[ Page 797 ]

CONTENTS

Afternoon sitting Routine proceedings Oral questions Circulation of letters on ferry dining service.

Mr. McClelland — 797

Opening of UVic law faculty. Mr. Wallace — 798

Attendance of Minister at Vancouver mines meeting.

Mr. Gibson — 798

Restarting date for Can-Cel sulphite plant.

Mr. Curtis — 798

Progress on Skagit Valley negotiations.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 798

Reintroduction of emergency powers bill.

Mr. Wallace — 799

ICBC capital cost expenditure to date.

Mr. Gardom — 799

Status of Blakely Report. Mr. L.A. Williams — 799

Details of property tax deferral scheme.

Mr. Curtis — 799

Possibility of poultry plant for Spillimacheen.

Mrs. Jordan — 800

Reason for extension in 1973-74 hunting licences.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 800

Allowances paid to select standing committee chairmen.

Mr. Chabot — 800

Experimental farm in Fort Nelson area.

Mr. Smith — 801

Hospital coverage re government employees.

Mr. Wallace — 801

Committee of Supply: Premier's estimates HON. Mr. Barrett — 801

Mr. Phillips — 801

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 809

Mr. Calder — 811

Mr. Gibson — 812

Mr. McClelland — 814

Mr. Gardom — 815

Mr. Lewis — 817

Mr. McGeer — 818

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 819

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 819

Mr. Fraser — 820

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 821

Mr. Smith — 823

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 826

Mr. Smith — 826

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 827

Mr. Morrison — 827

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 827

Mr. Curtis — 830

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 831

Mr. Bennett — 831

Mrs. Jordan — 831

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 833

Mrs. Jordan — 833

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, seated on the floor of the House today are three very distinguished guests from down under — two from Australia and one from New Zealand. Our guest from Australia is Ms. Elizabeth Reid, who is a special adviser to the Prime Minister of Australia in domestic affairs and women's rights.

She is accompanied by Robin Geary and Molly Bradley from New Zealand, both of whom have now chosen to make British Columbia their home. I'd like this House to join me in welcoming them.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the official opposition I would like to extend our warmest welcome to Ms. Reid. I also would like to advise the Members of this House that our luncheon today, at your generous hospitality, Mr. Speaker, was well attended by men.

In case any of the male hearts are quivering in British Columbia, I should advise you that Ms. Reid told us that the women in Australia have rather a long way to go to meet equality. But their legislature just passed a major bill guaranteeing men liberation.

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today of introducing four distinguished guests from Vancouver who are seated in the Members' gallery. There is Mr. Roy Forester, who is the curator of the Van Dusen Botanical Gardens. He is accompanied by Dr. Long, Mr. Bill Livingston and Mrs. Edna Carter. I wish that this House would give them a warm welcome.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to draw your attention again to guests in the gallery. From that great constituency of the North Okanagan, Mr. Jack Davis, a very prominent and honest lawyer, and his friends Mr. and Mrs. Reed Sparks. I'm sure the House will be very pleased to know that they are all extremely fine citizens and hard-working Liberals.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out to all assembled, particularly, our friends from down under, that the tulips are blooming out next to the Finance building. As you walk across Government street, and along by the Finance building, you'll see about a dozen tulips in bloom. I think this harbingers very well for the heat generated in this precinct area.

MR. SPEAKER: Is that a point of privilege? (Laughter.)

HON. MR. HARTLEY: On my point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I would like to mention that later in the afternoon there will be a group of Hope secondary students in the gallery at 2:45 with their teacher, Mr. Keith Lindstrom.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver-Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the House that we have in the gallery today Mr. Slim Fougberg, chairman of the Howe Sound School District, together with Mr. Ross, the secretary, and Mr. Cullis, the superintendent. I believe there are other Members of the board here as well. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to welcome them.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to present the annual report of the Health Branch.

Leave granted.

AN HON. MEMBER: What year?

HON. MR. COCKE: 1973. That's my year.

Oral questions

CIRCULATION OF LETTERS
ON FERRY DINING SERVICE

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport and Communications. I'd like to ask the Minister if he has any knowledge of a form letter being circulated aboard the B.C. Ferries asking patrons of the dining rooms whether or not they approve of the dining room service, and asking them to send a request along to you not to eliminate the dining rooms on B.C. Ferries?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): Yes, I am aware of that.

MR. McCLELLAND: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In view of the obvious concern expressed by the staff, by way of these letters, do you plan any review of the position with regard to dining rooms on the ferries?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, I haven't got a copy of the letter with me. But, as I understand it, they're not expressing concern. I think they are asking for opinions.

MR. McCLELLAND: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I would just suggest that because they want the opinions they're suggesting some concern. I wonder further, on the same subject, Mr. Speaker, whether or not the Minister has a statement to make

[ Page 798 ]

to the House with regard to the provision for job security of the some 120 people who are in the catering department aboard the ferries?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I think the Member will recall.... If he doesn't recall I'll be happy to send him a copy of a press release, which I think was made some months ago, in which I stated, as I recollect it, that no dining rooms were being eliminated from any of the present ferries.

I think I further stated in the press release ...

MR. McCLELLAND: What about the Nanaimo?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: ... that the ship that was being extended, jumboized, would not have a dining room placed on it, but that there would be a cafeteria on that one and a coffee shop.

I also said at the time that no one would lose their job. And that's basically the statement. If the Member wants to check, he'll find it on the record, or if he wants I'll send him a copy; and that is still the policy.

MR. SPEAKER: May we move on to another subject?

OPENING OF U VIC LAW FACULTY

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Education a question with further reference to the critical time shortage prior to opening the faculty of law school at UVic. In view of the critical financial problems facing the University of Victoria, could she tell the House if, in light of my question last week, she has in fact had meetings with the UVic authorities?

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): No, I haven't had a meeting since you asked me, Mr. Member. But I'm planning to be discussing it this afternoon.

ATTENDANCE OF MINISTER
AT VANCOUVER MINES MEETING

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Mines. I'd ask if he plans to attend, or will consider attending, a very important meeting being held in Vancouver next month by the B.C. and Yukon Chamber of Mines, to which he has been invited.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources); Mr. Speaker, first I'd like to thank the Hon. Member for North Vancouver-Capilano for notifying me that he was going to ask me this question, just a few minutes ago.

Being a politician, I would appreciate getting up before such a crowd as would be in Vancouver, but I think it would be a breach of the privilege of this House if I went over there to discuss the bill prior to debating it in this House on second reading.

RESTARTING DATE FOR
CAN-CEL SULPHITE PLANT

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): To the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources: at the risk of appearing persistent, on November 7 of last year and again on February 26, the Minister took as notice a question with respect to the recovery plant at the sulphite mill, Can-Cel, in Prince Rupert. I wonder if he has had an opportunity to get any information on the restart date for that.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): On the which date?

MR. CURTIS: Restart — the start-up date for the recovery plant.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I do have some material. Unfortunately, I do not have it at hand so I'll make a point, Mr. Speaker, of presenting it to the House this week.

PROGRESS ON SKAGIT
VALLEY NEGOTIATIONS

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, in view of the commitment in Hansard of the Attorney-General to resign if further flooding takes place in the Skagit Valley.... (Laughter.) There he goes.

May I ask the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources whether he is planning any steps to discuss with Seattle City Light — officials of Seattle City Light — ways to terminate the existing contract between that company and the provincial government of British Columbia?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I might say that the matter is being thoroughly reviewed at this time, Mr. Speaker. That's really all I can say right now.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: In view of the reply of the Minister yesterday to another question, which indicated that the Attorney-General's department is now taking a keen and active interest in this whole question, may I ask the Premier whether or not responsibility for terminating this contract has been shifted from the Minister who will not resign if the valley is flooded to the Minister who apparently intends to?

[ Page 799 ]

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, let me put it this way: we only have one set of water-wings over here. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: I think we're getting into rather deep water.

REINTRODUCTION OF
EMERGENCY POWERS BILL

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, could I ask a question, which I asked last night and didn't get an answer to, regarding the emergency powers bill which the Premier intended to introduce at the last session of the Legislature? Could I ask if the Premier is giving consideration to reintroducing that bill?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, that debate at that time didn't exist because fortunately the problem we were faced with, the shortage of gas, didn't appear. It appears that we've solved the problems, and I don't think we need to consider the legislation at this point. The emergency is over.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, well.... It certainly existed in our mind. It might not have existed in somebody else's mind. But certainly the problem was solved, and we're very happy that the problem was solved.

MR. WALLACE: A supplemental, Mr. Speaker. The Premier is, if I may say with respect, on record as saying that this kind of provision is required and that in a calmer atmosphere, possibly the next session of the House, it should be brought before the House. Now has he changed his mind?

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's not calm enough, Mr. Speaker.

FURTHER NEGOTIATIONS
IN SKAGIT VALLEY ISSUE

MR. H.S. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): To the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources: have any joint federal-provincial negotiations taken place to settle the Skagit Valley issue since June of 1973?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I think there's been a range of correspondence, Mr. Speaker, but the last meeting I've had with Mr. Davis was in June, and that may be just as well.

MR. SCHROEDER: Is there any indication of any settlement?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I'm not sure what the Member means, Mr. Speaker.

ICBC CAPITAL COST
EXPENDITURE TO DATE

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver-Point Grey): To the Minister of Transport, Mr. Speaker: what are the capital cost expenditures of ICBC to date?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I think there's a question on the order paper, isn't there, Mr. Member?

MR. GARDOM: There was one all last session and you didn't answer it then either.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I did answer it, as I recollect.

MR. GARDOM: No, you didn't.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Is there one on the order paper?

STATUS OF BLAKELY REPORT

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources: would the Minister indicate the status of the Blakely Report centering around the Whistler Mountain-Alta Lake area?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The report, Mr. Speaker, has been considered be the Environment and Land Use Committee of the cabinet, and some steps have been taken, I believe, through another Ministry.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Will the report be made public, Mr. Minister?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I think we would take that under consideration. I offhand can think of no specific reason at this time for withholding it.

DETAILS OF PROPERTY
TAX DEFERRAL SCHEME

MR. CURTIS: To the Premier, on the subject of property tax deferral for senior citizens and small businessmen. As I recall, the Premier indicated that details of this deferral scheme would be released sometime after the NDP caucus meeting in Nanaimo, January 19 and 20, and no information has been released. May we expect it soon?

HON. MR. BARRETT: On the elderly citizens, there's a bill on the order paper already, Mr. Member. On the deferral, I hope to introduce the legislation

[ Page 800 ]

shortly.

MR. CURTIS: It's the deferral to which I refer.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Shortly — at the latest, early next week.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't think we ask questions on matters that are on the order paper already.

POSSIBILITY OF POULTRY
PLANT FOR SPILLIMACHEEN

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to address my question to the Minister of Agriculture, in relation to the matter of the poultry processing plant and the urgency of its establishment. Have you dispatched anyone to examine the current site that I suggested in the area of Spillimacheen?

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, several sites are currently being examined, including that one, and then we're comparing them to see which would be the best deal. But that one is being examined, yes.

MRS. JORDAN: A supplementary. My question really, Mr. Minister, was whether anyone has examined this plant yet. In your estimates you stated that it had been looked at, but my understanding from council is that no one did actually examine the physical facilities. What I'd like to see is someone up there now to examine these facilities while they are available, so that you may have a first hand report.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Two members of my staff have just completed their investigation of the Enderby site yesterday. They've been asked to look now at the Coldstream site.

REASON FOR EXTENSION IN
1973-74 HUNTING LICENCES

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: May I ask the Minister of Recreation and Conservation whether the extension in the validity of the 1973-74 hunting licences for an extra month is to permit a revision of the new scheme for trophy fees, so that we can return to last year's system and not go in with the present new system, which apparently is meeting with a good deal of resistance?

HON. J. RADFORD (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): There's been no resistance to the new scheduling.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. RADFORD: The reason for the delay was a problem with printing licences, it cetera, and we've expressed the explanation of lengthening this by one month.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Supplementary. Mr. Speaker, may I take from the Minister's reply that there has been no concern in this matter; that he has not yet read the brief from the B.C. Guides and Outfitters; and that he has forgotten the hour-and-a-half that they spent in his office.

HON. MR. RADFORD: No, there's been some concern, especially from the guides. I'm talking about the majority of people interested in the licensing, such as the B.C. Wildlife Federation, which makes up the majority of the licensed sportsmen in B.C....

ALLOWANCES PAID TO SELECT
STANDING COMMITTEE CHAIRMEN

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): A question to the Provincial Secretary, Mr. Speaker, regarding the order-in-council, passed a couple or three weeks ago relative to an additional $500 being granted to the chairman of the agricultural select standing committee. I'm wondering, in view of the fact that there's an annual allowance to each chairman of committees of $1,000, on what basis was this additional $500 granted to the chairman of the agricultural committee, and will equal treatment be given to the chairmen of all other select standing committees?

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Well, Mr. Speaker, I reject the premise on which this question is based. First of all, the Constitution Act simply states that allowances may be made to chairmen of standing committees if the committee works by order of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. There's no such word as "annual" used in the Constitution Act at all.

Let me, however, advise the Member and say to him that when a standing committee of this Legislature works as hard as the agricultural committee and other committees work, all the Members and all the chairmen receive full remuneration that's been set by the orders-in-council.

The Select Standing Committee on Agriculture was the only committee that met in the period between the fall session of 1973 and the spring session of 1974, and that was the only one that was up for scrutiny, as it were. In this case, if motions appear on the order paper and committees are activated in this coming break following prorogation of this session, then they will indeed by given the same kind of treatment that you refer to in your question.

[ Page 801 ]

EXPERIMENTAL FARM
IN FORT NELSON AREA

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. Under the former Minister of Agriculture, a pilot programme was contemplated in the Fort Nelson area with respect to starting what you might call an illustration farm in the Fort Nelson region, to determine the type of crops that could be grown up there.

After the present administration took office, the pilot programme was brought to an abrupt halt. Does the Minister intend to continue such a programme in the Fort Nelson area, or to reinstate it?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, it has a relatively low priority, but it's still being considered, low priority relative to the other things that are going on right now.

MR. SMITH: Supplemental question to the Minister. Does the Minister not consider that there is a potential for extensive agriculture in the Fort Nelson region?

HON. MR. STUPICH: A potential, Mr. Speaker, but not extensive — relative to the whole Peace River area.

HOSPITAL COVERAGE
RE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Minister of Health with respect to order-in-council 492 which appears to extend hospital coverage to B.C. government employees outside of British Columbia without any time limit: does this in effect place B.C. government employees outside the province in a privileged position compared to other citizens of B.C. who are outside British Columbia for some extended period of time?

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, on this particular order-in-council: we are the employer and as the employer, as the government, we felt that it would be incumbent upon us to see to it that they're served in the best way a good employer can serve their employees. Many of the employees are away for a longer period of time, therefore it's not part of Hospital Insurance, nor is it part of Medicare; it's just administered by those departments. It's a fringe benefit they have received from this government.

MR. WALLACE: An important supplemental, Mr. Speaker, is that....

MR. SPEAKER: No, I think we can save it for tomorrow, please. We must stick by the rules somehow.

Orders of the day

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

ESTIMATES: PREMIER'S OFFICE
(continued)

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

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to say a couple of words related to our mother country, England, on behalf of the Government of the Province of British Columbia. I want to wish very good luck and great success to the new socialist Prime Minister of Great Britain. He has a very difficult task in front of him; if those of us here in the Commonwealth can help, I'm sure we will. We hope that he along with others, in a spirit of co-operation, will be able to assist the country of Great Britain at a time when they need all the help possible.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I would like to indeed add my best wishes to Prime Minister Wilson and his new socialist government. You know, Great Britain has hardly recovered from the last socialist government, so he's going to need a lot of help. I hope that the Premier and Minister of Finance realizes that he's not walking into a bonanza like he did — into a province so well financed, and so well run by the previous administration that he had lots of dollars. Mr. Wilson is going to have some problems.

HON. MR. BARRETT: How many Socreds in Britain? (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: One.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: All I can say to that is: if the country was run as well as British Columbia was run under the Social Credit government, they wouldn't be facing the problems that, indeed, they are facing today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'll send your fare over.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many Socreds in Russia?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I think they're running the government. (Laughter.)

[ Page 802 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Your brothers are.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'd ask the Member to confine his remarks to vote 2.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

You know, since we're discussing this, I just have to realize how well off the people in British Columbia are after 20 years of good management. I have to think of the Province of Quebec which has equally as many natural resources. Indeed, as the Premier of Newfoundland is endorsed and blessed with many natural resources, and yet there has been no development take place.

Now, did all this just happen? I say, no. I say it was the good administrative policies of the previous administration which have made British Columbia the great province it is today, and her people are so well blessed with the revenue from the natural resources of this province due to the good development.

But what really concerns me, and the subject I'd like to speak upon this afternoon is: really, what good is it to have a well-run province and to get the utmost financial return from our natural resources if indeed we are going to waste the very money we get out of our natural resources? If it is wasted...indeed, are the benefits going to be passed on to the people of this province?

