[ Page 875 ]

CONTENTS

Afternoon sitting

Routine proceedings

An Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter (Bill 50). Mr. Cummings.

Introduction and first reading — 876

An Act to Amend the British Columbia School Trustees Association and Corporation Act (Bill 51). Ms. Brown.

Introduction and first reading — 876

Parents Collective Bargaining Rights Act (Bill 68). Ms. Brown.

Introduction and first reading — 876

Oral Questions

Lack of trained personnel for B.C. ferries. Mr. Bennett — 876

ICBC capital cost expenditures. Mr. Gardom — 876

Bids on construction of new ferries. Mr. Wallace — 876

Value of Dunhill assets. Mr. L.A. Williams — 877

Filing log books of government aircraft. Mr. Fraser — 877

Difficulties re opening of UVic law school. Mr. McGeer — 877

Sale of ICBC insurance by credit unions, banks, trust companies. Mr. Curtis — 877

Date for construction of Fraser Valley college. Mr. Schroeder — 877

Talks with BCHA and RNABC following strike vote. Mr. Wallace — 877

Safeguards re removal of Jordan River Hydro installation. Mr. McClelland — 878

Establishment of trading corporation for export of B.C. natural products. Mr. D.A. Anderson — 878

Manner of bringing Penticton into Okanagan Regional College. Mrs. Jordan — 878

Distribution of copies of insurance policies. Mr. McGeer — 879

Provincial government submission to NEB hearings on oil export. Mr. Curtis — 879

Availability of information re insurance policies. Mr. L.A. Williams — 879

Committee of Supply: Premier's estimates. Hon. Mr. Lea — 879

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 883

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 884

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 884

Mr. Bennett — 886

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 886

Mr. Dent — 886

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 886

Mr. L.A. Williams — 886

Mr. McGeer — 889

Mr. L.A. Williams — 889

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 889

Mr. Gibson — 890

Mr. Chabot — 891

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 892

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 892

Privilege Use of unparliamentary language. Mr. Chairman — 893

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 893

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 893

Mr. Speaker — 894

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 894

Mr. Speaker — 895

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 895

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Premier's estimates. Mr. McGeer — 895

Mr. Phillips — 896

Division — 899

Mr. Phillips — 899

Mr. Bennett — 900

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 900

Mr. Phillips — 901

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 901

Mr. McClelland — 902

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 903

Mr. Fraser — 904

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 904

Mr. Morrison — 904

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 905

Mr. Bennett — 905

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 905

Mr. McGeer — 905

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 906

Mr. McGeer — 907

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 907

Mr. Gardom — 907

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 910

Mr. Gibson — 910

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 912

Mr. Phillips — 912

Motions No. 19. Recognition of Mr. Willard Ireland — 913

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 913

Mr. Bennett — 913

Mr. McGeer — 913

Mr. Curtis — 913

Hon. Mr. Nimsick — 914

Hon. Mr. Hall — 914

Mr. Speaker — 914

THURSDAY, MARCH 7, 1974

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): Mr. Speaker, it's with a great deal of pleasure that I ask the House to welcome on the floor of the chamber today a distinguished former Member, who is here today doing something he's never done before, and that is to be seen but not heard in this chamber. I'm a little concerned; he hasn't promised that he won't quietly heckle the Liberals.

He was elected, Mr. Speaker, in 1953 in Lillooet. He was re-elected in 1960 and 1963 on the North Shore with Ray Perreault in a riding that now includes North Vancouver–Capilano. I was afraid at first that his purpose in coming here today may have been to angle for the nomination in that riding. I'm going to try and persuade him to go next door to Seymour.

The very friendly reception that he has had in Victoria — last night we ran into the hon. former Premier, Mr. W.A.C. Bennett; and there was a very warm welcome today as well by Premier Barrett — this is to me a living example of the comradeship of the chamber and the respect in which this Member is held.

So, with honour and warmth in my heart, I ask this House to welcome, with his wife, my father, Gordon Gibson.

MR. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to add my words of welcome too, but I can't believe that the Hon. Member will be completely silent. I went over to say hello to him and I checked to see if he had any envelopes with him, but I couldn't find any. So there's almost a sure chance that there won't be a speech.

As many of you recall, the Member gave his speeches off the back of an envelope, crushed them all up, then threw them over his shoulder; and there was usually a very large pile of envelopes behind him when he spoke.

Gordon Gibson, when he was a Member here, was very well loved and very well admired, but the most common thing I remember being said about Gordon, any time he got up to speak, was a simple word from all sides of the House — "duck!" (Laughter.) It's with that that I remember him. And I'd like to inform his son that he was elected in 1960, as I recall, not 1963.

MR. GIBSON: Oh no, both.

