the record, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before we proceed, I draw to your attention, a request from the Chief of Hansard, as follows:

"Could you please invite the co-operation of all Members in the correct use of their microphones? While the Minister who is the target of the question may well hear it clearly across the floor, it is almost impossible for Hansard to hear it on tape. We are then faced with a clear reply from the Minister to a question we did not record."

I would request all I would request all Hon. Members to wait for their time and then use the microphone.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, through to the Premier, I did ask some questions. While I agree that he put on a great political show, I'd like to go back and ask the questions again, because apparently you didn't listen, or you didn't understand. It's the whole point about the financial dealings of the province that I meant to ask about.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh!

MR. PHILLIPS: He's got eggs on his mind.

MR. BENNETT: You can sit there and say "Oh!" but I'd like to question again, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Premier: (1) I mentioned gas rates to the consumers of the province.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I answered that.

MR. BENNETT: I asked about the rates being reduced to the people of the province because they've been unfairly dealt with. Their rates have been put up by an action of this government. You have the revenue and you have the power to return that money to them so they don't have any rate increase.

Now either you stand up and say "Yes, we're collecting a tax increase off the people of British Columbia," or you're going to return the amount of the increase so they don't pay it. But don't play games with us. And you didn't answer that question. You started to talk about export markets and everything else. My question was specifically about the rates charged to the people of British Columbia, because of the action of this government — and how you intended to prevent the rate increases by returning the money to them.

Secondly, I talked about purchases in the stock market, dealing with companies and whole companies through the Revenue Act.

HON. MR. BARRETT: There's a motion on the order paper, and that's out of order.

MR. BENNETT: What's out of order?

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, it's your motion.

MR. BENNETT: I'm talking to the Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I'm referring in the broad context of Columbia Cellulose. I'm referring to Kootenay Forest Products. These are shares on the stock market....

HON. MR. BARRETT: Withdraw your motion.

MR. BENNETT: ...that weren't under the authority of the other government. All I was suggesting is whether we would have procedures to protect this. I didn't talk about the investment of the pension plan funds that may have been used before; I talked about the new regulations...

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, yes.

MR. BENNETT: ...and I mentioned it specifically. I'll mention some inconsistencies in the Premier's general speech in just a moment.

I would hate to have to have him come to this House and correct statements to do with financial purchases as I watched him do last fall. With all of the extra staff, finance associates and new administrators,

[ Page 759 ]

he couldn't give a correct answer on the order paper about who bought what shares. We had to witness him coming into this House and make a correction. Now I don't want him to do that again today so I'd like to ask him again, and point out to him the danger of the methods of procedure where you're taking over whole companies that are trading on the public stock market. That question wasn't answered in your hour-and-a-half-long speech.

The public is concerned about it. They're discussing it. All we're asking for is procedures. We're not on a witch hunt. Just develop procedures. There are many companies in this province that you may be planning on taking over right now, and many that you haven't dreamed up yet. But those people who own shares in those companies deserve to be protected.

Then you mentioned the — and I'm not here as a defender of the former government — but you mentioned that they were affecting the market play. I would point out to you that you specifically stated that they affected the market. The only time that you quoted the former premier about recommending shares was when they were in primary issue, and not active on the stock market. You specifically told this House, and it'll be in Hansard tomorrow, that they affected the market play of stocks by recommendation.

AN HON. MEMBER: He doesn't understand about that.

MR. BENNETT: I would suggest, Mr. Premier, that it's your very lack of understanding of the difference of day-to-day market trading and primary issues that creates some of the concern in this province. During your speech you specifically stated the dates on which these shares were bought, and you stated specifically later that they were bought after the primary issue.

MR. CHABOT: That's right; there's a big difference.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You say it wouldn't affect the sales of those? He was on the phone asking....

MR. BENNETT: I am responding to your statement that they affected the market, the day-to-day market.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Certainly it affected the market.

MR. BENNETT: A primary issue is far different from the day-to-day market because the price, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Premier, doesn't change on a primary issue.

It doesn't change on a primary issue, but I'm not here to discuss that. I'm here to discuss the procedures of today. You're the government of today and you're going to be doing more takeovers in the future; it's your avowed policy. We want them done in a responsible manner. It's all right for you to get up and give one of your harangues against the old government — one of your campaign speeches – but this Legislature here, as the people's representatives, wants some answers.

Now I specifically mentioned — and you took 45 minutes discussing the chicken-and-egg war — that I didn't bring it up during the agricultural estimates because the only question was one of the Premier's action in this and not one of marketing boards, and not one of the way they were operating, and not of reports that were commissioned by the former government and this government to put into effect.

What are under question are the actions of the Premier in this office in the treatment he gave to people in British Columbia, and the subsequent denials and affidavits that have been filed. I merely asked for a comment on that to clear up the public air — not a question of marketing boards.

The Premier — although we knew you were in Saskatchewan for a premier's conference — if he wanted to participate in the agricultural debate, didn't have to take his little extended tour over to visit ICBC last Friday. You could have been here. ICBC is there today and there tomorrow, and I presume it will be there next week. You could have gone then if you wanted to participate in the agricultural debate. That was your choice and you weren't here. There were other questions I asked — questions in the public mind about threatened lawsuits and whether they'll be used to prevent public discussion. I also questioned the use of a motion to call a public inquiry, and then not be called, to hang over a Member's head — one of my colleagues — and I think it deserves comment.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Where were you Thursday night?

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where have you been all session?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The Hon. Member for South Okanagan has the floor.

MR. BENNETT: So, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Premier, I think these questions I asked that haven't been answered, should be answered. And all I ask is that we get some clarification. I'm not making charges. I'm not interested in the Premier's continuing view of how he views the old government.

[ Page 760 ]

We're all aware that he's uptight lately because he's under some attack, both personally and on his policies.

Of course, he's on his celebrated diet, and we of the official opposition are going to help you with your diet. You take responsibility for losing your double chin and your stomach and we'll make sure you lose your seat.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, we heard a good speech from the Premier, an excellent speech by the Premier. No one applauds; I thought they might.

Mr. Chairman, it's clear that the Saskatchewan air agreed with him, and it's very interesting to hear about the Garrish Report which was read to us paragraph by paragraph, all carefully underlined in yellow. It was a fine rendition of the Garrish Report.

MR. BENNETT: "A" for reading.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Certainly it's not Shakespeare but it was well read and there was plenty there. But all the Premier really said in quoting the Garrish Report was this: "Here is the Garrish Report. It says the Egg Marketing Board deserves a proper kicking. Now they certainly deserved a kicking, but I didn't kick them."

Now really and truly, you're going to have to use that Garrish Report a little more intelligently, Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Chairman. The point is that if you are using that as justification for kicking the egg board, or correcting their misunderstandings as to what they should be doing, or influencing them in any way at all, that's fine. If you want to use the Garrish Report to indicate there is good reason to go after the egg board, I think you've done a very good job, Mr. Premier.