Now, when I was a boy growing up we had a saying in our house "waste brings want." I have to think maybe that's what's going to happen in British Columbia if we continue to waste, or if we continue on the path of wasting the revenue we derive from our natural resources. Indeed, what are the benefits going to be to the residents of British Columbia, to the taxpayers of British Columbia?

Another saying when I was growing up was "a dollar saved is indeed a dollar earned." (Laughter.)

SOME HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear! (Laughter.)

MR. PHILLIPS: So indeed if....

AN HON. MEMBER: A stitch in time.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver-Point Grey): I thought we'd lost that flag. (Laughter.)

MR. PHILLIPS: This is a fairly popular saying and it's so popular, Mr. Member for Vancouver-Point Grey, and it's been tested for so long that I'm surprised that our Minister of Finance isn't ready and willing to take his advice. A dollar saved is a dollar earned.

I have just one more little theory that I'd like to bring out while I'm on this particular subject. Wasting of the taxpayers' dollar is indeed a sin: you must not waste the taxpayers' dollar. The punishment for this sin is that you will be expelled from government. So, I'd just like to leave that word of caution with the Minister of Finance since he is the chief executive officer in the province. He is, indeed, the man who looks after the spending in this province.

Today I feel, Mr. Chairman, that the taxpayers of British Columbia are having millions of dollars wasted. And many of these millions of dollars are being wasted on a civil service bureaucracy that would rival the Roman Empire. Not only is this a waste, so far as I am concerned, of the taxpayers' dollar but it will be an invasion on the privacy of every taxpayer in British Columbia, because pretty soon he won't be able to — although I won't use that expression — but no matter what he does he will have to get a permit from a civil servant.

So, not only is it a waste of taxpayers' dollars, but it will grow to be a restrain on the individual private rights of the taxpayers in British Columbia. A bureaucracy that could check off and choke the very life-blood of this vibrant province that we have in British Columbia. Choke off that enterprise that has made this province so vibrant and, indeed, has built up such an economy that our Premier is able to play with these millions and millions of dollars that he has to play with today.

I would hate to see this bureaucracy choke off the very lifestream of this province. Now, we must realize that some 8,000 new civil servants have been hired since this government came to office in August 1972 — 8,000 new civil servants that the taxpayers of British Columbia have to pay for.

Nearly $5 million for 138 new employees in the department of the Attorney-General. That's right, nearly $5 million additional this year over last year. Look at it in the estimates — $5 million, Mr. Attorney-General, for 138 new employees in your department. I bet you didn't even realize that, did you, Mr. Attorney-General?

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): What? Say that again, I still don't....

MR. PHILLIPS: No, it's amazing! Did you look at your own estimates? I thought you had to make up your own budget. Or did you have one of these 138 new employees....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the Hon. Member please address the chair?

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Over $1 million for increased staff in the Department of Finance, the Minister's own department. $10 million more for staff in the Department of Health. These are taxpayers' dollars.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): That's

[ Page 803 ]

right. Would you like us to cut it down and reduce health, like you did?

MR. PHILLIPS: These are taxpayers' dollars that are going to pay this increase in the civil service.

An 85 per cent increase in the cost of staff in the Department of Human Resources.

I feel that this government is being run like a poorly run business where there is the saying that if something goes wrong, we must go out and hire more staff. Any time something doesn't function properly or the right decisions aren't made, somebody says: "Well, we need more staff." Eight thousand new civil servants.

How many trees will it take, Mr. Attorney-General, to pay for the increased staff in your office? That's right, in your department. The royalties and taxes from how many tons of ore would it take to pay for your increased staff?

Now, I have mentioned just a few departments, but I want to take the entire government civil service. If you go through the estimates for last year and add up the increased cost....

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's the Provincial Secretary's department.

MR. PHILLIPS: You are the Minister of Finance, Mr. Minister of Finance — it is you that has to pay for this. It's the taxpayers of British Columbia that have to pay for this, Mr. Chairman.

The total increased cost in 1974 over 1973 — and this is not increases in salary, but just for the increase in the staff — is $47,258,000. Nearly $50 million in one year it's costing the taxpayers of British Columbia, Mr. Chairman.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, the 8,000 employees have come in over 18 months. I am just talking about the increase in one year, in a 12-month period. It's right here in the estimate book. Go through and figure it out for yourself — 1973 versus 1974.

What bothers me, Mr. Chairman, is how much of this is absolutely necessary and how much of it is waste. We have to add to this nearly $50 million for the increase in staff the countless commissions and boards that have been appointed by this government, and I would roughly estimate that to be in the neighbourhood of $5 million — the Bremer commission, the Gaffney think tank commission (Institute for Economic Policy Analysis), the Foulkes Report, the drug and alcohol task force, the Pearse task force on forestry. You really didn't need it. All you had to do was listen to the Member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly). He outlined this government's entire forest policy. The Broom commission on recreation brings the cost to approximately $55 million.

Add to this vote 70, under the Department of Finance, salary contingencies and adjustments, $15 million. If my arithmetic serves me right, we come up with a cost of $70 million in one year for the increased cost of the civil service. How much more benefit are the taxpayers of British Columbia going to derive from this additional $70 million?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You're 100 per cent out in my department.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'll have to check my calculator, but I went through it and added it up, Mr. Attorney General. I think that if your arithmetic serves you right, you will find that I'm right on.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, you don't have to follow the budget very closely, because it really doesn't give much of an idea of what the spending is going to be.

Mr. Chairman, to the Minister of Finance....

HON. MR. BARRETT: Right! That's better.

MR. PHILLIPS: We are discussing the finances of the Province of British Columbia under your vote. You are going to have to sign the cheques. You are going to have to pay this $70 million out of your department, Mr. Minister of Finance.

Now, if the same philosophy of an increase in one year holds true, what is going to happen to the government-owned agencies like Dunhill, ICBC, the Petroleum Corporation, B.C. Hydro, B.C. Rail, Ocean Falls, Can-Cel, Plateau Mills, Pan-Ready Poultry, Kootenay Forest Products, Vancouver Island Coach Lines? I could go on. If the same philosophy in the government-run corporations holds true that the government is setting the guidelines in its own hiring, the taxpayers of British Columbia will never be able to pay the bill.

So we take in an additional $50 million resource revenue. What do we do with it, Mr. Chairman? Do we return it to the people? No! We spend it on building up a government bureaucracy.

I would like to reveal to the House, so that it will be in the records, some of the appointments of pals, cronies, friends, associates and members of the NDP that have been hired, Mr. Chairman, all by order-in-council.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Name them!

MR. PHILLIPS: There is no reflection on these people who I am going to mention, but what I am saying, Mr. Chairman, is that it is the taxpayers of

[ Page 804 ]

British Columbia who have to foot the bill. I would like to read into the record the names of people who have been hired — not by the civil service, but by orders-in-council.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would presume the reading of these names is directly relevant to the estimates that are being discussed.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes. As a matter of fact, it is very relevant, because the wages for these people who were hired by order-in-council have to come out of the taxpayers' pocket.

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce): Dan Campbell.

AN HON. MEMBER: Grace McCarthy.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's two — keep on going! Come on! They are two.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Have you read them on the list?

MR. PHILLIPS: The Department of the Attorney General — A. Wong, Dr. R.S. Rodgers....

HON. MR. BARRETT: He's not there any more.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, he was hired. I'm talking about orders-in-council that hired these people.

HON. MR. BARRETT: How long did he work?

MR. PHILLIPS: Department of Education...

HON. MR. BARRETT: Tell the whole truth.

MR. PHILLIPS: ...Mrs. H.M. Freeze. Was she not hired by order-in-council?

Department of Health — Mr. C.E. Perry.

Department of Labour — D.L. Compton.

Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources — H. Horne.

Department of Human Resources — Mr. R.F. Wargo.

Department of Public Works — R.D. Collard.

Department of Transport and Communications — Mr. J. Mika, Mr. P. Lawdon.

Municipal Affairs — Mr. D. Janson.

Premier's office — Mr. H. Beech, Mr. J.H. Wood, Mr. J.M. Twigg.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm coming to that!

Lands, Forests and Water Resources — Mr. William Boutilier, Norman Pearson.

Department of Agriculture — Alexander McLellan. Municipal Affairs — Mr. V.J. Parker, Mr. B.E. Sullivan.

Department of Health — Dr. R.G. Foulkes, Hans J. Kieferle, John E. Matters.

B.C. Hydro — David Cass-Beggs, James Wilson.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Forty-two grand.

MR. PHILLIPS: Have you fired the Civil Service Commission? All these are hired by order-in-council.

Labour — Kathleen Ruff, James Kinnaird.

Education — J.R. Fleming.

Legislative — M. Holtby.

Education — Dr. R. Parkinson, D. York, Jane Conway, A.J. Gargreave and Dr. J. Bremer — that's Bremer as in "dreamer."

AN HON. MEMBER: What happened to him?

MR. PHILLIPS: How much did he cost the taxpayers of British Columbia?

Human Resources — J. Denofaer.

Attorney-General — C.M. English, R. Haynes, D. Johannessen.

Department of Labour — Mr. G. Kowbel.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much did he get? Does it say there?

MR. PHILLIPS: Eh, what's that? No, I've already revealed how much it's costing.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would remind the Hon. Members that we should refrain from the practice of asking questions or making comments from our seat. Those Members who are on the floor speaking should not respond because they will not be recorded in Hansard.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for bringing the House to order so that I can continue.

Attorney-General — Mr. J. Rhodes.

Health — Mr. W. Ross.

B.C. Railway — T. Roland.

Health — Ms. H. Thomas.

Premier's Office — A. VanCampen.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's not order-in-council.

MR. PHILLIPS: Order-in-council, Mr. ....

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, he was a transfer in

[ Page 805 ]

the civil service.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, he was taken off, Mr. Chairman.... It was taken off an order-in-council.

HON. MR. BARRETT: These people should get protection.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member for South Peace River has the floor.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If there was an error in that, I stand corrected, and I'll scratch his name from the list.

Department of Highways — Mr. D. Miller.

Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce — Mr. E. Green.

Housing — Mr. A. Petter.

Consumer Affairs — Mrs. R. Lalik.

Municipal Affairs — R. Prittie.

Recreation and Conservation — G. Reamsbottom. Finance — Peter McNelly.

AN HON. MEMBER: Boo!

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. PHILLIPS: Labour — J.B. Paradis...

AN HON. MEMBER: I think he's related to McNelly.

MR. PHILLIPS: ...A.B. Abramson, J. Squire, D.C. Fraser, J. Moore, J. McKenzie.

You know, the question I am asking myself — and I'm sure the taxpayers of British Columbia are asking — is, what increased benefits are they deriving from these orders-in-council?

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many extra houses are we getting?

MR. PHILLIPS: Human Resources — Mr. B. Leach.

Transport and Communications — N. Bortnick.

Human Resources — Mr. B. Leach — well, the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) has hired so many men by order-in-council he can't even remember them all.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Agriculture — Ms. M. Rawson, Mr. T. Barsby, Mr. W. Lane.

Attorney-General — Mr. L. Nimsick, Jr.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. PHILLIPS: Health — J. Corsbie. I remember him. He used to be up in the Peace River area. He ran under the CCF banner years ago. That was before I even arrived in the area. Now he's gone to his final reward. As some of these men have said, "I've waited a long time."

Health — Pat Tidball.

And now I'll go through some of these. These are all Health unless I say something different: I. Sandberg, W.P.M. Robinson, D.S. Simson, T.J.S. Hewison, E.A. McFayden, A.A. Hussey, M.L. Smith, E.B. MacLatchy, C.P. Paul, D.A. McRae, CW. Tucker, A.F. Shirran, F.A. Biss, K.N. Wocknitz, M.D. MacDonald, W.K. Smith, T. Bandstra, W.S. Ross, D.E, Mackay.

Municipal Affairs — R.M. Alexander.

Health — H.J. Kieferle, J. Levy, W.S. Ross.

Education — B. Kelly.

Health — H.K. Villumsen, W.H. Janzen, F.G. Harry, W. Behn, H.A. Kerpan, H. Thomas, E.K. Graham, A. Yates.

Municipal Affairs — M. Hoffman.

Health — W.D. Black.

Municipal Affairs — B.A. Aabjerg, W.L. Fedewa, J.H. Thomas, S. Dobie, P.J. Bedford.

Health — D.C. Cocking, A.J. Roscoe, J. Allert, H.A. Furnes, W.J. Dennison.

Municipal Affairs — D.A. McEwan, P, Perkins, S.M. Wood, E.S. Jorgenson, R.O.I. Repen.

Health — Hans G. Myhre, Anne Dubois, J.L. Jonsson, Leonard H. Mack.

Municipal Affairs — P.F. Haverstock.

Health — E.M. McAllister.

Municipal Affairs — L.M. Garrison, G.E. Truax, R.B. Jones, W.R. Thurn, G.R. Silver.

Health — E.M. McNey.

Municipal Affairs — G.E. McCallum.

Health — D.F. Mulroney, R.L. Gardiner, A. Wood, D.T. Conrow.

How much is this costing the taxpayers of British Columbia, and why are so many of these hired all by order-in-council when we have a civil service commission? Are they friends of the government? Are they card-carrying NDPers? Are they pals" Are they ex-NDP?

You know, it is amazing. So we take a few extra million from the resources of this province — and do we pass it back to the taxpayers in form of benefits?

AN HON. MEMBER: No way!

MR. PHILLIPS: No, Mr. Chairman, we build up a bureaucracy like the Roman Empire.

[ Page 806 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Roman Empire?

MR. PHILLIPS: It is unbelievable. But I must continue on.

Department of Health — D.H. Lawson, G.L. Hall, H.E. Mathias, L. Vandergrift, D.L. Frogbrook Read, M. Moody.

Municipal Affairs — J.R. Evans, D.L.W. Stronge.

Travel — F. Colthorpe.

Highways — W. Harding.

Health — R. Kaczor.

Housing — M.J. Audain.

Labour — D.B. Adair.

Health — Ronald A. Sward, James Wilson McLeod, Monica M. Davis.

Mr. Chairman, as I continue this list I can hardly believe myself that so many people would be hired all by order-in-council.

Department of Labour — W. Black — and that's not Wes Black.

Labour — Larry Ryan.

Provincial Secretary — Mrs. Allison, Ms. Anne Crozier.

Labour — William Ivor Beeby.

Attorney-General — Joy-Ann Lee, E.L. Beyer.

Education — R. Faris.

Health — and the Department of Health has really hired a lot of people by order-in-council — J.D.R. Farr, J. Winters, H.K. Villumsen, J,C. Wilson, T. Hutchison.

Department of Travel — R.L. Colby.

Department of Health — K. Paulsen, R.T. Reynolds.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Colby — Dick Colby's the Deputy Minister. Are you attacking him?

MR. PHILLIPS: No, I'm not attacking him at all. I'm merely saying he was hired by order-in-council.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, oh!

MR. PHILLIPS: What does the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) say about these?

HON. MR. BARRETT: All Deputies are hired by order-in-council.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Order! I would ask the Hon. Member whether it is necessary to read further names in order to make his point?

MR. PHILLIPS: I would say it is, Mr. Chairman, because of the very fact that the taxpayers of British Columbia are paying for the wages of these people who were appointed by order-in-council, and who should have been hired through the normal channels of the civil service.

AN HON. MEMBER: Through competition.

MR. PHILLIPS: From competition! These were appointments.

So, Mr. Chairman, I will continue on.

In the Department of Municipal Affairs — A.M, Reine, L.A. Nilson.

Department of Highways — A.D. Miller.

Transport and Communications — ...

HON. MR. BARRETT: It was all done by order-in-council before.

MR. PHILLIPS: ...J. Mika.

Health — T.L. Sturgess.

Municipal Affairs — A. Dalgleish.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): You read him once, you're repeating yourself.

MR. PHILLIPS: McNally — Transport and Communications? No, J. Mika, Transport and Communications.

R.P. Fraser — Education.

I'm sure that some of the backbenchers, when they go back to their constituencies, are going to be asked similar questions. They are the taxpayers who are going to pay for this increased civil service. And what benefits? Name the benefits to your constituents that you are going to derive from this $70 million bill that it is going to cost in one year for this increase in civil servants.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Lyle Wicks.

MR. PHILLIPS: I.B. Goodman, R. Repen — 20 and 20 years, 301 years.... Do you still want to discuss it?

HON. MR. BARRETT: How did you appoint the Board of Variance members before? Order-in-council.

MR. PHILLIPS: P. Doherty — Municipal Affairs.

D.C. Morton — Education.

B.G. Errington....

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many changes do you make in the Court of Revision?

HON. MR. BARRETT: How many changes did you make when you were a government?

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't be stupid.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): I didn't know that you had that many friends.

[ Page 807 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, the consensus of opinion is that these are the people who were appointed and they either live or fall with the government. Is that right?

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: A lot of people appointed by order-in-council. I thought we had a civil service in this province which was free from politics.

HON. MR. BARRETT: And it still is.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): The Board of Variance isn't civil service.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The Board of Variance doesn't go through the civil service, neither does the Deputy Minister, and you know it.