MR. SPEAKER: Also in 1953, when he defeated me 30 days after I'd won. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: Nonetheless, the Member has been away from this House too long, and we're very, very pleased to see him back with us today.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Mr. Speaker, we've got a couple in the gallery from that playground of British Columbia, the east Kootenays: Mr. and Mrs. Zac from Kimberley.

MR. C.S. GABELMANN (North Vancouver–Seymour): Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today, there are a group of students from a high school in my riding. They're here today with their teachers, Mr. Johnston and Mr. Edgar, and I'd like the House to make them feel welcome.

MR. H. STEVES (Richmond): Mr. Speaker, in the galleries today we have a delegation from Richmond: Mr. Joel Groberman, our municipal solicitor; Mr. Jack Brooks, our municipal engineer; and Mayor Gilbert Blair from Richmond. I hope that we can welcome them here today.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that my in-laws are in the gallery today. I believe this is their first visit to the Legislative Assembly. I would suggest that one beware of my father-in-law; he is an outstanding gin rummy player, as I learned to my regret last night.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I'd ask the House to welcome a group of students from Mary Hill Junior Secondary School from the constituency of Coquitlam.

Mr. Speaker, today is another very important day, and it's a day that I think is especially well marked by the fact that Gordon Gibson Sr. Is here. He's been through a number of similar occasions when we've paid tribute to the same man.

Of course, it's our senior clerk; it's Ned DeBeck's birthday today and he's 91 years old. Ned is 49.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): We'd just like, Mr. Speaker, to give our best wishes to Ned DeBeck, and here's where I disagree today with the Premier today. I thought he was 39.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure also to join with the two previous speakers in wishing a happy birthday to him for many years to come and our successors here in our seats will be doing the same thing.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Conservative Party, I'd like to say what a stately figure Ned is in this House. The example of

[ Page 876 ]

his record is something that we all try to emulate. We send and give him our very best wishes on this occasion.

Introduction of bills.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
VANCOUVER CHARTER

On a motion by Mr. Cummings, Bill 50, An Act to Amend the Vancouver Charter, introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE BRITISH
COLUMBIA SCHOOL TRUSTEES
ASSOCIATION AND CORPORATION ACT

On a motion by Ms. Brown, Bill 51, An Act to Amend the British Columbia School Trustees Association and Corporation Act, introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills.

PARENTS COLLECTIVE
BARGAINING RIGHTS ACT

On a motion by Ms. Brown, Bill 68, Parents Collective Bargaining Rights Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions.

LACK OF TRAINED PERSONNEL
FOR B.C. FERRIES

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Hon. Minister of Transport and Communications to do with the B.C. ferries. Is there a lack of trained personnel in B.C. as either deck officers or engine room officers for B.C. ferries?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): We're able to man all the ships. We've advertised twice in the last year in British Columbia, and once across Canada. We're quite sure we will be able to fill all of the requirements from British Columbia. My answer is that to the best of my knowledge there's no lack at this time.

MR. BENNETT: A supplemental, Mr. Minister. You mentioned advertising across Canada. Are you not also running advertisements in Great Britain and offering to train these personnel?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: There were ads placed in the British papers when the last ad that was placed across Canada received no applications of any kind. But as I told you earlier, I am now informed that we will be able to fill our needs from British Columbia.

MR. BENNETT: Just one more supplemental: are there any plans to set up training facilities to fill these occupations or these positions in the future so that we don't have to advertise outside the country again?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, Mr. Member. I guess you weren't a Member of the House at the time, but I did announce that in conjunction with the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) training classes have been set up in nautical affairs in Vancouver City College. They're just starting to do it.

ICBC CAPITAL COST EXPENDITURES

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): A question to the same Minister, Mr. Speaker: what are the capital cost expenditures of ICBC to date?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I haven't got that figure with me. Would you like to put it on the order paper? It's on the order paper, isn't it?

MR. GARDOM: It's not on the order paper. There are 14 questions on the order paper and he hasn't answered one...the whole of the last session.

MR. SPEAKER: That is not a point of order.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: There are two questions on the order paper which....

MR. GARDOM: That question is not on the order paper, and the Minister knows it full well! He's a Minister of evasion.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. That is unparliamentary. Would the Hon. Member please withdraw that?

MR. GARDOM: If it's unparliamentary I withdraw unqualifiedly. He sounds like the Minister of evasion. (Laughter.)

BIDS ON CONSTRUCTION
OF NEW FERRIES

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the same Minister how many bids have been received for the construction of the three proposed new ferries and how many of the bids have come from the shipyards outside of British Columbia.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, it's my recollection

[ Page 877 ]

first of all that the bids were limited to British Columbia. The bids are not open until Monday next. The time was extended a week at the request of the bidders.