But the issue is not here, whether or not you have reason to chase after....

The issue is not whether the Garrish report made it perfectly clear that certain things had to change in that board to achieve certain objectives. That has not been the issue in the chamber and I'm simply amazed. This report comes up after 23 hours of debate on the Minister of Agriculture's estimates, and I understand it was raised by the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) — only by him and not by the Minister — in my recollection of the debate. I checked over Hansard fairly closely on this. This becomes now the defence for something that apparently....

HON. MR. BARRETT: There is no defence.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I agree with the Premier. There is no defence for what he did. This is perhaps the "excuse," if the Premier doesn't like the word "defence." But the fact of the matter is that all this quotation from the Garrish report about the need for changes in the Egg Marketing Board is irrelevant to the central question, which is, or has been up to now, whether or not it is correct for the government to interfere, as it's alleged to have done and, secondly, whether or not the Premier in his replies to questions on the influence used was telling the truth, or otherwise to this House.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The Premier has just commented, Mr. Chairman, that we have to believe one or the other.

Interjection.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You will in due course find out who I believe. It's not something I think you should joke about, Mr. Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea).

The question, Mr. Chairman, is this. We have the situation where we're given nothing else but a choice between who to believe. Do you believe the Premier or do you believe these affidavits? We would have to point out that the affidavits were sworn statements. Anyone who swears an affidavit inaccurately is guilty of perjury and is subject to prosecution on those grounds. The Premier's statements have not been on affidavit.

HON. MR. BARRETT: They say "or words to that effect." They can't even remember themselves. It's inaccurate.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It's perfectly correct, as the Premier mentions, that the words,"or similar words to the same effect, " were used in these affidavits. They're used in affidavit after affidavit after affidavit. If you go to our jails, Mr. Chairman, you will find numerous people incarcerated simply because affidavits were put forward which had those words in them, and the judges of our judicial system in the Province of British Columbia accepted those affidavits as being good enough to put people behind bars.

There is no question here of affidavits being in the wrong form. They are affidavits. Sure, they could be changed; sure, they could use different words, but the standard form that the Premier and the Minister of Agriculture object to so much had been plenty to put lots of people in this province behind bars. If it is good enough to incarcerate people, citizens of this province, surely we can accept them at least as affidavits, and as affidavits which represent the views of the people who put them forward.

So we have the two issues. One I will leave because the issue was dealt with at great length during the debate of the Minister of Agriculture.

[ Page 761 ]

Some 10 days ago, Mr. Chairman, the Province newspaper printed statements from a Mr. Brunsdon, a former chairman of the Egg Marketing Board of B.C. These were printed on February 21 and 22, I believe. On the Monday following, February 25, I asked the Premier a couple of questions in this House. They are on page 479 of Hansard. I asked the Premier, Mr. Chairman,

whether on October 26, 1972, at a meeting in his office, the British Columbia Egg Marketing Board was asked to substantially reduce their financial claim against a Mr. Sy Kovachich, an NDP supporter from Taber Lake, in the Fort George constituency, as referred to and subsequently commented upon by the Premier in the Province newspaper on February 21 and 22.

Hon. David Barrett, the Premier, replied as follows, Mr. Chairman:

Mr. Speaker, they were not asked or ordered or suggested to be ordered to do anything. I suggested to them that they were acting like children and it would be far better for their industry if they got together with their lawyers, They did get together with their lawyers and settled the matter.

That was the statement of the Premier.

I asked a supplementary, and I asked the Premier whether he denied that he told the members of the Egg Marketing Board to draw up an agreement incorporating such reduced charges against Mr. Kovachich.

The Premier replied:

I told no one to draft an agreement. I suggested that they get together with their attorneys and come up with some agreement, because they were acting like children, in my opinion.

The Hon. Member from Langley (Mr. McClelland) then went on and asked questions on whether or not the Premier had suggested to the people in question that certain quotas should be instituted in the Interior for the growers in question.

Hon. David Barrett:

No. I did not suggest certain quotas. I suggested that they were acting like children and that they should get together and solve the problem.

We have repeated statements that the Premier merely suggested they get together and stop acting like children.

The following day an affidavit signed by Mr. Brunsdon was printed in the Province newspaper. Later on, Mr. Chairman, this was subsequently tabled in the House. Therefore a supplementary question was asked by me, on page 510 of Hansard.

In the light of a statement sworn by affidavit by MR. W.H.L. Brunsdon, and contained in this morning's paper, may I ask the Premier whether he stands by his statement to the House today?

The Speaker then got off on a point of order, which apparently was incorrect, and finally the Premier replied again on page 510, where he said:

I recall distinctly in this issue, which is a very emotional one, that I made no order, or did not order any solution. I suggested that they were acting like children and apparently they are continuing to act like children. I suggested that they get together with their lawyers and see if they could work out some solution. That is what they did. I did not order, as I said yesterday, any solution.

Clear statements, Mr. Chairman, by the Premier.

Following this, to keep up our chronology, the Hon. Member for Langley asked questions about the Broiler Marketing Board. Once again, the same situation apparently prevailed — they had not been ordered. The affidavit by Mr. McAninch was filed later in that week and we then went into the estimates of Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich).

Now, the Minister of Agriculture's statements were interesting Mr. Chairman. First, he did not support the Premier, He stated he had memory troubles. He stated he couldn't remember. He stated that this was the biggest day in Brunsdon's life — a matter which annoys Mr. Brunsdon intensely. He stated that Mr. Brunsdon obviously remembered, because it was the biggest day in his life, but of course his memory was wrong as to what took place — a curious contradiction by the Minister of Agriculture. To quote the Minister of Agriculture himself from Wednesday last, draft page 368-5 of the Hansard blues,"I just don't remember it and I'm not terribly concerned about trying to remember it. I'm not interested in inquiring into anything."

You know, today the Premier gets up and gives a first-class speech defending his position — I think a first-class speech in anticipation of any attack on the egg board or any influence on the egg board — giving every reason for putting influence on the Egg Board. Then his Minister of Agriculture a few days ago simply couldn't remember because he wasn't interested in remembering and he didn't think it was that important, and certainly of course it was one of those things that was in the normal course of events. Curious how the Minister of Agriculture can't remember and the Premier can. And yet we're dealing with the subject of agriculture.

Anyway, we questioned the Minister of Agriculture for many hours last week, when the Premier was in Saskatchewan. We questioned him further on Friday, when the Premier was in Vancouver attending the opening of ICBC's offices. He did not support the Premier's position. He did not call his civil servants and ask them what their memory of these conversations within those four walls were. He did not do that when we asked him. He did not accept our suggestions that a public inquiry under the Public Inquiries Act be made and that a judge of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, independent of

[ Page 762 ]

politics, get out and try and determine whether the Premier was telling the truth or whether the Premier was, indeed, being libeled. He did not do that.