AN HON. MEMBER: All right, we'll take two off.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You have just thrown in everything. You've never even done your research.

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

HON. MR. BARRETT: He's got the floor; wish he had a head.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Who's on the Board of Variance for North Cowichan?

MR. PHILLIPS: M.G. Anderson — Health.

Municipal Affairs — MR. MacPherson, A.E. Graham.

Health — O.O. Wallin, W.E.M. Beaudin, B.G. MacKay, W.E. Dyer.

Labour — A. Macdonald.

Municipal Affairs — L. Davies, M.E. Elliot-Hurst.

Labour — R.S. Azad.

Health — C.F. Christoffersen.

Municipal Affairs — J. Lillbeck.

Health...my gracious, most of the Department of Health must have been appointed by order-in-council — J.L. McKinnon, W.D. Taylor, C.A. Tonge, G.J. Dale, G.L. Claman.

Municipal Affairs — R.S. Cribb, E. Wissman, J.G. Matkin.

Health — D.N. Gow.

Municipal Affairs — R.J. Hill, M.M. Beduz, R.E. Mulvilhill H. Ramsden, J.L. Adams, T.A. Timbrell.

Health — T.A. Myers, R.W. McClurg, M.A. Weger, J.W. Groves.

Municipal Affairs — J.F. Lackner, D.J. Andow, R.S. Brophy, G.G. Bergen.

Education — M.B. Gurnstein.

Health — J.H. Tyner.

Municipal Affairs — E.J. Brooke, R.D. Swan, M.E. Egan, J. Carlin, A.D. Lewis.

Health — H.M. Hicks.

Municipal Affairs — W. Ratzlaff, D,L. Goodman, H.T. Allen, A.E. Epp.

Health — W. Halyk, U.G. Burman.

Municipal Affairs — C.W. Pringle, J.A. Foord.

Health — R.A. Sward, J.W. McLeod, M.M. Davis.

Municipal Affairs — J.E. Reeves, D.A. Robertson.

Highways — D.M. Korbin.

Labour — John Brown, Mike Kramer.

Housing — Glen Haddrell, L.C. Minchin.

Municipal Affairs — W.A. Priest.

Education — Walter Young...

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Pity.

Health — John Latham Allen, Marvin Elliot Cope, Esther Jones, George L. Brodie.

Municipal Affairs. — James Philip Fawcett, Richard H. Morrison.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the question of the Hon. Member: are these paid civil servants, or are these government appointments?

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm saying, Mr. Chairman, these are appointments by order-in-council.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would draw your attention to standing order 61 (2), which says that speeches in committee of the Whole must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration. I believe that some of the names referred to are appointments to hospital boards and boards of variance and so on. Therefore, I fail to see that they're strictly relevant to the estimates before the House. I would ask the Hon. Member to confine his list to those who are paid civil servants.

MR. PHILLIPS: Certainly many of them are appointments to boards, but they were all appointed.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Yeah, but they get no money out of it.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, not very many of them, Not very many of them. The point is that you have changed the entire tenure of civil service in British Columbia.

[ Page 808 ]

MR. LEWIS: Oh, but that's false.

MR. PHILLIPS: And it's the taxpayers of British Columbia who are going to have to pay the bill.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Excuse me, Mr. Member, will you tell me what Mr. George Brodie does? — the name you read out in the list — so that we know?

MR. PHILLIPS: You tell us!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. PHILLIPS: You tell us; I'm asking the questions. It's your estimates.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The Hon. Member for South Peace River has the chair. (Laughter.) The floor — pardon me!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Who's George Brodie? Tell us.

MR. PHILLIPS: They're not my estimates, Mr. Chairman. It's up to the Minister of Finance to tell me what these people do, and why it's necessary to hire them and why it's necessary for the taxpayers to pay them.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Municipal Affairs — James Philip Fawcett, Richard H. Morrison, Harold Roy David, Robert Forsythe, Heinz Hieber, Edna L. Bowden, Edward Slotylak.

Provincial Secretary — Ivor Williams.

Health — John Douglas Watt, Arthur J. Saunders.

Finance — Mrs. Margaret Hobbs.

Municipal Affairs — Julian. E. Fry.

MR. CHABOT: Margaret Hobbs, who is she?

MR. PHILLIPS: Henry A.L. Fanthorpe, Laddie Pavlis, Keith R. Lacey.

Finance — Mr. Peter Jenewein, Mr. J.Y. Gardner.

Lands, Forests and Water Resources — Dr. Peter Pearse.

Health — Marilyn J. Webb, Sylvia Clemso

Labour — Arnold Smith.

Municipal Affairs — Roger M. Robichaud, R.D. Nanaimo, Minnie M. Proteau, Kenneth W, McRae, Ian C. Schierbeck.

Health — Orlando M. Pecora.

Education — Mrs. Virginia Biernes, Rev. Phillip Hewett, Dr. Peter Oberlander, Mrs. H. Fergusson, Mr. Ron Tweedie.

Municipal Affairs — Teresa A. Reksten.

Education — Mrs. Margaret Kird, Mrs. D. Baigent, Mr. Harry Greene, Mr. Phillip Joe, Mrs. Catherine S. Bergmann, Mrs. Evelyn Souster, Mr. Roger Schmidt, Mrs. Phyllis Cribb, Jean Pierre Daem, Mrs. Nancy A. Kirk, Mrs. Hazel Lestpange, Mr. John Sutherland.

Health — Walter S. Ross, John L. Desjardins, Mabel C. Mcrory.

Municipal Affairs — Robert Neilsen Pedersen.

Health — John L. Desjardins.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): This is disgusting.

MR. PHILLIPS: Finance — Isaac Plecash; Attorney-General ... one duplication in 300.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Who wrote that for you?

MR. PHILLIPS: Jeanette Stark, William Smalley.

Health — Joseph Ling-Kwan Kwong ...

AN HON. MEMBER: You'd better read the order-in-council.

MR. PHILLIPS: ...Robert Brian Mould...

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't have to read the order-in-council.

MR. PHILLIPS: Housing — John Northy.

Education — Lonnie Hindle, Dr. Harvey Richardson, Bernard Gillie, Mrs. Margaret Vickers.

Labour — James Stewart Don.

Education — Severen Morin, Mrs. Lynn Lathan.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Is that all?

MR. PHILLIPS: Is that all? Is that all! (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that one month?

MR. PHILLIPS: How many trees? How many tons of ore?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Carry on, carry on.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! It is within the knowledge of the chair that there are certain names that have been mentioned that are simply hospital appointments in Skeena, and I would draw attention to standing order 61. I'm not taking direction from either side of the House in this case.

MR. CHABOT: It's quite obvious where you're taking your directions.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Go back to court.

[ Page 809 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member for South Peace River proceed with his list?

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, did you recognize some familiar names in there, maybe in your constituency?

The whole point is that we're discussing today the Minister of Finance's estimates. It is his department that is in the end responsible for signing the cheques for this bureaucracy that has been built up. It is the taxpayers of British Columbia who are going to have to pay the bill. A $70 million increase in one year, twice the entire cost for the Department of Agriculture including $20 million special appropriations; nearly 1½ times the amount of money being put out for housing and land servicing.

They used to be saying in Ottawa: "What's a million here or there?" This government, I believe, and this Minister of Finance is adopting the same philosophy. "What's a million here or there?" A measly $13 million for tax removal from property in this budget, one of the promises of this government, but nearly five times that amount to pay for the increase in the civil service in one year. A measly $1 million for intermediate care; 70 times that amount to pay for the bureaucracy this government is building up. Per capita grants to the municipalities: $66 million. Add $4 million to that and you've got the amount of the cost of the increase in the civil service in this province in one year.

But the question we must ask is: what does this $70 million provide for the taxpayers of the Province of British Columbia?

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you state your point of order?

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver-Little Mountain): Mr. Chairman, it's an unwritten law in this House that you shouldn't criticize a civil servant or appointment or a person who can't fight back. The Hon. Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) protested when a civil servant struck back at him when he pulled a trick. I suggest the Hon. Member for South Peace River established a new price: about 9 cents.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. There's no point of order. Would the Hon. Member for South Peace River continue?

MR. PHILLIPS: As I said at the outset, I am attacking no individual in the civil service; I am attacking the bureaucracy this government is building up and that the taxpayers of this province have to pay for.

This $70 million is nearly four times the anticipated revenue from land taxes this year. What services and how much extra benefits are the taxpayers of British Columbia going to derive from this increase of $70 million in one year? Six thousand civil servants in 18 months.

I look at the Province of British Columbia with its wealth of resources and the benefit it has been able to extend to its people over the last two decades. I look at the Province of Quebec with equal resources, and I look at the Province of Newfoundland. I look at many other countries throughout the world equally endowed with the natural resources we have here in British Columbia. Why are the people of those provinces not endowed with the same standard of living as we are here in the Province of British Columbia? Why do we take from the "have" Province of British Columbia and give to the "have-not" Province of Quebec that is endowed with more natural resources than we have here in the Province of British Columbia? It has been good management of the money in British Columbia that has made it a "have" province; good management of the natural resources and a tight rein on expenses. Taxpayers in British Columbia were saying during the past two decades that we had too many civil servants, but in the long run it's the taxpayers of British Columbia who have to pay the bill.

Mr. Chairman, to the Minister of Finance, who is responsible for spending the taxpayers' dollars, I would like to say again that wasting taxpayers' dollars is a sin, and it's a sin punishable by being expelled from office.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I've been sitting here thinking what kind of words can I use to describe that disgraceful performance? But then I have to remember where it comes from.

The first two things we did was hire that outfit some research staff. You want to talk about a waste of tax dollars. We've obviously wasted it on the research staff because he didn't do a single lick of work to find out what he was talking about.

Who has he attacked when he has read those lists? I refuse to send out a copy of his speech to all these people because I don't want them to think his speech was politically motivated. I think his speech was purely based on ignorance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Far be it from me to accuse that Member of playing cheap politics. If he was playing cheap politics he would at least check out his facts before he made the most coherent speech he has ever made since he's been in the House. He was reading from a list.

Who did he attack? All the police commissions, all the boards of variance, the PGE board, two Deputy Ministers, the Petroleum Corporation board, all the

[ Page 810 ]

hospital boards, all the boards appointed by order-in-council by that government and governments before it.

Well, did anybody work on the boards before we arrived? Certainly they did. And how were they appointed? By the former government. And what did we do? We reappointed some of them. Guess who they were? Shame! Some of them are Socreds, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh! You can't believe it? Mr. Member, it is true. They are public-spirited, good citizens who want to serve their community, only to find they're attacked by that Member who read not one single order-in-council to find out who he was attacking. He just read the list.

Mr. Morton, who ran against the Member for Cowichan-Malahat (Hon. Mr. Strachan), is on the hospital board. He ran under the Social Credit colours.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: He's on the board of variance.

HON. MR. BARRETT: He's on the board of variance. He gets a small remuneration for serving the community, and that heavy odour is cast. I hope he doesn't hear that one of his fellow party members attacked him in the House today.

AN HON. MEMBER: We won't tell him.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Don't tell him. I don't want anybody to tell them that they're attacking their own kind. I'm glad their leader (Mr. Bennett) isn't here with them today, because he'd be embarrassed at the new level of inadequacy they've presented us today. Considering all the problems that new leader has got, why burden him with this inadequacy on top of it? Let's keep this to ourselves. I ask the press gallery to put their pencils down and keep the secret that he read the list today attacking Social Credit flacks.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order! The Hon. Premier has the floor.

HON. MR. BARRETT: For the children here in the gallery, may their ears never hear again such a list of attacks against good citizens of this province, some of whom publicly admit — and this takes courage — that they're Social Credit members.

AN HON. MEMBER: I can't believe it!

HON. MR. BARRETT: I can't believe it either. That dying party still has adherents, and some of them have been reappointed to boards and councils only to be attacked by the Member for South Peace River.

Who else did he attack? He named one George Brody? Guess who George Brody is? He's a government agent in Nelson, and George Brody has been working for the government for 33 years. Some reward! Instead of a gold watch he got attacked by the Member today.

I don't want George to hear about this. Don't anybody send him a letter and tell poor George what happened. You stay in the House, Mr. Member for Nelson-Creston (Hon. Mr. Nicolson). I don't want any phone calls; I don't want George's heart broken — after 33 years in government service to find that he's attacked on the floor today.

Dick Colby, who worked faithfully under the former administration, received his reward and is now appointed Deputy only to be attacked.

Now, Mr. Member, aside from the fun you were having, the fact is: you have put on a very low, shallow performance, attacking many dedicated citizens who serve this province by law through order-in-council.

Order-in-council appointments have been a practice for boards, for commissions, for hospital service, for civil servants who give of their voluntary time to work evenings on these boards — like Brody and like others. I disassociate myself completely with remarks made by that Member. We are fortunate in this province to have many, many people who are civil servants who volunteer their time, and do so at the great service to all of us British Columbians.

Mr. Member, you should hang your head in shame. You should go back and reconsider some of your intemperate statements attacking these good people in this province. I find it very disgraceful that he would read a list of order-in-council appointments without referring to what their tasks were or what their jobs were.

In terms of the B.C. Petroleum Corporation board members: certainly it's true we appointed them through order-in-council; certainly it's true it's related to the resources of this province, Mr. Member. And if we didn't have that petroleum corporation, we wouldn't be getting the fair share of natural gas we are now getting. We'd still be giving it away as we did under the former administration.

Mr. Chairman, the order-in-council appointments of administrative assistants to the cabinet Ministers are there for the length of the service of that cabinet Minister. At no time will we use the civil service procedures to manipulate the appointment of order-in-council people. That should be openly order-in-council, just as Deputy Ministers always will by order-in-council appointments, so will be

[ Page 811 ]

Ministerial assistants.

Mr. Member, there will no longer be the pork barrel alliance, commonly known as the Businessmen's Alliance of the former P.A. Gaglardi. You have smeared people on that list who are serving on boards; you've smeared Deputy Ministers; you've smeared civil servants. You are so incompetent in your research that you have not made an attempt to separate the straight appointments by the cabinet Ministers, but you've gone on to attack, in the one case, a civil servant who's been on staff for 33 years.

You can't get much lower, but I'm waiting for it to happen.

MR. F.A. CALDER (Atlin): Mr. Chairman, I would like to take part in this debate in the Premier's estimates by registering my protests from what he said yesterday. Of course, I'll stand corrected if I'm wrong, but in the heat of his debate, his presentation yesterday, he said that in the event of this lack of co-operation from the federal government, in terms of northern development, that the province would go it alone.

MR. AN. FRASER (Cariboo): Sure, he's backing out, Frank. You've the guts to speak up!

MR. CALDER: As a northern Member I stand on my feet as a Member of this government, and one who has fought a long time and seen what happens in the north. I feel, being fair, that I'm not afraid to hit my boss in this respect because I've always believed that the key to northern development is co-operation with the federal government. Particularly with one development that we've been talking about, and that is railroad building. You know, we took over because of necessity and I mentioned this in my contribution to the budget debate. We had no choice. To save the economy we had to take over the Columbia Cellulose of America. A great thing, one of the most fantastic moves the government ever made.

Other than that, we're talking about railway building. So help me, right from Terrace all the way up to Groundhog, — Mr. Chairman, this involves your riding — there's got to be federal money involved in this construction. There's no way out of it. And we go to Dease Lake — partner, what the heck are we going to Dease Lake for? What are we going to take out of there?

When the previous administration went up to Fort Nelson...what are we taking out of there? So we're going to Dease Lake. What are we taking out? Are we going to take out trees? Hang it; the Minister of trees (Hon. R.A. Williams) hasn't even completed SYUs up there, you know. So what are we going to take out in commodity to make that railway pay?

As I said very briefly in my contribution to the budget debate, there is one company that is already producing — the only one in the whole area — and they're shipping every ounce of asbestos through Whitehorse down to Skagway. That company has said that the minute the railway is completed to Dease Lake, they're going to divert every ounce of asbestos to Dease Lake and they're going to start shipping it by railway down to North Vancouver.

From where I'm standing that is the one and only commodity that's going to make the railway pay.

But beyond that, where the heck do we go? Northern development, friends, does not mean far northern British Columbia — and we're going to throw up our hats and say, "Hurray!" Beans to that noise. We've got to go beyond the bounds of the B.C.-Yukon boundary. We have to go up there where the black stuff is, you know. As a matter of fact, the Premier and the Provincial Secretary had to fly to Washington a year ago and say,"We'll build the railway and we'll take this black stuff down by rail."

Anyway, that's northern development, if it materializes. So we've got to go beyond that. But who the heck is going to go beyond that? The B.C. government? Like hell! It's the CNR that has to. By the British North America Act, they are the only ones that can go beyond the bounds of the province — so we've got to co-operate with that CNR.

Now, I realize that the CNR is giving us one lousy heck right now. I know. I've talked to the Premier and I know. But, my golly, if we're going to get anywhere, we've got to keep pushing and let those guys in the east know that we'd like to co-operate. So why kick them? We don't want to kick them in the bum. We've got to make them realize that this is it.