MR. WALLACE: I'm just asking how many at present.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I haven't got that figure.

VALUE OF DUNHILL ASSETS

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Housing, if he's up to a level of consciousness today. (Laughter.) With respect to Dunhill Developments Ltd., would the Minister indicate the value of assets owned by that company which were removed at the time of the purchase of the shares by the government?

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): I'll take that as notice, Mr. Speaker.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: A supplemental to that question: if the Minister has taken that as notice, will he also indicate whether or not he will table with this House the appraisal reports that were used in valuing the company?

FILING LOG BOOKS
OF GOVERNMENT AIRCRAFT

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Transport and Communications: when is he going to file the log books of the government aircraft in this House?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Very soon now. I'm getting them all put together.

MR. FRASER: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker: what is your version of "very soon"?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: They will be tabled before my estimates in the House.

DIFFICULTIES RE OPENING
OF UVIC LAW SCHOOL

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): This is a question to the Minister of Education, Mr. Speaker. In view of the inability of the University of Victoria to open its law school in September, partly for financial reasons, has the Minister scheduled a meeting with the president of the University of Victoria to see if there's some mechanism by which this faculty can get started?

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): There are no financial reasons for the hold-up. I have informed the president that the government is ready to consider what we hope will be an innovative law school as coming under the criteria for supplementary grants. So the government is quite prepared to finance the school. Our knowledge prior to our recent statement to them on this was that they were able; they had the money in the budget to get started on it. I think there have been other reasons for the fact that it has had to be delayed.

SALE OF ICBC INSURANCE BY
CREDIT UNIONS, BANKS, TRUST COMPANIES

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Transport and Communications: could the Minister inform the House if the ICBC has received a formal request or recommendation that credit unions, banks, or trust companies, or all three, be authorized to act as agents in selling fire insurance and perhaps other general insurance on behalf of ICBC?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's a pretty involved question. If you don't mind I'll take it as notice.

DATE FOR CONSTRUCTION
OF FRASER VALLEY COLLEGE

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): This question is for the Minister of Education. Now that the results of the plebiscite regarding the college for the Fraser Valley are in, and we now have learned what we already knew before, what is the target date for beginning of construction?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I don't have the target date, but we'll certainly be meeting with the people in the area. As you know, the next step would be to set up the college council and a principal. That would be the first step. I think the Hon. Member is quite aware that it was necessary to hold a plebiscite.

MR. SCHROEDER: A supplementary. Is it not a fact, madam, that there will not be construction as such?

HON. MRS. DAILLY: I believe that if we want to get it going as quickly as we can we should be able to move without having to use new construction immediately.

TALKS WITH BCHA AND RNABC
FOLLOWING STRIKE VOTE

MR. WALLACE: To the Minister of Health, Mr. Speaker: is the Minister giving any consideration to holding joint talks with B.C. Hospitals Association

[ Page 878 ]

and the Registered Nurses Association in the light of a 96 per cent vote in favour of strike action at the Royal Jubilee Hospital?

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I have been briefed on the whole question, and I'm aware of the gravity of the situation. At the same time I am not second-guessing the hospital association, or for that matter RNABC. I think that at this point I would be precipitous if I entered the scene at this time.

SAFEGUARDS RE REMOVAL OF
JORDAN RIVER HYDRO INSTALLATION

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Municipal Affairs as a director of B.C. Hydro: could he inform the House whether or not any precautions or safeguards have been taken to ensure that the installation at Jordan River, which is being disposed of as surplus assets by Hydro, will in fact be removed for scrap metal purposes and not be removed as a complete power unit ready for reassembly?

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I don't know what the sale terms were, but I can check those out and let you know.

MR. McCLELLAND: Okay. Then a supplemental, Mr. Speaker, to that: is the Minister aware of any involvement by the federal Immigration department checking into the status of the people who are working at that site?

HON. MR. LORIMER: No.

MR. McCLELLAND: Will he find out?

ESTABLISHMENT OF TRADING CORPORATION
FOR EXPORT OF B.C. NATURAL PRODUCTS

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce: could I ask him whether it is his intention to establish a provincial trading corporation to handle the exports of British Columbia natural products, in particular those of government-owned companies?

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce): I am simply delighted that I didn't get through the session without at least one question. I promise I won't take it as notice.

Interjections.

HON. MR. LAUK: Well, the question is not that complicated. The Hon. Liberal leader is always very precise.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Perhaps you'll be precise, too.

HON. MR. LAUK: I hope to give an answer, precise or imprecise, without interruption.

I announced today a meeting of four western provincial Ministers of Trade and Industry. We will be meeting March 18 at the Bayshore Inn and we will be discussing the resolution of the four western Premiers with respect to an industrial strategy for the four western provinces.