Furthermore, he went on to say that if any of his civil servants asked him whether they should comment, he would advise them that it would not be in their interests to do so. He further went on to say that he didn't think it would be in the interests of agriculture. Well, how can a senior member of the Department of Agriculture comment under the circumstances when he knows his Minister would regard this as an act against agriculture — an act against the agricultural industry of the province? How could they possibly comment upon the the truth or otherwise of statements made?

The Minister of Agriculture made it perfectly clear that his intention was to shut these people up so that they would not comment upon the truth or otherwise of the statements made in affidavits or the truth or otherwise of statements made by the Premier.

So we're in this curious situation. Mr. Chairman, we have the affidavit still outstanding. We have the people who signed these affidavits, swore these affidavits, still convinced they were telling the truth. We have civil servants who might have cleared up the situation, not sworn to secrecy, but just told very bluntly in this Legislature that it would not be in their interests or in the interests of agriculture if they proceeded to tell us what actually took place within these four walls.

We in this party are very concerned about this, because an attack upon the credibility of sworn affidavits attacking the credibility of a Minister of the Crown cannot be ignored. We cannot ignore the affidavits when dealing with the question of the truth or otherwise of the Premier's statements or the truth or otherwise of the Minister of Agriculture's (Hon. Mr. Stupich) statements, and say: "Well, it's the Garrish report, this great Garrish report which popped up only once before but wasn't referred to to any extent at all in fact, it wasn't referred to at all as far as I heard — by the Minister of Agriculture.

The issue as to whether or not Interior producers, Vancouver Island producers such as Brunsdon... Apparently he's one of the ones who is at fault and yet he's one of the ones the government is trying to influence in favour of giving more to Vancouver Island. It's not the issue as to whether or not the Interior, Vancouver Island or Okanagan producers, the Cariboo or Kamloops producers get a bigger slice of the action: That is an issue we can debate and debate at length in the Minister of Agriculture's estimates on the straight question as to whether or not the industry should be 80 per cent of the lower mainland or not. I tend to agree with the Premier that it should be decentralized in an orderly manner in the future, and steps taken along that line are good. In other words, the Garrish report in all probability will be accepted by Members on all sides of the House.

But the real issue we are faced with is this: Did the Premier in his statements to us tell the truth? Were the statements made in this House accurate? Were they truthful or are the affidavits accurate or truthful?

At this particular time it is a very serious question. I would like once more to ask the government to consider a judicial inquiry under the Public Inquiries Act. It is the only way we can get to the bottom of this outside of a legislative committee. If we do not get a judicial inquiry, if we are left here with civil servants who are informed it's in their interests not to say a word about what happened, if we're left with the conflicting statements of the Premier and the affidavits of what the Premier said.... You've got to take your pick. I find that unacceptable. What I want is to have this matter settled. I once again ask the Premier whether or not a judicial inquiry could be begun to get to the bottom of this.

We cannot run the province on the strength of denials of the truth of Ministers' statements. It is just not acceptable that citizens of this province swear affidavits and nothing is done by the Ministers concerned to find out whether these affidavits are truthful or otherwise, or to deny them by the one means they have of definitely having this whole question settled.

The option was there for the Minister of Agriculture to question his officials, to state what he remembered. Well, he had a very bad memory, so we had to go to the officials. What was the situation there? We are faced with no alternative. If we don't get this matter settled by way of a judicial inquiry, we're going to have to try and get the matter settled by way of a House committee.

This whole question is extremely distasteful. The whole question of affidavits being sworn, denying the accuracy of Ministerial statements in this chamber, makes every one of us here, I think, a little cheaper than perhaps is fair.

We have a government which has put honesty in Ministers at a very high ebb. We have a Premier who has gone out and fired a cabinet minister for apparently not telling the whole truth — or whatever the surroundings were — about something which was entirely that man's private affair, had nothing to do with his public office and had nothing to do with the public dollar. That man gets fired. We're going to have a hound's tooth clean government when it comes to the Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder), but when it comes to the statements made by the Premier or the statements made by the Minister of Agriculture, apparently the logical, normal, sensible and fair steps to clear this matter up are not to be taken.

The question is: why? Why are we not having

[ Page 763 ]

these matters properly examined by the government? Why is it necessary for us to push for three days at the Minister of Agriculture and little by little get odd pieces of information out of him about this whole matter. Why is it necessary for the Premier to get up and give a great speech, but irrelevant to the issue of whether or not he told the truth in this chamber or whether or not those affidavits are true?

AN HON. MEMBER: That's what it was all about.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The question is an important one. It affects every one of us. If we are not being told the truth in question period, if we are not being told the truth by Ministers of the Crown on matters of public business, well, I think we should know that as soon as possible and steps should be taken to correct it.

The credibility of the government vis-à-vis the statements made — getting on to last August I guess it was — with respect to the Member for Atlin, put upon them an obligation, a real obligation, to clear this matter up too. If we are to have an open, honest government, why do they fear a judicial inquiry? Why don't they want those civil servants to testify? Why don't they want the Minister of Agriculture to give his true facts?

Once more in closing I would just like to ask the Premier this question: Why don't we have a judicial inquiry on this? Why don't we get to the bottom of it by an independent tribunal outside the politics of this chamber?

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, Mr. Chairman, I had hoped the Premier might change his mind and answer some questions instead of reading reports in this House. We're taking the first opportunity we have had to ask those questions and instead we get what amounted to, really, a vicious attack on the marketing board system in defiance of his own Minister who stood up and defended the marketing board system quite vigorously the other day. I wonder why the Premier wants to cut the legs out from under his own Minister, just as his Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) did, and his Minister of Consumer Services (Hon. Ms. Young) did. Why don't you listen to what your Agriculture Minister has to say?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I didn't attack the system. You know very well I didn't.

MR. McCLELLAND: You sure did. You stood up here and for an hour and fifteen minutes attacked the marketing board system.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The board, not the system.

MR. McCLELLAND: But the point is, Mr. Premier, that while you were away there were two more signed, sworn affidavits filed in this House. One by Mr. Bruce McAninch who is the chairman of the British Columbia Broiler Marketing Board, and another by Arthur Stafford who is the manager of that board. Two more signed and sworn affidavits for which we have had no answers.

The affidavit filed by Mr. Bruce McAninch, made public at a later date, said the Deputy Minister of Agriculture (Mr. S.B. Peterson) had told him that you, meaning the Premier, had personally ordered certain quotas. The affidavit also said the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) had told Mr. McAninch that he was acting on orders from Premier Barrett, and presumably he meant the Premier. He said "It is out of my hands. The Premier has said this is the way it will be."

Once again, in a signed and sworn legal affidavit on the matter of representation on the broiler board, once again McAninch was told, according to his affidavit, that "This was the word from the Premier."

I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that this is a far more serious matter than the Premier is willing to admit. Or perhaps he understands how serious the matter is and that's the reason he has chosen to read that report into the House instead of answering the questions. Perhaps he understands how serious it is.