You know, I'm glad that the Leader of the Conservative Party is in his seat. The Liberals may not be in power forever. Guess who introduced the Road to Resources programme? It was Diefenbaker. And because Art Laing hated the guts of W.A.C., he cut it off. Look, you ask me about it; I'll tell you. And Diefenbaker had the guts to go and introduce that Road to Resources programme. That was cut off — $15 million into us, and we ended up.... Because of the interference, when Diefenbaker went down, we only received $7 million of it.

Why did we take so lousy long in building the Stewart-Watson Lake Highway? Because we ended up doing our own bag. We did. W.A.C. did it. I take my hat off to him. But there was an interference — there was supposed to be $15 million for it.

Now, the same thing with the construction of the railway. It's now going in through my country. The old Nass River bit — you know, up to Groundhog. Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Chairman, I couldn't see any way out. You've got to co-operate with the federal because this is all northern development, and northern development does not end up at the boundary line of B.C. and the Yukon. It goes beyond that. Federal participation is a must! I don't give a

[ Page 812 ]

hoot how rough a time they give us. I think it's the responsibility of this government to see that there is a co-operation. This is what I'd like to point out at this time.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): How do you do it, Frank? How do you do it? Tell us how?

MR. CALDER: I just finished telling you; by way of co-operation between the two governments. Let's not one government kick the other. And that's the answer to your question. Now don't ask me such a silly question.

MR. WALLACE: It's a two-way street. We're not getting co-operation! How do you expect to get it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. CALDER: You weren't even listening, buster! I'm saying that if we're going to get anywhere, there must be co-operation between two governments. So what the hell are you kicking about?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. CALDER: Look, I'm in a bloody ugly mood, and you....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I'd ask the Hon. Member to address the Chair.

MR. CALDER: Okay. Just hold it. I just want to say this: I got up on my feet for one specific reason — northern development.

I want to end up my talk by now asking the Premier. This is a preliminary — a mere introduction to what I was saying. I'm thinking of this Groundhog-to-Stewart River — the railway building. I can speak on behalf of the lower half of my constituency.

I got the information from the CNR. I didn't get it from the B.C. government. I had to get all the dope about this railway building from the CN — out of your city, Mr. Chairman, the City of Terrace. I got the maps and all the information from the CN. There has to be co-operation. This is my bag. This is what I am telling you, okay?

So I start fighting on behalf of my constituency and say there must be a BCR feasibility survey to find out whether or not the seaport of Stewart could be a reality. It's only 70 miles from the Groundhog down to Stewart. During the election, one of the people who assisted me in the campaigns was the Premier himself. I got him to stand up on the height of land and I said, look, there is the old Bear Glacier receding. Right now you can see away back. And we looked at the forest road down below — which is level, baby, you know. A railway is possible to Stewart. Well, I don't give a hoot if it costs $50,000 or $100,000. Why couldn't we survey that possibility on whether or not we can go into Stewart? And this is the reason I am on my feet. I would like to ask the Premier if that is possible. At least survey it. I think this is in all fairness to our old big talk about northern development.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Chairman, I would like at the outset, on behalf of my party, to come back to the kindly words of the Premier with respect to the victory of Mr. Wilson in the British elections. I say that the Liberal Party would wish to associate itself with all good wishes to Mr. Wilson. Even a very rich province like British, Columbia has difficulty, you know, Mr. Chairman, affording a socialist government, and Britain will really need luck to do that.

The bright spot, I might point out to the Premier, through you, Mr. Chairman, is that at least in Britain the Liberals hold the balance of power. So we will hope for good things.

MR. WALLACE: The Scottish Nationalists hold the balance of power.

MR. GIBSON: The committee, Mr. Chairman, has covered a lot of ground on these estimates so far. We've talked about the British Columbia Railway in some depth. The Premier raised the question of B.C. Telephone. Perhaps I might ask the Premier, through you, Mr. Chairman: you said you would table a memorandum of share transactions with respect to B.C. Telephones. Perhaps that could be done.

We talked about natural resources and the size of the civil service and discussion of order-in-council appointments and energy. But, Mr. Chairman, there has been a common thread through almost every speech that has been given on these estimates, and that common thread is honesty in government, as evidenced by affidavits...

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: We're hanging on till we get answers, Mr. Member.

...affidavits filed by members of the Egg and Broiler Marketing Boards. It's natural that there should be this common thread because without honesty in government, none of these other things matter — B.C. Railway, the natural resources, the civil service — none of these things are important without that fundamental thing of honesty in government.

While I and other Members of my party will be speaking on other questions later on in the Premier's

[ Page 813 ]

estimates, on this occasion I want to stick strictly to this question of government integrity.

I can't believe, Mr. Chairman, that the Premier would want to leave these questions on record without some very specific answers. Who is telling the truth about the Egg Marketing Board? Who is telling the truth about the Broiler Marketing Board? That is the question.

It is either the Premier's good name, or it is the good name of four other men who had the guts to brave the wrath of the government and come out and say some things that were very disagreeable for the government to hear, and attest to them and swear to them in this province. It is a reflection on those civil servants at those meetings if these things are left on the record without clarification.

The image has been presented of a government that operates in the backroom with muscle; and that's a government that in the long run will muscle every citizen in British Columbia.

It has been a long debate. The Premier had a lot to say about marketing boards, about the policy of marketing boards, and that's important. It was discussed at length in the agricultural estimates.

He read from the Garrish report, which was an interesting report, about trading in quotas and we all disagree with that; about dumping in various parts of the province, and that's wrong; about cozy little arrangements with producers in various parts of the province. All of these things are wrong.

Again, Mr. Chairman, they are not the issue. What about Mr. Kovachich? I didn't hear the Premier say anything about that. And what about the questions asked by the Member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) — that I am going to come back to later on? And what about broilers?

You know, the Premier has made a lot about these words "or similar words to the same effect." I want to refer him to the affidavit filed by Mr. McAninch, points 11 and 12. Point 11 says that the Deputy Minister of Agriculture said that the Premier of British Columbia had ordered certain allocations; and there is no "similar words to the same effect" there, Mr. Premier, through the Chairman — no similar words to the same effect. It's a straight statement.

In point 12 Mr. McAninch swore that "I was further informed by the said Mr. Peterson that Mr. Barrett had directed that a committee of three be appointed to determine allocation of broiler permits on the basis ordered by Mr. Barrett." No "similar words to the same effect" there; it's a straight statement. It is a statement about the word of a senior civil servant in the Province of British Columbia.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The Premier wasn't at that meeting.

MR. GIBSON: No, the Premier wasn't at that meeting, Mr. Attorney-General, that's correct. A Deputy Minister was at that meeting who was quoting the Premier. I think that's important, Mr. Attorney-General, because it directly contradicts words that the Premier said in this House. That's why I think it's important.

What about this question of interfering with the boards? The problem to me is the interfering secretly rather than directly under the Natural Products Marketing British Columbia Act. Because the government has all the powers it could ever want under the Natural Products Marketing British Columbia Act. In section 4, subsection 2:

"The Lieutenant-Governor in Council may from time to time establish, amend and revoke schemes for the promotion and control and regulation within the province of the transportation, packing, storage and marketing of any natural products, and may constitute marketing boards to administer such schemes and may vest in those boards respectively any powers considered necessary, advisable to enable them...." and so on.

By order-in-council the law provides that if the government doesn't like the way these boards are operating, the government can disband the board. The government can set up a new board with new powers, but it has to take responsibility if it does it that way — openly, through order-in-council. It has to be registered rather than applying muscle in the back room.

Yesterday the Second Member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) asked the Premier in question period whether he had read the material that was tabled in the House last week and the affidavits of Messrs. McAninch and Stafford and Brunsdon and Unger of the broiler and egg boards respectively. The Premier replied, "Yes, I have read the material and I know of its contents, which I disagree with."

I ask, which statements in those affidavits does the Premier disagree with — which statements? I'm sure he has studied them carefully.

Does the Premier agree that the people Mr. Brunsdon said were present were, in fact, at the meeting? Because those people might have something to say about the meetings too.

Did the Premier, Mr. Chairman, tell Mr. Brunsdon that there would not be any court case against Mr. Kovachich — tell him, inform him, advise him — that that was not going to happen?

Did the Premier, Mr. Chairman, say that the charges against Mr. Kovachich, the fines, levies, must be substantially reduced? We have the testimony of the Minister of Agriculture that in due course he approved the exact amount of the reduction — a reduction by two-thirds.

[ Page 814 ]

Was he following out the Premier's orders as sworn by these affidavits?

Did the Premier indicate to Mr. Brunsdon that the Kovachich order was not to be a precedent and that if any other producers got out of line, they were to be stepped on?

Did the Premier inform the board that it had to draft an agreement that day?

Had the Premier before met or had discussions with Mr. Kovachich? And was he aware of the politics of Mr. Kovachich?

Did the Premier inform Mr. Morgan, in response to his question as to what assurance the board would have that Mr. Kovachich would abide by the 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 "?

Did the Premier say to Mr. Brunsdon at the meeting: "If anything is said outside of this office I will deny every word I said "?

Mr. Chairman, we've got a two act tragedy here. Act I was in the Premier's office on October 26, 1972. Act II was in Mr. Maurice King's office on February 5, 1974.

The cast of characters in this two act tragedy is quite short. It's not as long as the cast of characters the Hon. Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) read us. There were only 16 people at those meetings.

Out of those 16 people, Mr. Chairman, four have sworn affidavits. A quarter of the people at those meetings have sworn affidavits as to what happened at those meetings. One person has said that he has a memory that is faulty about those meetings. That's the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) — he can't remember very well what happened.

Five of the people at those meetings have been muzzled. The civil servants at those meetings have been as much as instructed by the Minister of Agriculture, speaking in this House, that they had better not talk to the press. Five out of that 16 were muzzled.

There are five other people who were outsiders who have not as yet given their sworn testimony, and might welcome a chance to talk, Mr. Chairman.

Finally, out of the 16 there's been one denial on the floor of this House by the Premier that he ordered people to do things either with respect to the Egg Marketing Board in 1972, or with respect to the Broiler Marketing Board in 1974.

Mr. Chairman, the Premier's estimates are an occasion to discuss many things of importance to this province. I will return to other subjects later on in the Premier's estimates. But this is the fundamental one, and this is one that we have to keep asking questions on until we get answers. The Hon. Member for Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) asked them yesterday and got no answers. I'll ask them now.

The Premier, earlier on today, called across the floor to a Member who was speaking in this debate: "Tell the whole truth." I say that to the Premier.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Chairman, it's characteristic that we're still refused the answers to the questions that are being asked.

The Premier referred to a "disgraceful performance." Well, I'd say that if there is any disgraceful performance in this House it's the Premier's performance with regard to the basic questions that are facing this House in British Columbia today.

The question is simply one of truth: who is telling the truth? The people of British Columbia want to know the answers to those questions and many others.

I want to refer just briefly to the speaker previous to the Hon. Member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) because there were a couple of points there that were, mentioned, and the Premier conveniently forgot about the figures of $70 million for additional civil service — and most of that at the top levels.

There aren't any public health inspectors in that $70 million. There's a million dollars for intermediate care. There's $70 million of money wasted on an operation of machinery itself that this government has set up.

It's interesting that the Premier in his knee-jerk reactions had to pick out the Provincial Alliance of Businessmen to talk about. I'd like to ask the Premier where those people are from the Provincial Alliance of Businessmen that were fired. I'm not talking about political appointments — I'm talking about 20 or 30 people who were ordinary civil servants who were fired by your welfare Minister (Hon. Mr. Levi) and are still, some of them, walking the streets because they can't find other work. What about that, Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Chairman?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Can you give me names?

MR. McCLELLAND: I've given you names. I've given you names over and over again — and your welfare Minister as well. And I got no answers to that question either.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Send me a letter naming names.

MR. McCLELLAND: You've got the names. I sent them to you a year ago! What's the matter with you?

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: No, they haven't been placed in the government service. They were fired by

[ Page 815 ]

your department and your welfare Minister was upset....

Interjections.

MR. McCLELLAND: You've got the names! They wouldn't answer last year, and I don't expect an answer this year. Those people are still walking the streets, thanks to your government.

Interjections.

MR. McCLELLAND: Clear off your desk for a change, and look in your files. Civil servants are walking the streets because of the actions of this government. That's the kind of government we're faced with.

I have a couple of other questions that I'd like to ask about this whole question of truth in government, honesty in government, integrity in government. Again it relates to the problems that the people involved with the British Columbia Egg Marketing Board have found themselves in.

The former chairman of the British Columbia Egg Marketing Board has now made it very clear that he resigned from the Egg Marketing Board because of government interference. Now, he's made that extremely clear, in answer to the questions raised by the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) in the House. He has said he resigned because of government interference, He wanted you to know that, Mr. Attorney-General.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: A year later.

MR. McCLELLAND: Doesn't that change the situation slightly, Mr. Premier? Doesn't that make it even more important that you get up on the floor of the House and begin to answer some questions?

The former chairman of the British Columbia Egg Marketing Board has said publicly that in his estimation the Premier has not been telling the truth. Here's a citizen of British Columbia who has gone to the trouble of signing and swearing to an affidavit to state his position. Nobody else in government has gone that far. He has said that in his estimation the Premier has not been telling the truth.

Mr. Chairman, I suggest that that kind of changes things a little. It's about time, in the light of these kinds of statements, that the Premier stood up and began to tell the truth, The former chairman of the Egg Marketing Board has said publicly: "I want the Premier to stand up and say those things." What he is saying, Mr. Chairman, is that he wants the Premier to stand up and level with the people of British Columbia and tell us the whole story. Tell us what happened; tell us what threats were made; tell us what intervention came from the Premier's office.

One of the other people who signed those affidavits, Mr. John Unger, a member of the British Columbia Egg Marketing Board, said publicly: "The people have the right to the truth." We agree that the people have a right to the truth. And the time is over-ripe for the people to get at the truth.

Mr. Unger has also said yesterday: "I challenge the Premier to come forward now and tell the public exactly what went on inside his office." That's fair enough. That's all we want — we want the Premier to come forward now and tell the people of British Columbia exactly the kind of threats that went on inside his office.

Further, that same member of the British Columbia Egg Marketing Board has said that several civil servants suggested to members of the board that they resign. I don't recall that being brought up before, but he says now that several civil servants suggested to members of the board that they resign. What civil servants, Mr. Chairman? By what right did they make those suggestions? All the more reason for the Premier to get up in this House and promise the people of British Columbia that he will have a full and open public inquiry into this whole question, and that he will allow civil servants who were involved in these meetings to testify at this public hearing, and that the light be let into the proceedings of the Premier's interference in matters concerning the British Columbia Egg Marketing Board and the British Columbia Broiler Marketing Board.

The Premier gave a stirring performance on the floor of this House yesterday. He was at his very best. Unfortunately he never hit the point once.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): That's his best.

MR. McCLELLAND: His absolute best — that's right.

In the light of the developments which have been placed on file with Members of this House and have since been placed in public, I think it's really time that the Premier started with Members of this House and the public of British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, if the Premier can't see the need for a public inquiry yet, I'd say he's blind. It's about time you took the blinkers off, Mr. Premier. The time is now.

MR. GARDOM: It was looking as though the Hon. Premier was starting to maybe get a little vertical, and having got vertical, open his mouth and give us some answers, Mr. Chairman, but if that's not the case I indeed have to also put some questions to the Premier.

Did you, Mr. Premier, tell Mr. Brunsdon there would not be any court case against Mr. Kovachich?

[ Page 816 ]

Yes or no.

Did you say the charges against Mr. Kovachich must be substantially reduced?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I said they were acting like children.

MR. GARDOM: That's the only words you used. Did you say that to them specifically? Did you say: "You are acting like children "? or are you just reconstructing that today?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm not referring to you today.

MR. GARDOM: I wasn't at the meeting. I tell you, if I'd been at the meeting, I perhaps would have had a far better and clearer recollection of what happened there than you've had, Mr. Premier, because you've not answered the questions. I asked you questions yesterday, the Member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) asked you questions, my colleague for Langley (Mr. McClelland) asked you questions, you've heard questions from the First Member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) and the Member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams), and you've not answered any of those questions. You've not responded even to the statements of these four gentlemen, and they want you to clear the air for them.

Did you indicate to Mr. Brunsdon that the Kovachich order was not to be a precedent, and that if any other producers got out of line they were to be stepped on? Did you say that?

Maybe the Hon. Premier didn't hear me. I'll repeat the question to him. Did you indicate to Mr. Brunsdon that the Kovachich order was not to be a precedent, and that if any other producers got out of line they were to be stepped upon?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I don't have the floor.

MR. GARDOM: Are you prepared to take the floor and answer these questions? I'm happy to sit down.

HON. MR. BARRETT: We're not in a courtroom, Mr. Member. I made my statements.

MR. GARDOM: I appreciate that you're not in a courtroom.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will you address the Chair and continue with your speech?

MR. GARDOM: Yes, indeed, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Hon. Premier. Are you therefore prepared to stand up and answer these questions now? If you are, I'm delighted to sit down.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I've answered them as far as I'm going to. I've answered those questions.

MR. GARDOM: You're not going to answer any more questions at all. That's your position.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I've answered those questions.