In that agenda I've asked to be included the discussion of a co-operative venture, perhaps in the form of a trading corporation together with western banking interests, with a view to forming that kind of trading corporation. Perhaps some resource person in the nature of people like M. Jean Luc Pepin and people like that who have asked for this kind of approach in the past might be called to give some advice. But that is an idea and a concept; it's not in any way an announcement of policy at this stage.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I'm simply delighted to hear that the Minister has learned the need of getting good advice. Jean Luc would undoubtedly be an excellent source. But failing success with the three other western provinces, is it the Minister's intention to set up such a state or provincial trading corporation for British Columbia exports from provincially owned companies?

HON. MR. LAUK: I would say that's in the nature of a very premature question. I'd have to give you that kind of an answer after all avenues with the four western Ministers in four western provinces have been exhausted.

MANNER OF BRINGING PENTICTON
INTO OKANAGAN REGIONAL COLLEGE

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Education, and it is with regard to the Okanagan Regional College. In view of the fact that the area of Penticton is considering coming into the college, could the Minister indicate whether this will be done by public vote or order-in-council? I know that it would speed it up to use an order-in-council, but I have been checking with the A-G's department, and according to the Public Schools Act I don't think we can avoid a plebiscite. But I'm discussing that with him now.

Supplementary: would the Minister be prepared to keep the MLAs in the area informed of what is happening?

[ Page 879 ]

DISTRIBUTION OF COPIES
OF INSURANCE POLICIES

MR. McGEER: A question to the Minister of Transport and Communications: could the Minister tell us when the citizens of British Columbia will be given the equivalent of an insurance policy, so that they will know what their rights are under their new insurance and what the obligations of the ICBC are? A copy of the policy, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I haven't checked. I know what they have now doesn't give the full coverage, but it's been well advertised and they circle what coverage they're getting. It doesn't give all the terms and conditions but they're pretty generous. I think we'll have to look at getting a booklet out to the individuals.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): A supplemental question on the same matter: will it not be a requirement that you turn out something more than just a booklet for the people who are insured under ICBC? There will have to be a legal document signed on behalf of ICBC, which is the contract between the government and the people that they insure. It certainly can't be on the basis of some booklet that's printed supposedly explaining the coverage.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Speaker, I don't know how long the Member has been associated with parliament, but there's something called regulations which it spells out very definitely, based on legislation, and the regulations are passed by order-in-council. No matter what you think about orders-in-council they're legal, and it's all laid out.

PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT SUBMISSION
TO NEB HEARINGS ON OIL EXPORT

MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, to the Hon. Premier: in view of the fact that the National Energy Board will hold public hearings into the exportation of oil, and that the hearings will include sittings in Vancouver, does the Premier intend to direct that the provincial government make a submission to those National Energy Board hearings?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I've been advised that our Energy Commission has already submitted in writing the government's position.

AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION
RE INSURANCE POLICIES

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I'd like to return to the Minister of Transport and Communications in connection with the regulations concerning ICBC. Is the Minister suggesting to the people of this province that for them to know what their rights are, and their responsibilities under automobile insurance policies, they have to purchase all the regulations which deal with ICBC, which are about three-and-a-half inches thick?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: No, the Member suggested there was no legal document. I was suggesting there was a legal document — that's all.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: PREMIER'S OFFICE

(continued)

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

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): Mr. Chairman, for the last few days of the debate in regard to the Premier's estimates, there's been a great deal said in debate about integrity — the integrity of the Legislature of British Columbia. But, Mr. Chairman, the debate surrounding the Premier's estimates has been only one act of a planned political programme by some Members of this House who desire to have power at any price.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, while you and I have watched this debate on centre stage here, another vicious act has been played in the wings. Some of the backbenchers in the opposition have in the past few weeks been holding secret meetings behind the backs of their leaders, and at the same time using this debate in this House surrounding these estimates to cover up those meetings and to cover up the purpose of those meetings.

Mr. Chairman, have Members of the Liberal Party been meeting behind the back of their leader? Have they been in secret meetings? Have they been meeting with power brokers from the other political parties to try to get together a new official opposition in this House?

This entire debate surrounding the Premier's estimates has been a cover-up to the most vicious political game of all (laughter), and it's called "Carve up your leader." Mr. Chairman, the last meeting was held right here in Victoria last night between the Members of the official opposition, Members of the Liberal Party and Members of the Conservative Party.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Name names!

[ Page 880 ]

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, has the newly elected Member to this House, the Member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) been meeting behind his leader's back at secret meetings?

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): No!

HON. MR. LEA: Who is the power broker within the Liberal Party who has been going to those meetings? Is it the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams)?

What about the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey? Has he been meeting? Has he been at those secret meetings with other parties?