There is no doubt that the Premier's influence was far more than the sort of passing interest he seems to have had among a couple of squabbling children. The second affidavit refers to events that weren't 18 months away. Much more recent than that — in fact, as recent as a matter of a few weeks.

There is no doubt, according to the affidavits filed, that the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) had undue influence on the Premier and on the Minister of Agriculture. No doubt whatsoever. In fact, the memorandum which was submitted to the Premier in which the Minister of Agriculture indicated his request for consideration of the Premier, was also signed by the Member for Shuswap. Why would the Member for Shuswap even have been consulted on a matter that would have normally been cabinet policy, I would have thought?

No doubt in our minds now, Mr. Chairman, that there is a serious split among the cabinet Ministers on the whole matter of marketing boards. The Agriculture Minister stands in the House and defends them — the Premier and the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) stand in the House and attack them. There is obviously a split among the cabinet members.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's why there are leaks.

MR. McCLELLAND: That's right. That's probably

[ Page 764 ]

why there are so many leaks.

No doubt that the position of the Minister of Agriculture is being undermined seriously by the influence and interference by the other members of the cabinet.

"I don't see why the Premier can't be even just as candid with us as the Minister of Agriculture has been. The Minister of Agriculture admitted in this House to political interference. He admitted that to us; it's in Hansard. He said: "What's wrong with that. What's wrong with political interference?" Why can't the Premier be just as candid with us?

The Minister of Agriculture admitted threatening the marketing boards. He admitted that; it's in Hansard. Why can't the Premier be just as candid?

As a result of those threats which the Minister of Agriculture admitted in this House, the producers are operating in fear of ordered cutbacks, probably from the Premier and Minister of Finance.

With regard to those ordered cutbacks which the producers are concerned about, there is once again more indication of another serious problem which seems to be befalling this government: leaks of secret reports which seem to be leaking all over the place, everywhere, in fact, except to the Minister of Agriculture because he didn't seem to know anything about this one.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Get your hands out of the wastebasket.

MR. McCLELLAND: All I have to do is read the newspapers: they get all the leaks. The Minister of Health thinks leaked documents, which are supposedly confidential, was a funny deal. It's not so funny when documents are leaked to the press and are leaked all over the Province of British Columbia, in advance of legislation, which could affect the stock market — and apparently have affected the stock market.

I'll repeat once again: Ministers of the Crown in other jurisdictions have resigned for a lot less.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Name names.

MR. McCLELLAND: Even the Vancouver Sun knows that these confidential reports are being leaked.

HON. MR. LEA: Name one.

MR. McCLELLAND: But the Minister of Agriculture doesn't know what's in those confidential reports, only the newspapers.

All we ask is that the Premier be as candid with us as the Minister of Agriculture has been. The Minister of Agriculture, in effect, told us on Friday that he considered the statements in these affidavits to be lies because he refuted them completely. Do you agree, Mr. Premier, through you Mr. Chairman, that the statements contained in those signed and sworn affidavits are lies? If you do, you have a responsibility to take it a lot further than you've taken it so far.

All this is far more serious than it is being treated by the Premier. Last night on television the Minister of Agriculture left little doubt — in fact, no doubt — that the Premier's involvement was considerable. Watching that television programme, I wondered why the Minister of Agriculture didn't give us the same kind of information in this House. He certainly gave it to us on that television programme. He indicated on the programme last night that not only was the Premier's involvement considerable, but it was also very effective. We're seeing that it has been very effective.

I just want to make it very clear to the Premier that he hasn't fogged up the issue because we still know what the real issue is, and it's one of truth. We don't believe that all the truth is being told in this matter. We believe it is time that it was. I would suggest that the Minister of Agriculture has managed to erase a good deal of memory lapse which he had at the beginning of this debate. Perhaps it's time the Premier found a cure for his amnesia as well and started to tell us everything that happened and open this whole affair, which is becoming a very sorry affair, up to public inquiry. It's time Mr. Premier.

MR. GARDOM: Unfortunately, we have to start with first principles for the Hon. Premier because he has not answered questions. If you would answer questions, Mr. Premier, it would make it a lot less time-consuming for everybody and no doubt a great deal more pleasant for you.

First of all, was there this meeting in your office that Mr. Brunsdon is talking about? You're nodding to the effect that there was.

Was the meeting in the morning or in the afternoon? Do you happen to remember that?

HON. MR. BARRETT: It was during the day.

MR. GARDOM: Well, I'd suggest it was in the morning, and perhaps you wouldn't deny that.

Did the Hon. Premier remember where everybody was in the room? Were all these people Mr. Brunsdon says in his affidavit as being present present or not? Was Mr. William Janzen present at this meeting? Was Mr. John Unger there? Was Mr. Jake Wall there, and Mr. Ed Morgan? If so, did they all happen to sit on the settee across from your desk? Did you happen to speak to them from the front of your desk — in your shirt sleeves? Was your Minister of Agriculture 10 feet away from you on your right-hand side? Was he not present for the full conversation and the full meeting;

[ Page 765 ]

it took about 45 minutes? Was not the Minister of Agriculture in that room all the time?

Mr. Premier, when you were speaking, is it not correct that people were not interrupting you? Is it not correct that no one was interrupting you?

Mr. Brunsdon, in his affidavit, said quite a few things here. He said that you said there would be no court case against Sy Kovachich. Did you say that or did you not? And, certainly, were you not speaking ex cathedra then?

Did you also say this? — "The charges against Kovachich must be substantially reduced" — and that if they are not substantially reduced you will "break him." Did you say that to these members of the board?

Did you inform Mr. Brunsdon, when you were asked if your order was to be a precedent — Kovachich's order: "No, just this one instance. If any other producers get out of line, step on them "?

"Step on them"...did you use those words?

Did you inform the board that it had to draft an agreement that day? Or was it just coincidence that the agreement was drafted that day?

Did Mr. Ed Morgan ask you, "Mr. Premier, what assurance does the board have that Sy will abide by the agreement?" Did he ask you that? Did you know Sy Kovachich?

Did you know that Mr. Sy Kovachich was apparently a strong supporter of your Member from Prince George (Mr. Nunweiler)? Did you know that at that time or have you found out since?

Did you say this to Mr. Ed Morgan in response to his question as to what assurance the board would have that Mr. Kovachich would abide by this dictated agreement? — "If he does not abide by his part of the agreement, I will kick the crap out of him; and if the egg board does not abide by their part of the agreement, I will kick the crap out of you." This is a sworn statement. Did you use those words? Did you use the word "kick" and did you use the other word — yes or no?

Did you also say this? "I don't want to see you again until you have problems with Ottawa, and I will help you."