MR. GARDOM: Did you inform the board that it would have to draft an agreement that day? Yes or no.

Did Mr. Ed Morgan say this to you: "Mr. Premier, what assurance does the board have that Sy will abide by the agreement? Did he ask you that? Do you remember that? Are you denying it? Or are you not denying it? Or are you just going to stand by one simplistic, generalistic statement that they were acting like children?

Was Mr. Kovachich acting like a child, too? Is he included in that, or is this just the board?

Did you know Mr. Kovachich before this particular meeting? Was he at it? He doesn't appear to have been at it, but was he at it?

Did you inform Mr. Morgan, in response to his question as to what assurance the board will have, that Mr. Kovachich would abide by the dictated agreement, and that if he didn't 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 "? Did you or did you not say those words? Or are you saying today you don't remember them? Are you denying them? Are you saying you're not remembering them?

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: He hasn't said that, Mr. Minister. One of the Ministers in the background is suggesting you say you don't recall, but he's not gone that far. He hasn't said that. You're not saying you don't remember saying that, are you? Eh?

How did you do it? Did you do it in the friendly Dave Barrett style — "Hey, fellas, if you don't do this I'm going to kick the crap out of you "?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will you address the Chair?

MR. GARDOM: Did he do it this way, Mr. Chairman, or did he threaten these people? Did he threaten these people?

The Minister of Agriculture said that this was no doubt one of — not the finest hours — but certainly one of the hours that these people would never ever have forgotten. That certainly seems to be true. It's very strange that the Premier seems to take the position that he will not give a statement. He's not saying

[ Page 817 ]

he doesn't remember.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I gave a statement.

MR. GARDOM: Oh, Mr. Premier!

HON. MR. BARRETT: I can't help it if you're not happy with it, but I gave a statement. I can't help that.

MR. GARDOM: Well, in 45 minutes, are you suggesting to this House and to the people of British Columbia that the only thing you suggested was: "Hey, you fellas are acting like children "? In 45 minutes of meeting in your office? That's a little tough for anybody to believe.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, I said I did not order anything or threaten anyone, and I said they acted like children. I've said that statement over and over and over again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. The Second Member for Vancouver-Point Grey has the floor. Continue your speech.

MR. GARDOM: It's not a speech — these are questions.

Did the Premier inform the board: "I don't want to see you again until you have problems with Ottawa and I will help you?” Did you or did you not say that?

And here's the most important quotation of all from the sworn affidavit of Mr. Brunsdon. Just shortly prior to the termination of the meeting where the members of the Egg Marketing Board were sitting on a settee in front of you, and you were standing or leaning against your desk, or sitting on the front of your desk, and they were about 10 feet in front of you, with your Minister of Agriculture on your right hand side, did you say to Mr. Brunsdon: "If anything is said outside of this office, I will deny every word I said "?

Did you say that or not? If you did, that's a disgraceful statement. And if you didn't say it, I tend to think you've got a responsibility to your office, if not to yourself, to deny it — if not to yourself, certainly to your office. Both ways.

Mr. Premier, it appears from this material that you did dictate orders to the board. It appears from this material that you did threaten these people in the way in which they would handle their duties.

You know, Mr. Unger said: "The people have a right to the truth." I would say, Mr. Premier, don't you think that you've got the solemn responsibility to tell the truth and give your total account of what happened at the meeting?

Mr. Premier, you said you're not in a court of law.

That's correct. But then again, this Legislature is perhaps the highest court in this land, and it should not be on a lower standard, There's a responsibility in giving evidence in the court of law, as you well know, to tell not just the truth, but the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Mr. Premier, I regret to have to say that insofar as your responses are concerned, the only conclusion that one can make is that we still have about five-sixths of this story, as far as you're concerned, under the water.

I think you owe it to the people of B.C., and you certainly owe it to these gentlemen, to say whether or not you agree or disagree with their statements.

If you disagree with them, are they libeling you? If they're telling lies, Mr. Premier, you should get hold of your lawyer — you'd have a good case against them, if they're telling lies. Make no mistake of that. If these gentlemen are lying in their affidavits, they're libeling you, and they're libeling your office. And you should take action upon it.

MR. LEWIS: It is indeed an honour for me to get back into this debate again. It's not common for the Liberals and the Socreds to spend so much time discussing agriculture.

Interjections.

MR. LEWIS: No, I don't think they're discussing agriculture either. I think they're still trying to protect a monopoly that was created in the Fraser Valley years ago and is still there. We've referred to marketing boards — the Broiler Marketing Board and the Egg Marketing Board.

As I've said before, I, as an elected Member from an Interior riding in the Province of British Columbia, feel that I have a responsibility to this House to see that agriculture has the right to grow in all parts of the province.

MR. McCLELLAND: Go turn thy sod on your new processing plant.

MR. LEWIS: I say that the Premier and the Minister of Agriculture also have that same responsibility, I say that if a meeting was held in their office and some steps were taken to see that this was carried out throughout the province, so be it. It should have happened under the past government. But they didn't have the intestinal fortitude to go ahead with it because really very much of their contributions for their election campaigns came out of that rich Socred area from the Clearbrook area.

We've heard all kinds of charges about affidavits and this type of thing going on in this province. I try to stay away from being personal.

There was an affidavit sworn up north this day in the Peace River. We have two Members here from the

[ Page 818 ]

Peace River and it seems very strange to me that they haven't stood up and defended farming in the Peace River of this province. This is the Canadian Press for today. Prince George, B.C.

AN HON. MEMBER: Prince George is not up north.

MR. LEWIS: Just wait till I read it all out.

"Northern British Columbia egg producers, pushed aside by the current legislative furor over affidavits accusing Premier Dave Barrett of threatening the Egg Marketing Board, have counter-attacked with a sworn accusation of their own. A Peace River feedmill" — a feedmill, not even an egg producer; listen to that — "...manager who supplies feed to a Prince George egg producer, Savo Kovachich, swore an affidavit accusing the Egg Marketing Board's former executive secretary, Ed Morgan, of attempting to get Mr. Kovachich's feed supply stopped.

"Gerald Randall, manager of National Grain Company Limited, a Dawson Creek feedmill, swore that Morgan met with him in Dawson Creek in late October or early November of 1971 and advised him that it would be in the best interests of the National Grain Company to refuse to supply the egg producer who refused to comply with the B.C. Egg Marketing Board's demand.

"Mr. Randall swears that Mr. Morgan said Mr. Kovachich had not complied with the marketing board's demands and it would be in the best interests of his company to cut off his feed supply. Mr. Randall did not stop supplying feed to Mr. Kovachich."

You're talking about people using force. If that isn't force.... I say the Premier and the Minister of Agriculture for this province had a responsibility to see that this type of thing was stopped.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): Did you ever hear of a strike?

MR. LEWIS: There has been a lot of referring to Mr. Brunsdon's statements. The latest thing that came out in the press today was that Mr. Brunsdon resigned because he was unhappy with interference by the government.

I would like the press and I would like the opposition to ask the Vancouver Island egg producers if they sent a letter to Mr. Brunsdon asking that he resign because he wasn't representing them. Ask the egg producers if three of their directors did not travel to Mr. Brunsdon's home and ask him in person that he resign. I think you better do a little more research on that.

I say that the Premier and the Minister of Agriculture in this province have the responsibility to all parts of the province. The marketing boards are a creature of the province, and if they're working to the detriment of any part of the province they have a responsibility to the citizens in this province to see that it's stopped. Thank you very much.

MR. P.L. McGEER Vancouver-Point Grey): Mr. Chairman it's always interesting to hear the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) make his presentation in the Legislative Assembly. One can understand what a forceful influence he has been on the Premier and the Minister of Agriculture and the NDP backbenchers.

While we don't disagree with any of the statements he has made regarding the need to distribute the agricultural industry all around the province in a completely fair manner, we say to him and the Premier and the Minister of Agriculture and the NDP backbenchers that the end does not justify the means. Every Member of this House, whether he's a government Member for Shuswap or an opposition Member for the North Peace River or any other constituency in British Columbia, has the responsibility to see that the political process is scrupulously fair.

The word you hear again and again in politics is image. I don't like the word because it implies that there can be a difference between how things seem to be and how they really are. The Premier is a master of image. But we've got down to something pretty substantive, Mr. Chairman. If you trade on image, sooner or later you have to face cold, stark truth.

There are affidavits placed against the Premier and the government which accuse the man and the office which are No. 1 in British Columbia with lying. As the second Member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) said, if those affidavits aren't telling the truth the Premier should take action against the people who libeled him. The Premier's statements not given under oath are discrepant with the statements of the two former members of the Egg Marketing Board.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to ask the Premier only one question now. Will you, Mr. Premier, through you Mr. Chairman, swear an affidavit before a law officer, outside of the protection of this chamber, saying the statements of Mr. Brunsdon were untrue when he said,"If you don't do what I say" — or words to that effect — "I will kick the 'censored' out of you," and, "If you say anything about this outside my office I'll deny every word of it."? I think that's really the operative phrase — your promise to deny the substance of your conversation to Mr. Brunsdon if he talked outside your office. According to the affidavit, Mr. Chairman, that's the one promise the Premier kept: to deny outside the office that he said those words.

[ Page 819 ]

But I don't care how good the image may be, how many smiling pictures there are on the front pages of the newspaper. In the final analysis, when all is said and done, truth in government must stand above all. If there cannot be truth in government and truth in the highest office in this province, then we can never believe the statements of our government. If we cannot believe the statements of our government, then there can be no credible leadership, no willingness of people to follow words and policies that may not be true. Truth and credibility have to be established in the highest office in British Columbia, and we have to stay here until they are established. The Premier has not established truth. He stands accused of lying, not by us but by sworn affidavits.

Is the Premier willing to meet truth with truth under sworn testimony? Will he swear an affidavit?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I don't know what purpose the Hon. Member has in mind. I'm sure it's an honourable purpose. I have made my statement and I made it very clearly.

This is a very emotional issue involving a lot of very strong opinions and points of view. The Garrish report indicates the history of this matter. There are now affidavits and counter affidavits.

I have made it very clear that I did not threaten the board nor did I order a solution. I said they were acting like children. Now, that is my statement and my statement stands. I hope to use my office in a way somehow to be able to solve long-standing problems in this province. Some I may be able to assist; others I may not be able to find a solution to.

However, I will ask you as a Member to consider the history of this particular problem. Put it in the context in terms of where we are now, and ask yourself whether or not a solution can be arrived at out of this problem in terms of the personalities and the history of the problem as it stands. I'm here to do my duty as I see it. My statement stands and I will continue to do my duty as I see it until the electorate decide otherwise.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, we have heard a great deal of new material last night in the Garrish report, and it is mentioned again today as justification for something which apparently did not take place. Funnily enough, I didn't hear last night or today the quote from the conclusions of the Garrish report that:

"It is generally agreed that the board has done a very credible job in stabilizing egg marketing in British Columbia and has put money in the pockets of the producers. The value of orderly marketing based on a quota system has been demonstrated, and the evidence presented at the hearings generally confirms this."

I am surprised, Mr. Chairman, that that was not referred to by the Premier in his statements last night. The Garrish report supports the Egg Marketing Board, While it has criticisms, certainly, in parts of it, it in no way is the indictment put forward yesterday by the Premier.

But where are we turning? We have gone through the egg marketing question. We've gone through the broiler question itself time after time. We do not wish to rehash the two questions in terms of agriculture. The opportunity was present but the Premier chose not to take part in it during the Minister of Agriculture's estimates.

The issue in the Minister of Finance's and the Premier's estimates is something else. The issue, as has been indicated, is truth in government. We have asked questions in this House — Members of this party and Members of other parties in opposition. We have had answers from the Minister, from the Premier, and I read the questions and answers on this subject out yesterday.

Now, these answers have been denied by sworn affidavits. We then went to the Minister of Agriculture in his estimates. First of all he pleaded amnesia. He didn't support the Premier's statements but he could not remember what had been said. He was willing to say that the people who swore the affidavits probably had a better memory of what was said than he had, but he simply could not remember. After three days, as a result of much prodding, his memory improved slightly, but not very much.

We did — and I think this is most significant — get a statement from him on the last day with respect to the other people present at the meetings in question who could have given evidence as to the truth of the Premier's statements and could have cleared the matter up at once. These, of course, were the civil servants.

At this stage, I would just like to quote from the Minister of Agriculture's speech on Friday last. He stated:

My Deputy has not asked me whether he should or should not say anything to the press. If he were to ask me, I would advise him that it would probably be in his own interest

— mark those words —

and the interests of the industry as a whole, if he declined to comment on what is obviously a political attempt to bring disfavour on the Minister of Agriculture.

That's a clear muzzling of the other people present who could have made clear what actually took place. I might add, Mr. Chairman, that the Deputy Minister of Agriculture figured prominently in the McAninch affidavit where it is stated in paragraph 11:

"That I was there and then informed by the said Mr. Peterson that the Hon. Dave Barrett, Premier of the Province of British Columbia,

[ Page 820 ]

had ordered that instead of the broiler permit policy contained in schedule "A," that two of the 11 Kamloops-Okanagan broiler producers be allotted 20,000 birds per cycle and that the remaining 9 broiler producers be allocated 5,000 per cycle."

Said paragraph 12:

"That I was further informed by the said Mr. Peterson that Mr. Barrett had directed...."

Paragraph 14:

"Mr. Stupich informed me that the Department of Agriculture in the matter of the Kamloops-Okanagan broiler permit policy was acting on orders from Mr. Barrett, and Mr. Stupich informed me....”

In other words, those who could shed light on this, those who could clear up the matter, were told that it would not be in their interests and it would not be in the interests of the industry for them to speak — to tell the truth, indeed, as to what took place. So that I found it to be a very regrettable statement by the Minister of Agriculture because along with his own refusal to comment and his own refusal to remember, it prevented us at that time from getting to the bottom of this.

We have asked for a judicial inquiry. We have asked time after time for a judicial inquiry and an impartial, non-partisan, non-political judge to go into the truth or otherwise of these allegations of these four affidavits.

These affidavits raise questions which can only be answered by some sort of an inquiry — questions such as:

Did the Premier tell Mr. Brunsdon that there would not be any court case against Mr. Kovachich?

Did the Premier say charges against Mr. Kovachich must be substantially reduced?

Did the Premier indicate to Mr. Brunsdon that the Kovachich order was not to be a precedent and that if any other producers got out of line, they were to be stepped on?

Did the Premier inform the board it had to draft an agreement with Kovachich that day?

Was the Premier aware that Kovachich was a supporter of the Hon. Member for Prince George and a member of the NDP?

We would like to know whether the Premier informed Mr. Morgan, present at that meeting, in response to his question as to what assurance the board would have that Mr. Kovachich would abide by the dictated agreement, that "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."

Did the Premier say to Mr. Brunsdon at the meeting: "If anything is said outside of this office I will deny every word I said "?

Mr. Chairman, these are real questions that we have raised time after time. They are real questions that we have tried to have answered by civil servants, by the Minister of Agriculture and by way of a judicial inquiry. It has been said earlier today by the Premier — "Tell the whole truth" were the words used. Mr. Unger said: "People have a right to the truth." Well, people do have a right to the truth and the citizens of British Columbia have a right to know whether their Premier was libeled or whether, indeed, their Premier told the truth.

Yesterday in my office, Mr. Chairman, I met Mr. Brunsdon. It was the first and only time I have met with any of the four people involved in these affidavits — the only contact I have had with them apart from one telephone call to Mr. Brunsdon's wife setting up the meeting in my office yesterday afternoon.

I spoke to him, Mr. Chairman, and there was one thing that I became convinced of. That was that Brunsdon is an honest man and that he is telling the truth. As it is impossible, Mr. Chairman, to on the one hand believe Brunsdon and on the other believe the Minister of Agriculture and the Premier, and as it has been impossible by any other means to get some sort of inquiry into the truth of this, in this position I have no alternative but to accuse the Premier and Minister of Agriculture of lying to this House.

Mr. Chairman, it's with regret that we take this step. Every opportunity over the last 10 days has been taken by us. Every attempt by us has been made to get a proper inquiry into this, but without a proper inquiry there is no alternative but to believe that we have been lied to — lied to by the Premier and by the Minister of Agriculture.

MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, we'll change the subject here slightly. I want to go back to the operation of B.C. Rail that I spoke on last night. The Premier, as president, replied. I was quite happy with some of the replies made by the president of the railroad, but it still doesn't get us any cars for the Interior of the province, any railcars for the shipment of manufactured products that are sitting there waiting for these cars.

I would like, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Premier, to see if he would contact the Minister of Transport, the Hon. Mr. Marchand, and insist that things are desperate and get some of these rail cars channeled into the BCR system.

The Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder) rose in the debate, and I know that he's concerned about northern development. He insists that we must get the co-operation of the federal government. I agree, but I wonder how long, Mr. Chairman, we have to wait to find out whether they are going to co-operate. In the meantime, northern development, of course, stands still. I think this is really where we are today on this subject.