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Point of order.

AN HON. MEMBER: Aha! The real leader!

MR. CHAIRMAN: State your point of order.

MR. McGEER: I would like the Minister of Highways to know that I was at the....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I want you to state your point of order. Don't get involved in a speech.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Minister of Highways — he's making a speech.

MR. McGEER: On a point of order, the Minister made a statement about my being at a meeting last night...

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not a point of order.

MR. McGEER: ...but, Mr. Chairman, I was at my son's 17th birthday party in Vancouver last night, after which I attended a public meeting on the University Endowment Lands. I think the Minister ought to know that, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not a point of order! I'm asking you to take your seat. Will you take your seat?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: There was another Member wanting to make a point of order. Do you want to make a point of order? Please do.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): I was playing checkers with my daughter last night. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not a point of order!

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Have you got a point of order? I don't want to know where you were last night! (Laughter.)

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I've already stated to the House, with some embarrassment, as a matter of fact, that I was beaten at gin rummy last night. (Laughter.)

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Have you got a point of order? (Laughter.)

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): I was at a quiet engagement with some members of the British Columbia Game Guides and Outfitters Association — with my leader, as a matter of fact ....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I don't think that that's a point of order. That's not a point of order! Will you take your seat?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I'm going to recognize the Member for North Okanagan. Are you on a point of order? State your point of order.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): On a point Of Order, Mr. Chairman, I would like to advise the House that I was with .... (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not a point of order! The Member for Chilliwack. Order!

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): I'd like to advise the House that I was with those same outfitters last evening. I don't know if that's a power struggle....

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not a point of order!

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, what's that old saying? — Me thinketh...

AN HON. MEMBER: He doth protest too much.

HON. MR. LEA: Yes. All I am doing is asking questions that I think have to do with integrity in this House. Now all I'm asking is: have there been meetings? If there have been secret meetings, who have attended those secret meetings? I am asking, who are the power brokers for each individual party?

[ Page 881 ]

The Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams): has he been to those meetings? Was there a meeting last night? I'm asking who the power broker of the Social Credit is.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, order!

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Yes, I'd like to make a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to advise the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) to get his information from Dick Tracy from Little Mountain...to get it straight.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not a point of order.

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, obviously there is a bit of a stir in the House. What I am asking is: who are the power brokers in each political party? Who is the power broker for the Social Credit Party? Could it be the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland)? Could it be the Member for Langley who has been attending those meetings? Has he been representing his group?

Let me ask — is the Member for Langley the power broker for the Social Credit Party? Is he a man who feels cheated? Is he a man who has the taste for power? Is he a man who wants power at any price? Why does he feel he has been cheated?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: A point of order?

HON. MR. LEA: Why does he feel he has been cheated? Does he know, Mr. Chairman, that he is more capable than his leader? Does he know that? Does he know that that...?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just a minute. There is a point of order being raised and I want to hear the point of order. State your point of order.

MR. GARDOM: Unless I am incorrect, and I may be incorrect, I thought we were on the Premier's estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are on the Premier's estimates. Will you try and keep your remarks to the Premier's estimates?

AN HON. MEMBER: Filibustering the Premier's estimates.

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I would imagine that in some corners of the Social Credit benches they are wondering why they weren't invited to those meetings. Who was invited and who wasn't invited? What was the purpose of those meetings? Was it to set up a new political alignment in this House?

Now as I said earlier, but I think it was drowned out, the Member for Langley is a man who is full of capabilities. He is a man who has the thirst for power. He feels cheated. He got beaten in a rigged convention, Mr. Chairman, and he is a man who will try to get power at any price.

We have a Liberal leader who is unaware, I'm sure of what has been happening in his ranks. I would ask the Liberal leader...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, order!

HON. MR. LEA: ...to take a look at his colleagues and see if they think I am just making it up. Just take a look at them.

Mr. Chairman, I forgot about the Conservative Party. Have they been involved in the meetings? Has the leader been involved in the meetings? I challenge the leader of the Conservative Party to deny he has been involved in those meetings that have been taking place between the three parties.

AN HON. MEMBER: Answer!

HON. MR. LEA: I want him to deny that, Mr. Chairman. I don't think he will. He's been in those meetings and I don't believe that the leader of the Liberal Party or the leader of the Social Credit Party are even aware that those meetings were going on.

Mr. Chairman, for the past few days in this debate in this House there has been a cleverly engineered....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. There is a point of order being made.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I'm sure we enjoy the frivolity to take the heat off the Premier....

MR. CHAIRMAN: State your point of order.

MR. BENNETT: The point of order is this: we are discussing vote 2 and I've heard no discussion of the activities of the Premier or the Premier's salary.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I find some difficulty in connecting all this with the chicken and egg war, but nevertheless....