And was this pretty well your parting statement...? According to Mr. Brunsdon, who was there and was sitting on the settee opposite you when you were standing in front of your desk — he being about 10 feet away and your Minister of Agriculture being also 10 feet away; he was having bad ear problems throughout this whole conversation, because he has told the House that you never threatened anyone in his hearing.... That's right. He also said that the Premier, when asked the question: "Did the Premier say he would deny everything that was ever repeated outside his office?" — he said,"It wasn't in my hearing." He was 10 feet away from you.

Mr. Brunsdon and Mr. Unger said that you made this statement — this is pretty well your final statement — in paragraph 15 of this gentleman's affidavit: "If anything is said outside of this office" — referring to the office of the Premier of the Province of British Columbia — "I" — referring to the Premier of the Province of British Columbia — "will deny every word I said." Did you say that — yes or no?

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): He's doing it. He's doing it.

MR. CUMMINGS: I think it's about time this debate got back to British Columbia, and it's time we forgot about the chickens and eggs and all the ridiculous things the Liberals can drag up.

I think the thing that bothers them most is that Prime Minister Trudeau couldn't even get Hampson to bring the development back out to Vancouver. If this isn't a sign of complete ineptness, what more...?

Let's talk about Point Grey. I'd like to bring this up; real estate values west of Ontario have gone up 36 per cent. Now that's a lot of money, even in Point Grey. East of Ontario street in Vancouver, values have gone up 56 per cent.

Mr. Chairman, it has also gone up 76 per cent in New Westminster. The value of a home in West Vancouver has gone from the average price of $53,000 to $91,000. Now this is not inflation, this is straight speculation. I would like to direct to the Minister of Finance through you, Mr. Chairman, that maybe the provincial Home Acquisition Fund might be contributing to this because there are real estate people out there that are taking 10 per cent down and then they say "bring it back in three months time and I can resell it." I would like the Premier or the Minister of Finance to comment on this.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, it would be nice if the Premier, who had so much to say just a few moments ago, would answer some of the questions that have been asked. I certainly would be quite willing to give him the floor to answer some of the questions. The Premier doesn't want to answer any of the questions? He's thunderstruck.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Minister may choose to answer now or after a number of questions have been put.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I was listening with a great deal of interest to the Premier's remarks when he was expounding in such verbiage of how he was for the small businessman in the Interior and the small businessman in the north country, and how he was helping them.

I wonder if the Premier was really thinking about the small businessman, that's right, when he brought

[ Page 766 ]

in Bill 71. I wonder if the Premier really had the interests of the small businessman in mind when he brought in that piece of legislation which is known as the Capital Employment Tax Act, which I had a great deal to say about when it was being passed through this Legislature.

I wonder if he was really thinking about the small businessman when he forced that piece of punitive taxation on the small businessman. Is he interested really?

I have a letter in front of me from a small farmer who has his farm incorporated. The amount of money that this punitive piece of taxation extracted from this small farmer was somewhere in the order of, it seems to me, $34. But it cost this small farmer $45 in accountants' fees to have the form made out and to do all the searching through bank loans and everything else to pay this government $34.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Did he make more than $25,000?

MR. PHILLIPS: He didn't make more, but he had more than 25 employed because he borrows money from the bank. And it cost this man $45....

HON. MR. BARRETT: We'll make an exemption of $25,000.

MR. PHILLIPS: It cost this man $45 in accountants' fees to pay the provincial government $13 worth of tax, not $34, $13 worth of tax.

HON. MR. BARRETT: How much was his net?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would just....

MR. PHILLIPS: He has employed over.... What's the matter, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would just like to draw the attention of the Hon. Minister of Finance to the request from the Chief of Hansard that only one person speak at a time from the microphone in order that they can be correctly recorded, and to leave any comments....

MR. PHILLIPS: Here's the case of a small businessman whose main capital employed has been borrowed. It's over $25,000, by the time you take into consideration money borrowed from the bank, and it costs this small businessman $45 in accountants' fees to pay the provincial government $13 worth of tax.

You talk about punitive taxation, Mr. Chairman. That is the height of punitive taxation. I wonder if the Premier would explain to me how he justifies being for the small businessman when he makes them pay out $45 more.... Is he for the accountants? Maybe that's the reason. You want to build up business for the accountants.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Want an answer?

Mr. Chairman, the Member is talking about the Corporation Capital Tax Act. The tax rate is 1/10 of 1 per cent. The tax base is taxable paid-up capital if in excess of a qualifying figure of $25,000. The characteristics include the exemption for credit unions, a family farm — and if this man has a family farm he's exempt from it — co-operatives and self-owned apartments as defined by legislation. So if the man has a family farm, then he has paid the tax wrongly.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, as I said this is a small incorporated farm. But what I'm saying is that it cost this man $45 in accountants' fees to submit to the provincial government $13 worth of tax, and that's punitive taxation, and I don't buy the Premier or Minister of Finance standing on the floor of this Legislature saying that he's so much for the small businessman.

If the Premier's so much for the small businessman in the Interior and specifically in the north country, why doesn't he through the ICBC, give the postage stamp rate for insurance in British Columbia. If this is a government-sponsored operation, why should the small businessman and indeed the individual owner have to pay more insurance in the north country than he does in the rest of the province? If it's going to be a government corporation, let's have the postage stamp rate like there is for Hydro.

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce): He voted against it.

MR. PHILLIPS: Let's have postage stamp rate for all of the province if you want to really be for the businessman in the Interior and up Island, and in the north country, why should they have to pay more for insurance than anywhere else in the province? You talk about being for the small businessman, I guess you are for the small businessman and the big businessman alike when you give them a 30 per cent discount on his insurance. The little man, the individual has to pay the full rate. Explain that to your people in British Columbia that you promised $25 insurance to.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON: We never did.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I want to just for a moment discuss....

AN HON. MEMBER: That was a miracle.

[ Page 767 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: A miracle, yes. Here's a millionaire, for instance, here's a millionaire who owns three or four cars and what does he do? He goes to buy insurance for his wife's car and his own personal car, he gets a 30 per cent discount.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would request that the Hon. Member discuss this matter under the Hon. Minister of Transportation and Communication's estimates.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, that double standard again, double standard. The Premier can get up and make a speech on ICBC for an half an hour, but the Member for South Peace starts discussing ICBC and no, I can't discuss it. Why didn't you shut the Premier up when he was discussing ICBC then?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Hon. Member's point is well made and that should have been done. However, the Hon. Premier was giving his reactions to his visit, and....

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'm just giving reaction to ICBC, and I visited there too. Do you want me to tell you about my visit there too? We went through there one afternoon, sure.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: You want to hear all about my visit there?

MR. CHAIRMAN: If the Hon. Member asks questions about the Hon. Premier's visit to ICBC, that's in order, but not....

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, I see. If you're discussing what the Premier talks about it's in order, but if you're discussing.... Oh, Mr. Chairman, even the Premier's laughing at you, (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: You want to talk about John Mika for awhile?