[ Page 821 ]

It's obvious that we're not getting the co-operation of the federal government. Again, I think the Premier, as the president of the B.C. Rail, should bring these decisions to a final point in the next few months. As he said last night, if it is obvious that we're not going to get the co-operation, the BCR should go ahead on their own with the northern railroad development.

In the meantime, until we get some definite answers on co-operation from Ottawa, our economy is suffering and has for the last 12 months — and will continue to suffer. So I think it's quite urgent.

Regarding the rail development programme, I'd just like to read a few things into the record here, Mr. Chairman, that are in that programme — things that the two governments agree in principle on.

"The two governments agree to provide and finance jointly a rail system in northwest British Columbia consisting of lines designated as follows:

A) The British Columbia Railway line now under construction from Fort St. James to Dease Lake;

B) A new British Columbia Railway line to be built from the above line at Klappan to Telegraph Creek;

C) A new Canadian National Railway line to be built from Terrace to a point of connection at or near Groundhog on the BCR Dease Lake line — and the future extension of the British Columbia railway line from Dease Lake to a point at or near Lower Post.

"The federal and provincial governments will share a total capital cost including surveying, engineering, construction and interest during construction of these lines on the following basis: Fort St. James to connection — federal share 25 per cent, provincial share 75 per cent. Connection to Dease Lake — 50 per cent federal, 50 per cent provincial. Klappan to Telegraph Creek — 50 per cent federal, 50 per cent provincial. Terrace to connection — 75 per cent federal, 25 per cent provincial.

Now I'm not too sure, Mr. Chairman, to the present that this shouldn't be 100 per cent, in my opinion, instead of 75-25; that's an observation I'd like to make on that formula. The last one is from Dease Lake to Lower Post — federal share 50 per cent, provincial share 50 per cent.

There's another connection that I think is more vital than anything, and I'd like, Mr. Chairman, to have some few words on it. It is probably the most important link of all — regarding the overcoming of rail car shortage. I refer to the part in this agreement where:

"...the two governments will share equally the capital cost of constructing a railway line between the CN transcontinental line at Ashcroft and the BCR line at Clinton, such line to be operated by the Canadian National with British Columbia Railway to have equal traffic rights and perpetual running rights to operate trains over this line. The Government of British Columbia in Canada will be subject to the repayment of their capital contribution from the operating profits generated by this line."

I think, Mr. Chairman, to the president of the railroad, that regardless of whether we're going to get co-operation or not, I'd like to hear the president say that this connector is going ahead, and whether an agreement is reached and whether it is going ahead this year. It's been talked about for 40 years, and it's now a dire necessity, I feel, for both the BCR and the CN and CP because, from the information I have, it indicates the Fraser Canyon might close up on us and then we're in serious trouble. It cuts off the main artery of the CN and CP and of course, the highway.

If there's a calamity there, and there are indications there might be — I repeat, might be...I don't think we should wait any longer on getting this connector. Then the CN and CP would have this connection to come over on the BCR and come down through Lillooet, Pemberton and Squamish to get to seaboard. It will definitely help.

I don't like the section in this agreement where it says, as I understand it, that this will be operated by the Canadian National. I'm not too sure that maybe they'll be sidetracking BCR cars and they'll sidetrack all the time and create another problem. I would like to see the BCR with the hammer in their hand rather than the CNR as regarding the operation of this connecting line.

Just a few observations I have and, as I say, after speaking last evening on this, I realize it's difficult for the president, Mr. Chairman, to say. But I repeat that we have a situation that's desperate. It has been for 12 months and it has become more acute than ever.

I think I said last night that there is a buoyant lumber market; it's advanced in the last three weeks $30 to $40. This affects all the citizens of our province because the citizens of the province are affected. As the lumber market goes up, so goes the stumpage to the Crown and it certainly affects the revenue of the province.

I would like to hear a few more words from the Premier on this situation, particularly some comments on the Clint on-Ashcroft connector, and the overall northern development deal. How long, in other words, Mr. Chairman, are we going to wait to find out whether we are getting co-operation from the federal government? Thank you.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, first of all I want to thank you for your remarks, and I'll try to answer as concisely as I can. I can understand the anger of the Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder). I can also

[ Page 822 ]

understand his desire to have co-operation of the federal government. I think that's shared by all of us, in terms of the agreement in principle.

As a matter of fact, things were going very well with the federal government up until just a few months ago. Now I have a report here from Mr. Norris regarding the CNR and cars supplied to BCR for loading lumber. I made it clear last night that I don't believe that this is a deliberate policy of Mr. Marchand, and I say that again.

In the BCR opinion the CNR has organized five connecting carriers in an effort to act collectively to reduce the BCR Vancouver divisions on transcontinental lumber traffic. The CNR has shown a distinct desire to become a rather vicious competitor rather than follow through on the arrangements that existed in the past.

I don't profess to know all the history of the rivalries between the BCR and the CNR, but we had hoped that that had been put aside with the signing of the agreement. But our hopes haven't borne fruit in terms of their behaviour.

The first demand the CNR made was a 50 per cent reduction in our lumber traffic on those divisions, which would amount to a $10 million loss of revenue per year to the BCR. We said "No, we couldn't go on that basis." That was the demand for supplying cars.

Then they later revised the demand with a 25 per cent reduction amounting to a $5 million loss of revenue for the BCR, and again the vice-president said "No.

Now a third demand was just being processed around these divisions. In support of these demands the CNR commenced withholding cars, thereby forcing shippers of the BCR to truck lumber to CN lines in order to obtain cars. Our first reports of this action commenced in May and June of last year. We complained to Mr. Marchand at that time, as well as the MLA from that area, and you publicly raised it from the Cariboo.

So the federal government was aware that something was happening last summer about the boxcars. In an effort to get the flow of empties that were used by CNR once again to BCR, BCR commenced negotiations directly with the CNR. During these latter negotiations the BCR met all the CNR requirements for reduction in BCR revenues, vis-à-vis CNR, on the basis of CNR supplying a needed 10,000 railcars over this year. We made an arrangement on the divisions.

Now as to the divisions, the CNR apparently felt pressure because of bad feeling between the two railroads in the past.

I had a report as of February 28 this year that despite the assurances from the CN that this deal would be made, the CN has now informed BCR that they will not supply BCR cars on the base of 10,000 per year, nor will they even supply cars on a pro rata basis with their own customers. And they don't consider the BCR to be one of their customers, in the sense that we do have a source of cars from other railways. That's a change of policy.

This latter statement is ludicrous in view of the fact that the five connecting carriers have been organized by CN to collectively force us to reduce Vancouver division.

Now because of that statement, I believe that this decision was not made with the blessing of the federal Minister. I cannot believe that any federal Minister of Transport, if he knew that this was going on, would give his blessing to it.

It is also gross discrimination on the part of the CN to withhold cars from the shippers of lumber to BCR lines. It's damaging to the B.C. economy, and it's got absolutely nothing to do with the northern agreement — absolutely nothing. But the fact that we wish to enter a northern agreement with them makes us doubt, if they're going to behave this way outside an agreement, whether it's worthwhile to pursue the agreement.

Their behaviour has not come about because of the northern agreement; it has come in spite of it. I don't have any explanation for it other than perhaps there are some people at the CNR who are beginning to feel that the CNR is their railroad — that is, personally — rather than a publicly-owned railroad as the BCR is.

I'm prepared to ask the BCR staff to file all the memoranda and all the letters of exchange related to this dispute if the CNR is prepared to do the same. That is a common courtesy between governments. I'll file with the House the detailed accounts of how this story has built up and what has been involved in the exchanges.

But unless we start getting co-operation from the CNR, I have to say again that we must seriously reconsider entering any agreement in terms of what flows out of that agreement in principle. I want that agreement to work; I agree with the Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder) that the railroad must go north beyond British Columbia. It was the dream of the former Premier (Hon. W.A.C. Bennett) and it was a valid dream. But I must say, as of the end of February, I have to take a real, hard look at the question of whether or not the CNR really wants to co-operate or whether they want to eat up the BCR.

Meanwhile, while this is going on and the BCR is making every honest effort to get cars, the price of lumber has gone up again. Thank goodness for that. The Interior producers were concerned, there was a slump, and now it has swung up again. It looks like it can be another good year. But it won't be any good to them to have high lumber prices in the United States if they can't put their lumber on a car and get it to that market.

So, Mr. Member, all I can tell you is that we will

[ Page 823 ]

contact Mr. Marchand again. We will appeal to him. But I do find it ironic, as I said last night, I find it uncomfortably ironic that we are getting more co-operation from the CPR — I find it difficult to say this, but it is so — than from the CNR.

The Clinton-Ashcroft cut-off is a dream of some 40 years. We intend to pursue it. But I have to honestly say that I do not believe we can countenance at this point the CNR's participation in that cut-off because of their behaviour. What we may do — and I'm trying to say this without threatening the CNR or anything else — is go into partnership with the CPR. We just may go into partnership with the CPR in building that cut-off.

You are quite right about the fears of the Fraser Canyon; it is a natural alternative to come through the other route. But I have no reasonable explanation as to why the CNR has reversed itself in this regard in terms of boxcars.

At this stage I am not prepared to attack the federal Liberals. But if something isn't done soon through political action in Ottawa, it leaves very little room for belief that it isn't anything more than political decision-making.

MR. SMITH: It is a pleasure to take part in this debate of the Premier and Minister of Finance. I have a few matters I would like to raise at this time.

I think I might start my comments by saying that this afternoon, when the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) was on his feet speaking in this debate, he brought to the attention of the Premier a number of appointments by order-in-council rather than people hired through the Civil Service Commission.

He had a perfect right, Mr. Chairman, to question the appointments of these people by order-in-council. He had a perfect right to raise the points that he did. I don't think the Premier added anything to the stature of his office or to this debate by getting up in rebuttal and haranguing the Member for bringing to the attention of the House that over 300 people had by one means or another been appointed by order-in-council.

While it may be true that some of those were appointed to boards and commissions, there were a great number of people included who could have been recruited through the normal civil service process, but who were given positions at high remuneration by the government of this province.

As Members of the opposition we have every right to say those were political appointments handed out as political plums to friends of the government rather than through the normal process open to everyone who wants to put their name on an application form and apply on a proper basis through the civil service.

It was no credit to the Premier or to the office he occupies by replying to the Member for South Peace River in the manner he did this afternoon. No credit at all.

We spent a little time this afternoon speaking about the chicken-and-egg war. People like to call it that. I don't intend to add any further remarks on that at this time except to say that the problem has never been the fact that there might be room for improvement in the marketing of eggs or poultry products. The question that has been asked consistently since that debate first began during the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) is whether the Premier used undue force and influence through his office to try to bring about certain decisions he had no business to do, and make people who had been set up as a responsible board, who should be able be operate independently, bend to his will. That was the problem and that is the only problem brought before this House, regardless of how many other Members get on their feet and suggest it is a matter of preserving quotas for the people in southern B.C. as opposed to those in the north who would like to get into the marketing of farm products.

We talked for a while this afternoon about northern development. The key to northern development is access and transportation corridors, Mr. Premier, as you well know, both in the Province of British Columbia and beyond our boundaries.

You spoke yesterday about an agreement that was almost ready to be consummated with regard to the development of railways and communication corridors and ports and facilities in northwestern and north-central B.C. You indicated to the House at that time that there was $200 million involved which would probably be the responsibility of the federal government if the agreement was consummated. From the time you first made those remarks yesterday afternoon, and this afternoon when you replied just recently to the Member for Cariboo, you certainly changed your position. Now you say perhaps there is a problem with respect to the agreement between yourself and the national railway.

Let me suggest this to the Premier: most of the work of developing and consummating an agreement between yourselves and the federal government had already been looked after. Most of the agreements had been nailed down by the previous administration.

HON. MR. BARRETT: In writing?

MR. SMITH: In writing and in memoranda between the two governments.

It would seem to me that in trying to take a bigger bite, you were outmaneuvered by the federal government. You threw $27 million down the drain in the hope that you could recapture more than that through some other means.

[ Page 824 ]

I suggest this to the Premier: the bird in the hand was worth two in the bush. The taxpayers of the Province of British Columbia will now probably be faced with picking up the entire cost of the programme for northern development because of the mistake made by the Premier and the members of his cabinet.

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you telling me the federal government made a commitment to pay that money?

MR. SMITH: There is a memorandum and a commitment made, that's true. If you like, I'll read the minutes from July 2, 1971 – a memorandum of a meeting between the federal government and the provincial government.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Was there a commitment by the federal government to pay that money?

MR. SMITH: Would you like me to read the memorandum?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, I'd like you to read the part where the federal government said….

MR. SMITH:

"It was stated that Prince Rupert would be declared a national harbour. The official statement would be made within the next two weeks, followed by the necessary documentation. A proposed plan of development would be discussed with provincial representatives.

"The extension and interconnection of rail services through northern B.C. would be discussed by Joe Broadbent and a representative of the Department of Transport. Recommendations would be made and these would be presented to the CNR. It was implied that it would be necessary for the federal government to indicate a position to ensure that action would be taken in accord with the recommendations.

"The federal Minister wanted some assurance of traffic that would use a port facility if it were constructed.

"Agreement was reached that the land tenure situated at Roberts Bank would be regularized in the near future. Methods followed would be similar to those which guide the day-to-day transactions between the Department of Lands and the various federal agencies. The federal group indicated that it might be necessary to place this on a 'without prejudice' basis to secure the approval of the Department of Justice.

"It was stated that a single port authority for the Vancouver area would be a desirable goal but was one that could not be achieved in the immediate future.

"It was agreed that attention should be given to the matter of freight charges which governed the movement of certain commodities in northern B.C. The policy of the CNR to apply national policy did not result in fair treatment for the resource industries which had to compete with firms located on the PGE.

"Agreement was that a second meeting would take place between the officials and the provincial Ministers to ensure that there was no misunderstanding on the points that had been reached during the meeting between Premier Bennett and the Hon. Don Jamieson.

"Federal representatives agreed to make application for the required land of Roberts Bank in the normal manner which governs such transactions at the present time. It was stated again that this might have to be done on a without prejudice basis to secure the approval of the Department of Justice.

"Dave Borthwick agreed to represent the provincial government and to expedite the matter because of the problems created for the control and handling of freight traffic.

"It was agreed that the plans for the expansion of Roberts Bank would be discussed with the B.C. Harbours Board, and the location of a container facility would be an item of consideration.

"The federal group indicated that an official was to be appointed in the near future who would be a direct representative of the Minister of Transport on the west coast. In the end term, it was advised that items of concern should be directed to Ottawa and that a federal official would work with Broadbent to iron out operational difficulties as soon as the land problem had been settled.

"It was agreed that Roberts Bank would be recognized as a part of Delta municipality.

"It was agreed that the harbour of Prince Rupert should be incorporated within the city boundary. A map will be prepared for the Department of Municipal Affairs when agreement as to the area has been reached. The federal officials should make recommendations concerning the facilities to be built at Prince Rupert in the near future.

"If action was to be delayed because there was not sufficient indication of traffic, this fact should be transmitted to the provincial government to see if a minimum guarantee was determined to be in the public interest. This would tend to share the responsibility for the

[ Page 825 ]

decision that was made.

"The agreement of Joe Broadbent, the federal representative, to recommend on future rail extensions and interconnection, was reaffirmed.

"Land under jurisdiction of the provincial government within the proposed Prince Rupert harbour would be conveyed, as required, to the federal authorities in the regular manner. A close liaison would be maintained in the development of plans and facilities for the Prince Rupert area."

HON. MR. BARRETT: There is no commitment there. Where is the written proof?

MR. SMITH: Subsequent to that memorandum of July 2, 1971, agreement was reached between the representatives of the provincial government and the departments in Ottawa that they had to work with that $27 million would be paid to the government.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Where is it in writing?

MR. SMITH: Well, should I read you your own statement out of Hansard?

I'd love to stick with it, but I'm handicapped by the original request by the former administration for $19 million. I've got it in my correspondence – I'll give you the letter.

I was compromised by the previous government's caving in to $19 million. Be that as it may be, let's not you and I quibble, and I mean this seriously, because having advanced that position by the previous government – $19 million up to $27 million – there is no way that I as Premier of this province will let go of the argument that the money is due to the people of British Columbia. No way at all.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's right!

MR. SMITH: You've traded it away.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It was never promised.

MR. SMITH: You traded it away. You know that. You've traded it away and you'll end up with the people of the Province of British Columbia paying the whole tab for this development, mainly because of the insistence of the Premier in going in a different direction than one that had already been negotiated by a previous government.

I say this to the Premier. If we consider northern development, we continue to listen to the advice of the Minister of Lands, Forest and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) with regard to railways, growth, port development and the acquisition of companies. It will be the costliest experiment that the people of this province ever became involved in. The Premier will have on his head the fact that by indulging the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources he has brought about an expenditure, probably in terms of millions of dollars, directly onto the shoulders of the taxpayers of this province, when there was no need to do that.

I'd like now to turn for a few moments to another matter. Yesterday, when filibustering his own estimates, the Premier made this statement. He was referring to the Petroleum Corporation of British Columbia, and while he was speaking about the Petroleum Corporation he said this: "The only way that we could increase the export price of natural gas was through the B.C. Petroleum Corporation." That's a direct quote as I wrote it down while the Premier was speaking.