HON. MR. LEA: We are discussing throughout the

[ Page 882 ]

House Leader's estimates the integrity of this House and that has been the debate. Again I ask the question: the Members that I have named, were they at those meetings? I challenge them to come forward and say they weren't at those meetings.

I ask the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) again: were you at the meeting?

AN HON. MEMBER: Answer.

HON. MR. LEA: The final conclusion is this:...

Interjections.

HON. MR. LEA: ...for the past few days, the debate in this House has....

MR. CHAIRMAN: A point of order.

HON. MR. LEA: I bet it isn't.

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

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Yes, Mr. Chairman. My point of order is that I believe we are on vote 2, not vote 1, and I wish, Mr. Chairman, that you wouldn't show your partisanship to the extent you are at this particular time, by not bringing that Member to order. Let's get back to vote 2 and let's forget this diatribe we are getting from the Member for Prince Rupert (Hon. Mr. Lea).

MR. CHAIRMAN: Okay, you've made your point.

MR. CHABOT: My point of order is that you are not enforcing the rules of this House. You are being partisan, Mr. Chairman. It's about time you stopped it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I want to remind the Member that....

AN HON. MEMBER: You get your hand off that button.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You've made your point.

AN HON. MEMBER: You get your hand off that button.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, order! Will you take your seats? Will you both take your seats?

AN HON. MEMBER: You get your hand off the button first.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I want to straighten up something here. Will you take your seat? I want to make it clear that I don't want to be accused of being partisan in any way. I've listened to debates on vote 2 that have ranged pretty widely.

I am asking everyone that speaks on vote 2 to try and make your remarks relevant to the vote in some way. That applies to everyone. Will the Member that had the floor please continue?

MR. McCLELLAND: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: State your point of order, please.

MR. McCLELLAND: In the last session of the House, there was a considerable debate went on in this chamber about the use of that cut-off button by the chairman of committee and there was never any resolve at that time that....

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not a point of order right now.

Interjections.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, it is a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Now it was never resolved that the Chairman had the authority from this House to use that button. I am suggesting that you don't have the authority; and keep your finger off of it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's my job to keep order in this House during the.... The Minister of Highways, please continue.

HON. MR. LEA: I believe that we have been talking about the estimates, because we have been talking about integrity in this House, and that is what the whole debate has been about.

MRS. JORDAN: Integrity of government.

HON. MR. LEA: It is pure and simple. We are talking about the estimates of the House Leader of this House, and we have been talking about integrity. We have been talking about truth. Mr. Chairman, I would like to say that in the past few days the debate in this House has been a cleverly engineered guise to cover up secret meetings by power-hungry Members who will do anything at any price to gain political power in this province.

Those meetings have been going on and I again challenge the Members who I have named to deny that they have been at those meetings.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Second Member

[ Page 883 ]

for Victoria.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman.... Is that a point of privilege?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, it is. State your point. State your point of order.

MR. McCLELLAND: I just want to state clearly.... It's a point of privilege, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I don't think there is such a thing.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, what you don't think isn't really important. You didn't bring that....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: State your point of order.

MR. McCLELLAND: I will, if you will allow me to. I want to state very clearly that I haven't ever at any time ever been to any kind of a meeting....

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not a point of order. You will have your opportunity to speak.

MR. McCLELLAND: I'm having it right now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, you are not having it right now. I won't permit....

MR. McCLELLAND: I protest.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not a point of order.

MR. McCLELLAND: If I rise on a point of privilege, I am going to speak.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I am asking you to take your seat.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, if I rise on a matter of privilege, I must do it immediately at the first opportunity I have. I am doing it at this time to reply to a statement in which I was named by another Member of the House. Now I demand that opportunity to do so.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That's not a point of privilege or a point of order. I am asking you to take your seat. I recognize the Second Member for Victoria.

MR. McCLELLAND: This is the second time this week that you have refused me the opportunity to take part in this....

MR. CHAIRMAN: That doesn't say much for your knowledge of order. I want you to know that...

MR. McCLELLAND: This is a disgraceful performance by the Chairman of this House.

MR. CHAIRMAN: ...you can make that point when you are making your speech.

MR. McCLELLAND: A disgraceful performance by the Chairman of this House. Disgraceful.

MR. McGEER: Any Member, when he is falsely accused, is entitled to take his place and demand that the Minister or the Member who made that accusation withdraw. That's quite clearly what the Member for Langley is doing.

Mr. Chairman, you permitted that man to make false charges to other Members of this House. It had nothing to do with the Premier's estimates. And when the Members got up to ask him to withdraw and to deny those charges, which they did categorically, you refused to recognize them. Now, that is partisanship, and it smacks of a prearranged speech.