All right, Mr. Chairman, I want to discuss for just a moment the report which I have in front of me. It's the report of the British Columbia Railway — annual report, 1973 — of which the Premier as I understand, is still president. He said he was going to resign after certain things were done, so I'm not really sure whether he's still the president or not. But if he is still the president, I presume it would be all right to discuss this annual report under his estimates.

I said last year in this Legislature when we were discussing the British Columbia Railway that the railway had been a very well-run operation, that it was a tribute to the directors of the railway, that it was a tribute to the people of British Columbia because it was their railway.

The Premier and Minister of Finance and president of the railway said that the railway was going to lose money in 1973. He said the only reason that the railway hadn't lost money before was because we hadn't been charging interest. But I'm looking at his very own report and the report of the chartered accountants whereby exhibit B shows that there was interest charged in previous years.

But what did the Premier say? He said, and I'm quoting from Hansard, page 907, when I was asking him why he showed figures in his estimate in 1972 that the railway had made a profit when he, in essence, said the railway hadn't made a profit — and he said: "Mr. Speaker, I was continuing the practice up to that time of the former administration. We are no longer going to continue the practice of not charging the railroad interest for loans or paying off its capital debts."

Yet, in his very own report, 1972 and 1973, he says deduct interest on funded and unfunded debts. I would like the Minister of Finance to explain to me this double-talk.

I will discuss more about the loss on the railway shortly.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The last $25 million was given without interest through the authority of the order-in-council passed by the former administration — $25 million without interest.

MR. PHILLIPS: That makes last year's loss greater.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's $25 million without interest. Yes, that makes last year's loss greater, based on the fact that we will be charging interest. The last $25 million, as I pointed out at the time — I am quite sure it's in Hansard — was completing the order-incouncil left from the previous administration.

I don't know where this fellow was charged $45 for figuring out the capital tax. I am told that they use exactly the same figures as income tax. If he's got a chartered accountant, the time involved is nothing practically — just to complete this form. I would suggest that if he was billed separately for completing his form, he should check with his accountant as to why. That is the instruction I have, that the same figures are used as income tax.

The Member raised the home-acquisition grant. The grant must be paid back if the house is sold within five years. If you are suggesting there is a practice of people using the home-acquisition grant to get the $1,000 to make a down payment and then buy a

[ Page 768 ]

home — and then pay back the $1,000 but use the government's money to speculate, Mr. Member, I would like some hard evidence of that. It would be pretty cruel if someone were to use that device.

It would be pretty hard to do, I think, because the name would show up in the records and it would show a pattern.

We did argue, when we were in opposition, that the $1,000 home-acquisition grant could be inflationary and perhaps it is. As a vehicle for home acquisition the programme is here, and we intend to live with it continuing. As a matter of fact, we have extended it to native Indians. Even though it may be inflationary, we have to accept the offsetting fact that for a lot of people, without that $1,000, they might not get near a home. So it's six of one and half a dozen of the other.

If you know of any case of somebody doing that, it should be brought to the department's attention.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: What about the other questions?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, in terms of the Egg Marketing Board, I have made my statements. There is nothing more that I have to add or subtract. I have made my statements and my statements stand.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey: Mr. Chairman, the Premier has so many hats I just don't know where to start in these estimates. He is Premier, he is Minister of Finance, he's president of the executive council, he's president of the treasury board, president of the B.C. Railway, he's president of the B.C. Schools' Financing Authority and he is the Lord High Executioner of the Marketing Board.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You forgot the hospital board.

MR. McGEER: The hospital board, I'm sorry. That's another hat on the wall.

I noticed how keen the Premier was to answer some questions. He caught the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) in mid-sentence trying to answer one question about income tax. Yet there is this terrible reluctance of the Premier to talk about his role as Lord High Executioner of the Egg Marketing Board.

Really, Mr. Chairman, it's that role, small as it may seem in comparison with these other executive positions, that is testing the veracity of the Premier and the veracity of the government; because the issue is one of truth.

When the Minister of Agriculture was saying he never heard the Premier threaten anyone physically, I don't think he was understanding the Premier's remarks too well. If he threatened to kick the "censored" out of the Second Member for Vancouver-Centre (Hon. Mr. Lauk) — I see he isn't in here now — he wouldn't suggest that he would take off his coat and go outside and do it right there. And the second Member for Vancouver-Centre wouldn't be worried as he walked home that he was going to be tackled from behind. No way!

He might be worried about the Premier's next performance on Hourglass. That's where you beat the "censored" out of him — on Hourglass, in front of a television audience. He might, like the former Minister Without Portfolio, be worried about the next press conference where you get dismissed with a cloud hung over your head about your veracity.

He might be worried about what kind of motions the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) would put on the Order Paper, like the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips). That's how you beat the "censored" out of people politically. If you are the Premier, you don't have to take your coat off and roll up your sleeves and go out on the lawn. You've got other ways of doing things.

Just ask the Education Commissioner, or the Member for South Peace River, or the former Minister Without Portfolio, or the former head of the Egg Marketing Board. They understand what a threat like that means.

Therefore, it is pretty important, Mr. Chairman, for the Premier not to offer a bland statement and say he sticks by it. If he sticks by that statement, he stands accused of lying because, in effect, that's what these affidavits said. They said the Premier was lying. They said he promised to lie. They did, Mr. Chairman, and that's apparently a promise he kept, according to the affidavits.

We have asked for yes or no answers to some pretty blunt questions and we would like those yes or no answers. If the Premier wants to give us yes or no answers, I would be happy to take my place; otherwise I would like to ask some more questions which also depend upon the veracity of his office There are other matters relating to the budget where we might wonder whether the Premier's word was any more reliable than Mr. Brunsdon said it was.

Mr. Brunsdon had some pretty direct experiences He's been in an excellent position to judge. We haven't quite been in that position, but we don't envy Mr. Brunsdon his experience.

What I would like to ask the Premier about, and this is in all his different capacities.... Mr. Chairman, the budget fails to reveal about $650 million in income that the Minister of Finance will receive in this coming year. I want to repeat that figure because it is large — $650 million. Never before has a Minister of Finance failed to tell us about as much money as he is going to get. The former Minister of Finance told these little white lies about his budgets, but this Minister of Finance tells whoppers — great, big, Moby

[ Page 769 ]

Dick-type white lies about the finances.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Don't go back to whales. You've got your problems. You've got a fixation on them.

MR. McGEER: The Premier is trying to goad me into telling a joke I shouldn't tell. (Laughter.)

There's a lot of money we're not hearing about. I want to tell you what it is because I think all the Members should know about the money that goes into the side pockets in this province.

First of all, we've got about $400 million more in revenue coming this year than is declared in the budget. About $100 million of it will come from mining and gas revenues. Now, I may be wrong in that because we don't really know what finally will happen in this merry-go-round with the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick), but it could be more than $ 100 million.