I say to the Premier, through you, Mr. Chairman, that at that time, the Premier was doing nothing but build a straw man to try to flim-flam the public of this province, because that statement is simply not true. It's not true at all.

There was absolutely nothing preventing the Premier from negotiating an increased export price for our natural gas. All he had to do was make application to the National Energy Board to open up the terms of the export licence. In view of the world energy shortage and the demand for fossil fuels, the National Energy Board could not ignore that request, and the Minister well knows that. They could not ignore that request. To do so at a time when fossil fuels and petroleum products command a premium price, not only in our country but throughout the world, would be a dereliction of their duty and they'd take it as that. They would not have refused your request.

At the same time, the request was made to open up the terms of the export licence originally granted. It would be reasonable and completely in keeping with the best interests of British Columbians to ask the National Energy Board to grant exemptions from the regulations that require a proportionate increase in domestic rates whenever an increase in export rate is approved.

The day that the B.C. Petroleum Corporation became operative and you negotiated an increased export price for natural gas, you saddled the taxpayers of the Province of British Columbia with a proportionate increase for the price that they will have to pay to heat their homes from now on until the energy supply is exhausted. There was no need for that.

There was no need, Mr. Chairman, for the B.C. Petroleum Corporation. There was no need for a shotgun marriage with the wholesale distributors of natural gas in this province. There was no need to do anything more than negotiate with the federal government agency a few basic changes in the terms

[ Page 826 ]

of the export licence — basic changes that would in the terms of the export licence — basic changes that would protect our domestic commercial and industrial consumers within the province from inflationary increases. That was in the power of the government to do, through the Minister of Finance.

We could have protected the little man in the Province of British Columbia while permitting the Crown and the fuel producers who are being hard pushed to reap greater returns for the export of a non-renewable resource.

What did the Premier do, Mr. Chairman? He followed a course of action that has penalized all natural gas consumers in the province through entirely unnecessary rate increases.

There was no need to increase the rates to the domestic consumer. If you're going to reap windfall profits from the sale of a scarce fossil fuel on the export market, the least you could have done is transferred that money back in benefits to the people who have to buy natural gas in the Province of British Columbia. But you didn't do that. You went about it the other way, instead of re-negotiating the terms with the National Energy Board. The people in the Province of British Columbia are the ones that are going to have to suffer — not the ones in the United States, who can't buy their natural gas any cheaper from any other source, but those of us who are fortunate enough to live in a province where we have a supply of natural gas.

In short, the Premier of British Columbia put British Columbians in the hip pocket of the Arabs. Really, that's what happened. When it comes to negotiations, Mr. Premier, only one thing stands out loud and clear — a Henry Kissinger you ain't, when it comes to negotiations. Mismanagement in this particular area and political bungling are responsible for increased natural gas rates in British Columbia.

If you want to treat the people of British Columbia fair, at least you could make sure that the increase that you realize through the export market is returned to the people in the Province of British Columbia so that they do not have to pay inflationary increases in the price of natural gas. It can be done, and I'd like to know from the Premier, when he rises to speak, just what he intends to do about the increase in natural gas — not only to the domestic consumers, but to the commercial and the industrial consumers as well.

Just as sure as I'm standing in my place this afternoon, the largest industrial consumer in British Columbia happens to be B.C. Hydro, that takes 70 per cent of the industrial gas used in this province. If the 80 per cent increase that they will have to pay for natural gas is not shortly reflected in increased Hydro rates, then I'd be very, very surprised.

So these are the types of hidden taxes that we never talked about in the budget. But it doesn't matter whether you call it a direct tax or an indirect tax; as long as it comes out of the pockets of the individuals that live in the Province of British Columbia, it is a tax, Mr. Premier, and it has to be borne by everyone in this province. Nobody should ever lose sight of that.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Just a couple of comments. First of all, there has never been anything in writing from Ottawa saying that they would pay $19 million or $27 million. The agreement in principle has a statement saying that the claim that was outstanding when we came to office and continued by us would be dropped if that agreement comes to culmination. If it doesn't, then the claim still stands. But there has never been anything in writing from Ottawa saying that they agree to pay $19 million or $27 million. Let's make that very clear.

I agree with the claim of the former government, and the claim still stands if this agreement doesn't go through. If the agreement does go through, that claim will be forgiven, based on the $200 million that we expect to get from the federal government — if the deal goes through.

Secondly, Mr. Member, you're just simply not logical on the basis of natural gas. Your argument is to continue selling it cheap to the Americans. We can't do that; we have to up the price. There is the 105 per cent regulation that we must comply with. We passed on the largest burden to the industrial consumer.

The $30 per year resource dividend going to the renters is the first return of money back to all the people, because it's all their resource — not just the people who use gas, but all the people. That dividend will go out.

MR. SMITH: It's very obvious that in replying to the questions I put to the Premier, he either doesn't understand what I said or he refuses to accept the fact that there was another way to get an increased price for the gas that we export than the method he chose to follow.

The method the Premier chooses to follow and has followed in this province resulted in an increase in the domestic price as well as an increase in the export price. The Premier full well knows that if the export price is increased again, there will be a relative increase in the domestic price as well.

What I've suggested to him is that the other way to go was to go to the National Energy Board, who are part and parcel of agreements on an international basis, and suggest to them that because of the conditions of today you wish to reopen the original agreement that specified that the export price of natural gas must be tied to the domestic rate.

It would be entirely reasonable from the

[ Page 827 ]

standpoint of the Province of British Columbia and from the position of the federal government to accept the argument that the export price should be increased substantially without affecting the consumers in the Province of British Columbia.

There was another method to use, Mr. Premier, and you seemingly refuse to accept that particular argument.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Member, you're wrong again. You will notice that the federal Minister's response to our demanding a better price for our gas was to attack the Government of British Columbia in Washington, D.C. — saying that we had caused savage increases. If you believe that the federal Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) would have fought our case — just as he hasn't fought the case of Premier Lougheed — you've got another think coming.

Going to the NEB would be like whistling in the wind — asking for their help. The former government never got any help from the NEB; how do you think we would? So it's a ridiculous proposition.

In response to the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) in terms of a letter, my staff has checked and double checked; there was no letter sent to me. Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, well, there was no letter. I don't know what you did with the Welfare Minister, but there was no letter sent to me about people getting fired. I was under the impression that you had said you'd sent a letter to me.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I don't want to go through the "who said, he said, I said." We can check the Hansard. I'm answering for myself and I'm saying that my staff have checked….

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's fine. Okay.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, I'd like to talk for a moment, if I could, to the Premier about another subject, and that's inflation. I'd like to ask him if he could advise this House what the government is planning to do in the year of 1974 to control inflation.

In the year of 1973 British Columbia experienced about a 10 per cent inflation factor, and that affects every single person in the province. It takes a 10 per cent purchasing power right out of their pockets. I'd like to know if he could tell this House what he estimates the inflation factor might be for 1974.

I'm a little reluctant to ask for estimates because some of the estimates are very hard to come to and, judging perhaps by some of the guesses we made last year, it'll be hard to pin him down next year when whatever happens happens.

I'd like to know what direct steps he is taking with the government in the areas over which he does have direct control.

I'd also like to ask the Premier whether he would advise us what investments he might recommend for those people who have been frugal over the years, who have endeavoured to look after themselves in the future, who are concerned because their investments are eroding, and eroding very rapidly.

There are many people who are in favour of Mincome, but they would rather not put themselves in the position where they have to go on it if they can avoid it. They'd like to have him advise us what sort of things those people should do.

There are many people in my riding in Victoria who are living in homes which they purchased many years ago. Those homes have appreciated in value. Are they in a position where they should sell their home and invest that money, go and live in subsidized housing; or just exactly what should they do? Or should they just spend the money and then worry about what happens when it's gone?

I'd like to have him advise us as to his opinions for this type of individual who has saved over the years, who has been frugal, who does have small investments. I'm not talking about corporations or large businesses; in most cases they are capable of looking after themselves. I'm talking about the individual who has really nowhere to turn; their earning days are over; they're in a very difficult position. Each day they go to buy their needs and find them going up in price, and they find the return on their investments going down. Thank you.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Chairman, within the provincial jurisdiction there is very little we can do other than aim at those groups that are hardest hit by inflation — that is, people on fixed incomes and low-income earners.

When we discussed this at the federal Finance Ministers' conference, I wistfully said that if I had my druthers out of the two evils that I'd witnessed in my time of politics — unemployment and stabilizing the inflation factor (but it still went up) or a rapidly rising rate of inflation but very high employment — I'd pick the second evil rather than the first one.

You'll recall some years ago when the federal government set out on a course of deliberately creating unemployment. It was a conscious policy. They thought and everybody else that was advising them thought that it would stop the rate of inflation. It didn't help at all. So of course the federal government has reversed itself.

[ Page 828 ]

The economy is very, very strong, very buoyant. We have a very good unemployment record here in the Province of British Columbia and western Canada. We've raised the minimum wage. In June it will be the highest in North America.

Even though there are enormous increases in the expenditures by the government, we're still staying within our budget. As a matter of fact, we were being attacked just yesterday for underestimating. Yet, on the other hand, the argument is that to spend everything you have would be counter-productive because it would be inflationary.

We've made what we calculate to be a very cautious decision. Even though the figure of a 26 per cent increase in the budget in one year is spectacular, it's still a cautious decision, because if we flood money into the province at a time of inflation, we only feed the inflation. So we've aimed the programmes as much as possible at people. We are trying to get money back to people, money back to fixed incomes.

In terms of the elderly I only urge them to stay in their homes. We received a suggestion not only from our backbenchers but from other politicians — some from your own party and others — advising us on the question of tax deferment for the elderly. We'll act on that this session. That has some effect of alleviating those people from inflation. They're far better off in their own homes psychologically as well as economically in my opinion.

The Mincome programme. The Mincome programme is a floor level. There are many people who still will not use Mincome because they consider it to be welfare. I've tried as a social worker to interpret that to some people by trying to explain to them that it's really a negative income tax — in a primitive form but, nonetheless, negative income tax. Even the most conservative economists in the United States are willing to accept the concept of a negative income tax rather than universal welfare programmes. It would be a shift philosophically for many of the pioneers in my own party in that regard. But I've accepted that shift; I go for the non-universality of programmes based on a kind of negative income tax.

If we can get people to psychologically understand that the Mincome programme is essentially a negative income tax, then I think we can ease these people into understanding they have a right to this money.

There is still a very great but nonetheless real means test based on the federal government's requirements. We can't alter that. We make it as painless as possible and as comfortable as possible.

I don't know if the Minister is actually interviewing people in their own homes, but I'm sure that if an elderly person was unable to come down to office they would certainly give consideration to them. But Mincome is there to be used by these people.

Tragically, Mincome is now reaching people who had good jobs when they worked; people who put in 25, 30, 35 or 40 years with very stable employment, in some instances with national corporations. What they thought was going to be a good pension is no longer acceptable.

Someone was on the air talking about my pension, so I checked on my pension. My pension today amounts to $420 a month if I were on pension and under the government pension plan, which would give me $6 off Mincome. I could apply for Mincome. I've got 14 years in government service as a politician.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, the politician's pension plan potential is much greater than any other type of employment. Yet it is a fact that when you consider the rapid growth of inflation, if I were receiving my pension now, I'd be $6 below the Mincome level.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Member, it isn't good enough for those people and it isn't good enough for people who stack pensions. We're going to have this problem for the next six years until the Canada Pension Plan catches up.

Quite frankly, at a time of inflation, I would think any federal government would be well advised to up the percentage of compulsory contributions into that pension plan. As one fiscal measure of pulling money out of circulation at a time of inflation for good social commitment further down the line, encouraging people first of all to raise the amount put into retirement savings plans and also raising the compulsory contribution for the Canada Pension Plan would be wise moves.

AN HON. MEMBER: Inflation today is eating up the entire year.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It can eat up an entire year. But if we pulled more money off and we poured it back into the low income…. I don't see how we could do it. I understand the federal Conservatives talk in terms of wage-and-price controls. It's very difficult. I don't see how we can do it now. One of the proposals I made at the national energy conference is to look at a commodity area and that is energy. But it means a determined federal government to really come to grips with this problem without destroying the basis of our economy.

I don't think there is a real serious threat to our economy. I don't believe those who say there is going to be a "recession." I believe there are certain areas in the United States and perhaps in Canada which will

[ Page 829 ]

suffer some pullbacks in the general rate of growth. The maintenance of a major growth rate shouldn't be the idea that, in relative terms, we have to pile on that.

I believe we're going to have a good year. I believe we've got about three or four good years down the road and I think the doomsayers are wrong. The economy will have to adjust in some regions of the United States and it will have to adjust in some regions of Canada.

But just two months ago those economists who were saying the United States was going to suffer a recession are already caught off guard because the United States housing starts are rising rapidly again. We are primary producers of resource material. Our markets are very good. B.C. Is going to have another good year and it will be able to sustain the growth that I don't like in population: 3.3 per cent growth in population in one year. Not a figure to boast about; a figure to be very concerned about.

I don't know if it's going to happen in our lifetime here in this House, but I'll venture to say that there are problems going right past us now in terms of planning that we're not even aware of. Legislators 20, 30 and 40 years from now are going to wonder what those idiots were doing when they saw all these signs come crashing by them.

An interesting aspect about this kind of conversation and this kind of debate, Mr. Member….

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's a serious problem. People hide. We have to seriously consider this. We've begun to discuss these kind of things in cabinet, with no firm policies about decentralizing industry. For instance, the BCR has to make a decision on building an office. Where should it be located? Certainly not in downtown Vancouver. The whole concept of moving people out and moving people away.

But I'm worried about that growth rate. I get nightmares thinking about California because, believe it or not, despite all of the arguments and the fights and everything else we have in here, the same pressures that were on California 20 and 30 years ago are on us now.

The next few years are going to be okay: relatively easy on the politicians; relatively easy on the citizens of this province. But there's no way that I know of provincially, other than by some of the things I have mentioned, that we can help with the problem of inflation.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, we can't put up barriers. They're going to come. Anytime I go back east people ask me how the weather is. I say it's terrible.

MR. MORRISON: It doesn't do one bit of good.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, it doesn't do a bit of good. Then I find the Minister of Industrial Development has an advertisement saying come on out and do business in B.C. on our terms. And they do, they do. They want to come out and do business with B.C. on our terms. We have a problem in terms of all of the growth spin-offs. Yet there's very little we can do about it.

I don't see a prices and wages policy working. I would be very interested in a statement by the federal government on commodity pricing. Certainly we will have to look at taxation areas here in this province. We've made the rudimentary move in terms of negative tax with Mincome. Then we're going to have to look at other areas to protect those people as well.

I recall the debate on the minimum wage and how frightened many people were in this House at moving that minimum wage up to $2.25 and then to $2.50. You don't hear anything about that now. Out there in the employment market they're begging for people to come in the service industries at way above the minimum wage, and they can't find them. You go into motels or hotels through the Cariboo, through the Okanagan, and the owners will tell you they can't get help, they can't get employees.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): We can't afford to pay them.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Can't afford to pay them, Madam Member? They want to pay them more than the minimum wage and they can't get help. That's the problem. It's a problem of affluence.

MR. CHABOT: Unemployment insurance pays them.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, unemployment insurance as a federal programme has to pay a decent wage. I don't squawk about the unemployment insurance. I talked to Premier Moores about unemployment insurance in Newfoundland. Twenty per cent unemployment in Newfoundland. Unemployment insurance is an industry in itself.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Unemployment insurance is the biggest payroll in Kelowna? Well, I don't know about that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Kelowna is a depressed area.

[ Page 830 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's a depressed area? They should change their politics, Mr. Member. Interjection.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): One quick question to the Premier: does he know where the Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) is? (Laughter.) The Member for Atlin and the Member for Oak Bay had a heated exchange a while ago…. The Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder) is back; he is apparently unscathed. But I've asked for the parliamentary guides to help. I gather the Premier is not going to answer the question.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I don't know where he is. I hope they're both safe.

MR. CURTIS: I think they probably are. Mr. Chairman, we're just talking about payrolls. I've got several items that are not necessarily related.

A major source of concern in the greater Victoria area is the absence of a convention centre. We discussed this, Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Chairman, last year and the Premier either didn't understand the point I was trying to make, or chose not to respond to it.

I think that as the months and years pass, we are becoming really very, very concerned about the absence of this major facility. I noticed in the clipping file that the Times of August 21 last year, Mr. Premier, indicated that you had named a committee of three cabinet Ministers to look into the whole question of provincial government support for the proposed Victoria convention centre. That was in August.

The next day there appeared to be a little bit of confusion and The Victoria Express summed up the year in terms of the convention centre for this capital region with a heading: "A Convention Centre — Well, er-ah."

"Another year of sporadic talk, another year of nothing to report: that's the latest chapter in the continuing non-saga of Victoria's biggest non-achievement — the long-awaited, much discussed, iffy-maybe convention centre."

Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that the Premier has some ideas in terms of recreation. He's introduced the Community Recreational Facilities Fund Act and that's helping many communities. Again, the suggestion is not that we should have a massive palace here jammed into the downtown precinct. But one of the most important industries for southern Vancouver Island — a clean industry, so-called — is tourism.

Tourism should be a year-round situation with convention people coming as they do to other major cities — Vancouver and Montreal and Toronto, Winnipeg, the Prairie cities. Yet we have such limited facilities with which to service them.

I do hope that the Premier will see fit to comment briefly on this. What has happened to the committee of Ministers appointed last summer to look at the situation? Have they filed a report? Is there likely to be some provincial money made available? Has the Minister of Finance, or Premier — whichever hat he happens to be wearing — discussed this with city officials recently?

Is there any interest on the part of the province to give the capital city of British Columbia the kind of convention centre which can be found in many cities across the country — again, as a means of promoting tourism, promoting visits to the capital area, and certainly adding to the employment rolls of many men and women who live south of the Malahat and in the capital region?

I don't know, he may feel the time is short; but I would appreciate having an up-to-date review of the Premier's attitude towards the capital precinct, the legislative precinct. I realize that this falls within the specific purview of the Minister of Public Works, but what does the Premier of the province in 1974 want to see, in terms of development of this part of Victoria city and the capital region?

Is he anticipating decentralization within the capital region? Would he like to see decentralization right out of the capital city, as he mentioned with the BCR building out of Vancouver to some other point?

I asked him during question period some time ago — and I think this falls certainly within the limits of the Ministry of Finance — about a mill rate reduction for the current tax year in unorganized areas in the province, in line with the letter which went out — a directive, if you will — from the Minister of Municipal Affairs to all mayors and aldermen. Is there going to be a reduction for unorganized area property owners for the 1974 taxation year? I think, as I recall, the Premier took that as notice.

One final question. The discussions about BCR interest me but they relate mainly to the movement of goods and heavy equipment and so on. I would like to ask the Premier for his views on the passenger service of BCR.

When you look at the total revenues and expenditures of the British Columbia Railway, it's really a very small amount, Mr. Chairman.

The service is limited in frequency. It goes only part way over all the BCR lines. Those of us who have an interest in rail travel know that there are literally thousands of people in the western United States, and many people across the country, who would like to take advantage of the kind of scenery that is offered by the British Columbia Railway.

You've made some improvements; this is to be admitted. But it can be taken a little further, Mr. Chairman. Is there any way in which you can put on

[ Page 831 ]

more equipment? I think the report shows that there are six or seven rail passenger cars; that's the total fleet for the British Columbia Railway. Are any more anticipated in the near future? These are the self-contained railcars.

What about a little promotion to add more passenger traffic over that magnificent stretch of track between here and Prince George? It's a long trip but passengers could stop over from point to point en route.

I think that in the excitement about BCR revenues, the concern about the boxcar shortage, the general problems associated with extending the lines, perhaps from time to time we overlook the provision of passenger service over that very fine route.

I'd be interested in some answers or observations on those questions.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, on the convention centre you'd be well advised to ask your question of the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) and, in Victoria, the Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley). Passenger service on the BCR has improved. He'll have a report in his estimates.

MR. CURTIS: Do you have one yet?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, the Minister is the one who's responsible for that area. The passenger service has been improved. As you know, or may not know, we have been working very hard on the tourist train for a circular route up through Lillooet. We purchased an old steam engine and we've got it working now. The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. King) was the one who first had it going.

MR. FRASER: Is he going to drive it?

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, he's not going to drive it. We're going to hire…. He already did, but he won't be driving it regularly.

There'll be no reduction in the rural mill rate, Mr. Member; it's already very low.

MR. BENNETT: Just one question, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Premier. I was in agreement with his decentralization proposals a moment ago, but I would like to question the rationale then, with decentralization being discussed so much in cabinet, of why the ICBC was put in downtown Vancouver. Why could not this large concentration of population be…?

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: There's really no other way we could go within the time frame we had. We are renting space, you understand that.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, just on that point with housing ICBC, I would like to carry on and have a commitment from the Premier. I did bring up in the budget debate the logic of ICBC being moved to the Interior of the province and the logic of it being housed in the north area of the Okanagan — speaking in broad terms, not just my own constituency.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I can't give you a commitment. It is something we are considering in terms of all government operations that are due. But I can't give you a commitment.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, what I would like from you at this time — and I recognize that intensive study is needed — but I would like to advise our communities in terms of Armstrong, Spillamacheen, Lumby and Vernon, which are logical land areas and are regional districts, that there is at least an open mind on the part of the government so that we can encourage them, or I as their MLA can encourage them to do some detailed work on their own in terms of social aspects, land aspects. As the Minister of Lands, Forest and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) knows, we have two very competent planners in the area.

We would like to enter into a dialogue where you could challenge us with the responsibility of presenting you a logical programme. That's the commitment I would like from you today.

But I would like to mention one or two other things, Mr. Minister, in relation to the comments made by my colleague, the First Member for Victoria (Mr. Morrison) on inflation. The Premier stood up and said that he is being very careful of inflation, very cautious about inflation. That's why he's "sticking within his budget," I believe were his words.

But, Mr. Premier, this is what's bringing your credibility under fire all this time, and it has in the past. You say one thing and you do another. As you stood there saying "we stay within our budget," this House already knows that the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) has virtually committed millions of dollars for next year which are not in the budget — millions of dollars that she yielded to in terms of commitment under pressure from a very isolated group of teachers, and which she has since admitted there's been no study for the basis of this decision, and that this must go on — an emotional decision on her part, but a commitment that must be honoured by you. Yet you claim to say you're staying within your budget.

The Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) has no way indicated to us his commitments in terms of supporting ICBC, and nowhere in the budget is this provision.

The Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) just on

[ Page 832 ]

the matter of the Okanagan highway is, in terms of meetings in Kelowna and in terms of statements in the press, committed to major capital expenses and expansion this year.

I just refresh your mind on Highway 6, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, in case you've forgotten. This again, Mr. Minister of Finance, is not in the budget.

The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Cocke), since you presented this budget and at the same time you're standing here assuring us of your budgetary responsibility, has announced a programme for ambulance care across British Columbia. I don't oppose the programme, I may well question the degree to which he's jumping in with his fancy uniforms and expenses, but what we do question is your statement in this House as late as five minutes ago in terms of the fact that that Minister has committed $9 million, as we understand it, that is not in this budget.

I have no doubt, and I'm sure this opposition has no doubt, that before the session is over, let alone before six months are over, the Minister of Health will be making other commitments for expenditures which are not in this budget.

So, Mr. Premier and Mr. Minister of Finance, can you wonder that the opposition and the people in British Columbia are questioning your credibility as a Minister of Finance? And they are questioning your credibility in relationship to integrity in government. Those are just some examples.

Mr. Minister of Finance, you stand up here and you talk about assessments. I recognize, Mr. Chairman, that there's a committee sitting, and I don't wish to tread in this area, but the Premier brought it up, and I know you want to be equitable to all Members of the House, so I'll just touch on one or two things in this area.

The whole point of assessments, Mr. Minister of Finance, is in terms of equality for people. You in your gerrymandering and your finger-licking-good actions into the Assessment Equalization Act have caused tremendous inequities. You stand up now when you're accused of problems of inflation or challenged with coming up with some solution, and suggest that a deferred tax system is the answer.

Mr. Premier, I suggest to you, through the Chairman, that in certain instances, perhaps when a small business is just getting off the ground or if there's been a disaster — a natural disaster or an economic disaster — a year or two of tax deferments may be beneficial.

I realize, with the Minister of Finance yawning, that the subject bores him, but he'd better get his ear to the ground, Mr. Chairman, and know what's bothering the people of British Columbia.

The tax deferment system, in a very few instances for senior citizens, may well fit in with their philosophy. But, Mr. Minister, while you are out parading this as being the saviour to the tax system, what you are not telling the people is that a tax deferment system is in fact a lien, or tantamount to a lien, or a mortgage on that property and the assets of that property, and that when these people pass away or when the business goes so far in the hole that it can no longer exist, through its debt taxation, the state will step in and take over that land. It really is a form of confiscation, but it will be wrapped around under the guise of tax deferment to assist people.

I suggest to you, Mr. Premier, that you approach this with extreme caution and that you change your style and make it very clear to the public of British Columbia what your intentions are and how you intend to back them up.

In this whole matter of taxation — and I wish to speak solely for myself — we're in a highly inflationary period. The inflation on land in British Columbia is excessive to anywhere else in the free world. Places such as England and Sweden have proven that state ownership of land is not the way to control the price of land. This extreme inflation that we faced over the past year-and-a-half is a direct result of this government's action.

I suggest, Mr. Minister, that no longer can this government or any government in British Columbia consider taxing homes and agricultural lands and other lands on the basis of an inflationary value. Governments have to accept the concept that if they continue basing their assessment on 50 per cent of market value, that taxation is going to be beyond the capabilities of the majority of the businesses and the majority of the people to pay.

If you continually take money away from people through taxation, Mr. Premier, then they are going to continually want greater wage increases. You really are only feeding the flames of inflation.

I suggest a better solution is to take a more realistic look at taxation and remember that history has proved that when inflation decreases, taxes are the last to go down. This government should be making preparations, should there be a slowdown in the economy, so that they haven't got a system in British Columbia where people are being taxed directly out of their homes because of an adherence to a system. The Hon. Member for the north is over there, and he knows what I mean. If you look at the assessments and the actual cost of land today, and you relate it to people's earning ability, there is no semblance of reality any more.

I would like a commitment from the Premier that he will take this under consideration and try and accept a new philosophy of taxation in this period of inflation, and not try and keep taxation on land in pace with inflation.

Along this line, Mr. Chairman, I would just like to read into the record — and I hope the Premier will

[ Page 833 ]

listen to it, because I believe he was sent a copy — a letter from a small businessman. Perhaps he'll understand what these people are trying to say and what I, perhaps in a very inadequate way, am trying to say. I may be inadequate, but I have a feeling there are a lot of us floating around British Columbia. This is after the Premier was in the Okanagan and, I don't think intentionally but I think very thoughtlessly, laughed at these people when they said they would be hurt by Bill 71, and he said "Appeal." They say:

"Our appeals for relief from what we consider a very unfair assessment have been turned down by the local assessment board.

"We cannot live with an Act which can only drive the small operator out of existence and leave the entire field of the hospitality industry in the hands of the large-scale operators.

"The amount by which we are forced to raise our rates this year, just to cover the increase in taxes as well as all other increased cost, will not in any way increase our earnings on investments, which are now already low.

"It should be pointed out that the small operation is a family operation and that means we are on call 24 hours per day every day."

That's 24 hours per day, every day, Mr. Premier. Mr. Chairman, I know that you recognize this and I believe that the Premier recognizes this. He hasn't always lived in a golden palace; he had to work, and I'm sure that he must be aware of the problems confronting these people.

"If one were to consider the hours which we devote to our business it would fall far short of what the provincial government has described as the minimum wage should be."

The Premier just a minute ago stated how proud he was to bring the minimum wage to $2.50 an hour, and then he said that the Interior operators would pay more for help. I suggest to you, Mr. Premier, that they will have to pay more for their help, but their own incomes will be reduced well below the minimum wage. And then with the assessment problem, they can't help but feel that this is a problem you and your government are inflicting on them.

"Furthermore, the increased necessity can in no way be compatible with the rates already published in the provincial green book. We simply cannot abide by rates set last year which do not reflect the increased cost since that time."

Mr. Premier, this is destroying the integrity of our province because the provincial green book is respected by people in the tourist industry around the world, as well as tourists themselves, as being authentic. I'm sure the Hon. Minister of Travel Industry (Hon. Mr. Hall) will tell you that always when the tourist advisory council met with the previous Minister, everyone agreed that there must be credibility in the green book and that operators should not raise their prices once they've submitted them to the green book. And yet, Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Chairman, you are forcing our tourist operators to break that commitment and to, in fact, jeopardize the credibility of our tourist industry at a time which may well be a peak tourist year.

They go on to say — and I say "they" because it's a husband and wife operation:

"I must also point out yet another particular situation which is facing us, if not this year then in the very near future...."

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I think that I should point out that the whole matter of assessments has been referred to a committee. If we start this, then we'll be going through all kinds of particular assessment cases.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MRS. JORDAN: I recognize that. You will recall I prefaced my remarks by saying that I wouldn't have alluded to it had the Premier not alluded to it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The ruling of the Chair is that it is in order to talk about assessments, providing that we are not discussing anything which is before the committee.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's before the committee.

MRS. JORDAN: No, this is a private letter, and my understanding is that no individuals will be able to present their briefs before the committee.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, the assessment matter's before the committee. I made one reference to the deferment of taxes, period. I made a very short reference to inflation. I think it's stretching the rule, in my opinion, to start going into the assessment field, when the matter is in front of a committee.

MRS. JORDAN: I appreciate, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance's point of view and I'd like to adhere to it. Perhaps he would give me a commitment, in light of the fact that I'm just a little bit confused, if individuals can't appear before the committee, and we're not allowed to present their case in this House, how are you to know their…?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would continue my ruling and I would make the ruling that this is representative probably of cases which are, in fact,

[ Page 834 ]

being presented to the committee. Therefore, since the Hon. Member has already made her point, I would ask her if she'd just continue.

MRS. JORDAN: I quite agree, Mr. Chairman, and if the Premier and Minister of Finance will back up your statement and make a commitment here on the floor of the House that individuals will be able to appear before the committee, I'd be very pleased to go on….

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! It is not within the power of this Chair to determine who shall appear before that committee.

MRS. JORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll adhere to your ruling. But I hope that part of this letter is reaching the Premier so that he can just get a glimmer of what the concerns are in this province as a result of his actions and his government's actions, and why his credibility is very much at stake. One of the things that he could do to add a little bit of credibility to his position would be to give me a commitment under his salary that he will allow people to appear before the committee and will listen to these problems.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! This is a matter for the committee to determine, not for the Premier or for the Chair.

MRS. JORDAN: Another matter that I think has jeopardized the Premier's credibility, which is much under discussion during these estimates, was in the House yesterday, when really the Premier sort of reminded me of Pooh Bear. I'm sure he's read Winnie the Pooh and The House at Pooh Corner, when little old Pooh Bear gets into that honey pot and he's so happy without realizing the bees are tracking him down.

He expresses this attitude in relation to ICBC, when he tried to twist and turn and accused the opposition of not supporting ICBC. We recognize that the government received a mandate for $25 auto insurance. But Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, you tried to equate ICBC with the Bank of British Columbia.

I would like to take just a few minutes and point out to you, in case you don't understand, as seems rather the case, the difference between ICBC and the Bank of British Columbia.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I didn't compare the two. Read Hansard.

MRS. JORDAN: The ICBC, Mr. Premier, is a compulsory situation to all people in British Columbia who want to drive a car; the Bank of British Columbia is voluntary.

ICBC is a monopoly situation in British Columbia which put many people out of work; the Bank of British Columbia is a competitive situation in British Columbia and it hasn't put anyone out of work. In fact, it has increased work opportunities and capital in British Columbia.

Interjection.

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, I believe in competition, Woody.

The Bank of British Columbia is a part of every British Columbian, because it's voluntary and because they believed in it. The people of British Columbia take part in it because it offers a service that certainly equals any other banking institution or money institution in British Columbia, and in many cases exceeds it.

I have a few more points to make on this and some other matters. Would the Premier accept a motion to rise and report progress?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Carry on.

MRS. JORDAN: The Bank of British Columbia offers services in many instances superior to other banking institutions in British Columbia. Bank notes, for example, in any other bank must be on a $1,000 minimum basis and on a three-month basis. The Bank of British Columbia offers better terms at a better interest rate for a shorter period of time. And that's why many people keep their cash reserves in the Bank of British Columbia in preference to other areas.

ICBC, to the contrary, has forced people to take collision insurance, which they never took before – it was a matter of personal choice – and which is costing them more money. There is strong evidence to support the fact that ICBC is in no way bringing about cheaper auto insurance in British Columbia.

Interjections.

MRS. JORDAN: Well, I don't know where those Members are, but I've been with my constituents and I think the Hon. Member for Point Grey has been with his constituents. We don't talk to them all the time, we listen to them.

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

MRS. JORDAN: I had a phone call yesterday from someone whose insurance had gone up two-and-a-half times what they paid before.

Interjections.

[ Page 835 ]

MRS. JORDAN: I have other questions, if the Premier would like to answer them, but I would just like to point out one more thing, Mr. Premier. When you want people to be proud of ICBC, you can't ram it down their throats with high-priced advertising. The reason people are proud of the Bank of B.C. is because it's as much a part of their life as apple pie is. The difference is that when the Bank of British Columbia was coming in, everywhere you went people kidded you in stores if you weren't writing your cheques on the Bank of British Columbia because they felt so close. Today, with ICBC, everywhere you go people are moaning and groaning, and those are the differences. You must acknowledge these if you want your credibility exempted.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Presenting reports

Hon. Mr. Macdonald presents the second report of the Workmen's Compensation Board administering the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act for the period January 1, 1973, to December 31, 1973.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:00 p.m.