Interjections.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): Point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Do you have a point of order?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm on a point of order. I don't think the two Members — the one for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) and the one for Langley (Mr. McClelland) — realized that you had already recognized the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson).

MR. McGEER: A point of order is in order at any time. That Member was on his feet, Mr. Minister.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, the issue that is before the House is the issue of integrity in government. To that degree at least, I agree with the previous speaker. I wished, or at least I hoped, that he would address himself to it.

Mr. Chairman, on November 5, 1973 — not very many months ago — in that month, on that day, on page 1252 of Hansard a Member got up in this House and made the following speech — and it's short, and I'd like to quote a paragraph or two from it:

Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, no Member can assert names or insults to another Member in front of that Member without the Member having the right to ask the originator of the statements to withdraw. As I understand our rules, when one Member asks another Hon. Member to withdraw it, it must be withdrawn.

[ Page 884 ]

That's where we're at now.

That was the statement on that day.

Now, in terms of the case in front of us, if the Member comes to the House on his return with a substantive motion, I will ask the House to give leave to debate that motion immediately. Mr. Speaker, I have no problem, but it must be clearly defined that the ruling on somebody's calling somebody else a name is separate and distinct from the matter that must be either proven or disproven.

The statement continues, Mr. Chairman:

For the Member to suggest that there is a vacuum is incorrect. If that ruling were not there, then my understanding would be that any Member could come in and call anyone a liar...

I'm quoting there, Mr. Chairman.

...and not have to prove anything. That would be a gross misuse of the House.

If a Member wishes to make an accusation against another Member, then right now, in this instance, the documents should be tabled so that the accused can see the evidence against him, as is British parliamentary procedure and courtroom procedure. I think both sides should file documents with the House and I have no objection to seeing that, but I do not think the matter can be left there. A Member's honour is really related to this. The Member did say it was a matter of resignation; he demanded the resignation of a Minister. If the Member is incorrect, then I think it's incumbent on him to resign, Mr. Speaker, because he has laid the case on that basis.

Mr. Chairman, not so many months ago, in early November of last year, there was a case in this House involving the question of truth, veracity of statements made, a question of honour, and the quote I read you was from the Hon. Premier.

At that time the Premier made perfectly clear that a matter such as this should be cleared up. At that time he made perfectly clear that there was a distinction between the allegation of the truth, or otherwise, of a statement and the substantive facts which led to the charge.

I find it curious, Mr. Chairman, very curious. And this is my question to the Premier: I find it curious that on November 5 he had one understanding of what should happen — how clear it was and how straightforward it was, and how, of course, these things should be cleared up by way of inquiry — and in the months of February and March, 1974, a total change has come over him. And when faced with a case which is similar, similar in many respects, a totally different approach is taken.

My question is this: Where is this major distinction between the principle that the Premier enunciated last year in which he described in glowing terms and the procedure that we are following this year?

There is a question; there is a serious question of integrity. There is a serious question of truth or otherwise of Ministerial statements.

Mr. Chairman, the situation we find ourselves in is this: we have no opportunity to clear the matter up by way of either a judicial inquiry or a legislative committee in the manner that the Premier himself in November of last year — only a few short months ago — thought so necessary to protect the principles of British parliamentary democracy.

I would like to ask him at this stage, Mr. Chairman, where he distinguishes these two cases; how he distinguishes these two cases; and whether he intends to continue to distinguish these two cases.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Chairman, I find this very interesting to see the hypocritical attitude of the Member when he attempts to suggest there should be a committee of Members of this House when, as of yesterday, he's already on record as having made up his mind before any such committee would exist. He's already convicted, for cheap political purposes, the Member whom he refers to, namely myself.

We did have the committee last fall — and what were the results? In terms of your mind already being made up, as evidenced by your behaviour yesterday, to come back in here again today is sheer hypocrisy and grandstanding, in my opinion.

After that committee sat last year, and after the vote was out, it was immediately attacked as being politically divisive on terms of a vote. That's how the opposition rejected that committee after the results. They labeled those kind of committees from that date on as purely politics.

Just a few days ago, the official Leader of the Opposition said that a House committee would be divided on politics. You don't want a House committee; you want a witch hunt.

My statements stand, Mr. Chairman, and my statement stands as it is. If they want to continue to play politics and obstruct the decent work of this House, let it be on their heads.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the Second Member for Victoria, and remind him we are on vote 2.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: We are on vote 2 which was described by the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea) as being one of integrity, and being described by yourself as being one of the "egg-and-chicken war."

Mr. Chairman, the question which I asked was not answered. The point I put forward was this....

HON. MR. BARRETT: You've already made up your mind.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I have made up my mind that the Premier ....

[ Page 885 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, what's the use?