In addition to that, unless it's a disastrous year internationally, we're going to have provincial growth and income from that growth. The revenues of the province have been growing at an average rate of 17 per cent per year over the last half dozen years. If we just have an average year, there's going to be $400 million that we've not been told about. So that's the first part of the deception the Minister of Finance is putting on the people of the province.

The other moneys are trust funds of various kinds. The Premier will be getting $150 million or more from the Canada Pension Plan and $100 million or more from various captive funds. That includes the civil servants' money he has been spending on the B.C. Telephone Company and on the Bank of B.C. where he has admitted to losing some money. It wasn't his money, you know, it was the civil servants' money. Then there's the teachers' pension fund and there's a long list of funds which I've told the House about on many occasions. But those trust funds total another $ 100 million.

So you see, there's $650 million there that's coming in on a daily or a monthly basis into the side pocket that we're not told a word about in the budget. It's unbelievable isn't it, Mr. Chairman, that we should be debating a budget that doesn't tell us about $650 million the Premier is getting. Indeed, unless we raise the subject in the House now, we never ever will hear about that money.

I'd like to ask the Premier how this $650 million is to be spent. How much of it, Mr. Chairman, will go to B.C. Hydro? To read the budget, Mr. Chairman, you'd think that B.C. Hydro wasn't going to need a nickel of tax money or any other subsidy from the people of British Columbia. Yet, doggone it, when we read the budget of what happened last year, they snuck away with $200 million — it wasn't in the budget anywhere — and then we read that they got $200 million. It has been running $200 million to $300 million every year, and we find out about it the next year.

I asked several Ministers last year: what was the budget of the B.C. Hydro so we'd know? They all just stared at me like dummies. Don't tell information like that. The Premier did table one document that was super-confidential. That had a budget in it which worked out to the penny. I think these fellows in the B.C. Hydro have got a budget planned not just for next year but five years in advance. I think they know it to the penny and I think the Ministers that sit on the board of directors and the Premier know what that budget is and I think they intend to take that money right out of this extra $650 million and they're not telling us about it. That's what I think. And I think that's why we're given such deception every year in the budget.

I think that's why our budgets are phony in the Province of British Columbia — because we're not being honest about the income and outgo. In other words, I'm saying the same kinds of things about the budget that Mr. Brunsdon said about that affidavit he laid.

Well, how about the B.C. Rail? That's building up north there, Mr. Chairman, and to read the budget you would think the B.C. Rail wasn't going to need a nickel. It's going to get it all out of the freight they haul.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: "No way!" says the Member, and I think he's right. I don't think all those railway car loadings which show the revenue from the B.C. Railway as they take their own track up to extend their line are going to produce that kind of profit. I think some of the B.C. Rail funds will be obtained from this $650 million. I'd like to ask the Premier, how much there?

The Premier is head of the B.C. School Districts Capital Financing Authority. When the former Premier (Hon. W.A.C., Bennett) was head of that authority, he was a lousy president of the B.C. School Districts Capital Financing Authority. He was a lousy president. When he was president of the B.C. school financing authority, he couldn't get them a nickel from the Minister of Finance (Hon. W.A.C. Bennett). I remember years we couldn't build a classroom. We were going to do push-ups by our desks for exercise as the former Minister of Education (Mr. Brothers) advocated. He was bouncing up and down like some of the opposition Members in question period. The former Premier, Mr. Bennett, he was a lousy president of the B.C. School Financing Authority.

Well, I'd like to ask how much the schools are going to get. Presumably it will come out of this $650 million, but there's no budget for that anywhere. For

[ Page 770 ]

example, Mr. Chairman, we can't compare in this budget how much the schools are going to get versus how much Hydro is going to get. And I want to know who is going to get first choice?

Then there is the Regional Hospital Districts Financing Authority. The former Premier was a terrible, terrible president of the B.C. hospitals financing authority and I don't think the present Minister of Finance is all that great either. I can tell you, the hospitals were behind the schools and the schools were behind the railway and the railway was behind the Hydro. I don't know how often the president meets with his board of directors, but I couldn't even find any members of the board of directors except the Premier's deputy when it came to hospitals and schools.

Lots of money to buy 80,000 shares of B.C. Telephone or whatever it was — and we boast about that investment — but I've never heard either this Minister of Finance or the former one boast about the investment in the schools and hospitals. I kind of think it's a better investment than the telephone company. Maybe I'm out of line, but I really think schools and hospitals are more important than telephones. I think that, Mr. Chairman, and I think this authority should get its funds first, and I think it should be enough before we buy bank stock or chicken processing plants...

HON. MR. BARRETT: You're mixed up.

MR. McGEER: ...or chicken feed or real estate companies, or any of these other things we've been buying. Since the president before was such a lousy president that he couldn't even find any money for them, I just think we shouldn't be spending all this money on these various companies — not until the president has been able to get sufficient money for schools and hospitals.

And then, Mr. Chairman, I've got another funny thought. I've said it here before. I think cities and municipalities are important in British Columbia. I think they're so important that cities and municipalities should have a share of this $650 million just like they used to do.

Can you believe it, Mr. Chairman: at one time in British Columbia, the cities and municipalities were actually able to borrow through the provincial government the savings of their own municipal civil servants. There was a time — and I don't know whether the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) can remember that — when cities and municipalities had their borrowings guaranteed by the provincial government and the municipal civil servants' funds were actually invested in their own cities and municipalities.

Now you buy bank stocks. Heaven knows what you're going to buy next year. Telephones, pipelines, poultry processing plants, lumber mills, pulp mills. All of these things are more important in B.C. than cities and municipalities.

Maybe I'm a screwball MLA....

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I ask the Member to withdraw that. He couldn't even call himself that. (Laughter.)

MR. McGEER: No. No, I insist, Mr. Chairman. (Laughter.) I insist on being an oddball because I'm going to stand by what I say — that the cities and municipalities are more important in British Columbia.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): But you said "screwball."

MR. McGEER: They do deserve to have some of this $650 million we're not being told about.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You said "screwball" — or words to that effect.

MR. McGEER: Well I quite admit, as far as that government was concerned, it cut the cities and municipalities off, and I refer to the former Social Credit administration, and the present administration. Both behave in identical fashion, except the NDP government is meaner than Social Credit used to be. Cut this credit right off, not a dollar of municipal funds is going to be granted from the Canada Pension Plan, which in other provinces is given, in some cases exclusively, to cities and municipalities. Not even the municipal civil servants can invest in their own cities and municipalities.

No, sir! They've got to give their money to the provincial government to be used for heaven knows what. We know there's $650 million in the municipal civil service moneys and we've got all these things that you're going to put it into — harbours, hydro, rail. What is it going to be?

So that we're not getting a fair and frank account, and I realize that — it's heresy to talk about the provincial government guaranteeing city and municipal bonds like they do in other provinces in Canada. Like they used to do in B.C. But I think the cities and municipalities have had a dirty deal, and I'm prepared to be a screwball in the Legislature and say so.

Lastly, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask does the Premier intend to redeem any of the parities? Because if we've got so much money that we can't think of other things to do than to buy firms here and buy firms there, maybe it would be better to end this floating crap game that we've had going for 15 years in British Columbia, or a little less than that, whereby the parity bonds shift between the public trust houses

[ Page 771 ]

and the provincial government. Redeem them all and go into long-term borrowing.

I remember several years ago saying this to the former Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Bennett) and he got up and dressed me down. He said: "That shows how much you know about finance. Why," he said, "those bonds we've got out at 5-1/4 per cent." He said,"If we were to regain the bonds now, when it's a long-term financing, we'd be stuck with bonds for 20 and 30 years at 5-1/4 per cent." He said, "Do you see how foolish that would be to follow your advice?"

So he left the parity bonds out and now you have to do long-term financing at 8 per cent. I would like to ask the Premier how much we're going to have left over after all of this to put into all of these slush funds that we have to vote on every year?

It's getting so that you can hardly total them up any more, but we know that it's money that's taken outside legislative jurisdiction. Some of it like the cultural fund, or the sports fund, or all these different things, MLA's get a little slice of the action — government MLA's that is. They get invited to dispense the money around and their constituents come and thank them for the money now, and maybe with a vote at the next election. But this isn't properly administered money, and everything that's taken out of the vote through this phony budget system and then gets delivered into these slush funds outside of proper civil service administration, is open to political influence and we know we never have political influence in British Columbia. At least, almost never, Mr. Chairman, almost never.

Well, Mr. Chairman, I'd be grateful if the Premier could answer some of these specific questions about finance. But I'd be much more grateful if the Premier would answer some simple and direct questions about truth in government. Because if we cannot establish truth in government over as simple a thing as egg marketing in British Columbia, we're going to have one dickens of a time establishing truth in government over the multi-billion dollar financing of the province.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I would first of all like to express some confusion. When the NDP was elected it was charged that we would rape the finances of the province, and now it's charged that we are making too much money.

AN HON. MEMBER: No, we never did.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, the opposition Members....

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a phony budget, that's what we said.

HON. MR. BARRETT: At no time did you ever say that the NDP would ruin the economy of the province?

MR. McGEER: Given time you probably would.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Given time. But in reverse of giving us time, this year you are accusing us of making too much money, that we are presenting a phony budget.

AN HON. MEMBER: Just like the old gang.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, so we made a little bit of money in our purchases of Columbia Cellulose. We've done very well — the people have.

MR. SCHROEDER: Tell us why!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Remember when they said if we'd bring in Mincome we'd break the bank. "Where are you going to get all the money to do these things?" Mr. Chairman, if we have more money then we'll spend it on the people of the province. I plead guilty to the fact that we're starting a resource dividend back to the people of British Columbia.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Then we're giving it back, okay. Now it terms of the Member's questions about the financing of the Crown corporation, I have it on good authority that the Member has been confused in the past on this issue...

MR. GARDOM: Ignored.

HON. MR. BARRETT: ...and he continues to be confused.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're quoting the former Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, I'm not quoting the former Premier, I'm quoting the same Deputy Minister of Finance. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: Would the real Minister of Finance please stand up? (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, if you turn to page 11 of the budget and Mr. Chairman, if the opposition doesn't believe the accounts presented by the honourable civil servants of this province, okay. But I accept the figures presented to me by the Department of Finance. I don't work out the books myself. We determine the policy, he delivers the money, or says we're overspent. Now we're being

[ Page 772 ]

accused through our policy of delivering too much money. Shame on you, Mr. Deputy. (Laughter.)

You're the only jurisdiction in all of Canada where you've been accused of giving a government too much money. Oh, I don't want you to lose any sleep over it, because we kind of think it's a good idea to have a little bit of money to do a few things. But you get all mixed up. I refer you to page 11 of the Budget Speech. Now Ottawa's about three years behind in their accounts. We're 90 days on the spot generally, sometimes a little bit longer, but we're much closer.

The Canada Pension Fund on page 11 and The Provincial Trusteed Funds loaned money to the B.C. Hydro. B.C. Hydro borrowed it. The British Columbia Railway Company borrowed from the Canada Pension and the Provincial Trusteed Fund, page 11.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is the amount there?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, the amounts are for the B.C. Hydro $78 million; $696,000 from the Canada Pension Plan and $122 million in Provincial Trusteed Funds. British Columbia Railway — $28,847,000 in Canada Pension, $47 million in Provincial Trusteed Funds.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where are you quoting from?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm quoting from the Budget Speech on page 11.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BARRETT: He hasn't read the Budget Speech. That's this year's Budget Speech, Mr. Member, not last year's.

Mr. Member, next year we're going to do the same thing. Hydro is going to borrow money and so is the B.C. Rail and if you think it's wrong for the publicly-owned corporation to borrow money from the pension funds rather than go in the open market, I disagree with you.

If the funds are here we should borrow here in British Columbia, not in New York, hot on Bay Street, or Montreal. I've even got this bunch with me on that argument (Laughter.), and I'm doing everything I can to figure out how to get rid of them even on this argument. But on this one, they don't disagree.

AN HON. MEMBER: Of course not....

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, I don't know. Maybe we've got to change the policy. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: Flexibility.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, also on page 30 of the same budget is a detailed breakdown of the guaranteed investments of the provincial Crown corporation, on page 30.

Mr. Member, don't ruin a good speech by referring to the facts.

MR. GARDOM: I've heard that before.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's a good line. But that's the way it is.

Now I want to answer your questions about the hospital authority. The chairman of the hospital authority is myself, and members are the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke), the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) and the Deputy Minister of Finance. We have good meetings.

MR. CHABOT: Call it continuity.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Call it continuity, that's right. The school authority is the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Barrett), the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) and the Deputy Minister of Finance.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): He's everywhere.

HON. MR. BARRETT: So's the money. (Laughter.)

We are spending more money on the people of this province than in any other year in terms of a relative increase in the budget. We will spend more money next year. And if we have the surplus funds that the Member talks about, because of our policy on resources, we will send the money back to the people through hospital ambulance service, through resource dividends and, Mr. Member, if the money comes, we'll make our move on the nursing homes — each priority as they come along.

If the province has surplus of $650 million next year, as the Member predicts, I'll plead guilty to the surplus, and we'll spend it on the people of this province.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Leave granted.

MINERAL AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

Hon. Mr. Nimsick presents a message from His Honour the Administrator: a bill intituled Mineral Amendment Act, 1974.

Bill 48 introduced, read a first time and ordered to

[ Page 773 ]

be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Presenting reports.

Hon. Mr. Lorimer presents the report of the Department of Municipal Affairs for the year ending December 31, 1973.

Hon. Mr. Stupich presents the annual report of the Milk Board for the year ended December 31, 1973.

Hon. Mr. Barrett presents the Garrish report of the Independent Egg Marketing Survey, September, 1972.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:48 p.m.