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): What's the use of naming a committee?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, because I would like, Mr. Attorney-General....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources): Oh, another grandstand. Another grandstand.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Attorney-General, Mr. Chairman, is one of these people who believe if one party in a dispute makes up his mind, there's no need to go to court. The courts are for no purpose.

HON. MR. BARRETT: A court in front of you?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: A man who does not believe in settling matters impartially before a judge, a judicial tribunal, which could assess the truth or otherwise of allegations made.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: This is a political attack.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Straight politics.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, people can charge this as being straight politics and a political attack, and the Premier has done so because he has no other defence for his switch from last year.

His position last year was clear. His position was: in a case such as this, there was a need to let the sun shine in, to have the scrutiny of a committee; to have people brought forward to try and determine what was accurate and what was inaccurate, and where the truth actually lay.

True, I believe that on that committee last year, as I believe in the case of the committee dealing with the charges against Mr. P.A. Gaglardi, there were members who voted for partisan purposes. I believe that.

When the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) spoke the other day and described the division of a committee in terms of partisan left and right, I stood up to declare that never once had any member of our party instructed the Member of our party who sat on the committee, namely the Hon. Member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams). Not in any way did we instruct him. We did not. We did not, because we realized that to do so would be improper. We in no way suggested that he should vote in any way, shape or form.

The same, I'm sure, is true with the Hon. Member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) who sat on that committee, and once more judged the facts — judged the facts; judged according to his conscience, and found that the Hon. Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) perhaps was in error.

Now the situation we have here is not something to be laughed off. It is not something to be put down with statements about cheap political purposes. We are long since past that, Mr. Premier, and I believe it is time that we understood the seriousness of this charge.

If the Brunsdon affidavit is shown by an impartial inquiry — a judicial inquiry...if it's shown that Brunsdon was substantially in error, I will resign my seat. I make this statement here. I make it unequivocally, I will do that.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, that's up to you.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It is important for the people of British Columbia to understand this point: that in this Legislature there is a degree of honesty and truth among Members, and this is the very issue that we have before us at this time.

Now, the Premier has not answered my questions. My questions are these: What is the change in his outlook between November 5 of last year and March 7 of this year? What is the change in the conditions between that case and this? Why then was it necessary to have an inquiry to protect the good name of British parliamentary democracy, and why in this case has every request for a judicial inquiry — impartial, outside of politics - been rejected?

HON. MR. BARRETT: You're playing politics.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You know that it has been rejected; every member of your cabinet knows it's been rejected.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Straight politics.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Every Member of this House knows it's been rejected; every member sitting in this gallery knows it's been rejected, too.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Straight politics.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It's simple to keep yelling "straight politics"...

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's what it is.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: ...but the question is not going to go away.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, that's fine.

[ Page 886 ]

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: It is not going to go away because it is the duty of the opposition to make sure that this point of view of these people, which were put forward in those affidavits, is kept before you.

Mr. Premier, if you think it's going to go away, you're wrong. This issue remains. I personally believe there is no way that any Member of this House, any Member of the backbench, can vote for estimates of yours until this matter is cleared up.

I once again request, Mr. Premier, that you indicate to this House what the difference is between this case and last. And to refresh your memory I'll just read a few lines of that quote: "...I do not think the matter can be left there," said the Premier of British Columbia on November 5, 1973. "A Member's honour is really related to this. The Member did say it was a matter of resignation; he demanded the resignation of the Minister. If the Member is incorrect...it's incumbent on him to resign, Mr. Speaker..."

HON. MR. BARRETT: Did he resign?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: "...because he has laid the claim on that basis..."

HON. MR. BARRETT: Did he resign?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Now, if I am wrong in this claim I will resign.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Would you resign?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: If I am wrong in this claim, I state I will resign.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You should resign anyway.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: All I ask is that there be a non-partisan, non-political...

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: ...judicial inquiry to determine that fact.

Interjections.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, in speaking to this, I find the Premier's attitude unusual because, after last fall's session when we had the legislative committee on inquiry, why would the Deputy Premier of this House introduce a similar motion for a similar committee against the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips)?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Has it been called?

MR. BENNETT: That's even worse if it was introduced frivolously and not to be called.

HON. MR. BARRETT: There's further action pending publicly, I understand.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I don't understand what public action the Premier is suggesting is going to be called against the Member for South Peace River, and I would ask him now to elaborate.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I understand, Mr. Member, that this case is a matter of public discussion related outside this House in terms of certain allegations. It is my information that other matters are going to be raised, and I'll leave the matter stand there.

In terms of that Member, Mr. Chairman, I say again that that committee was misused last year after the vote. It was attacked. It is just straight, cheap politics with platforms laid out, day to day, in the newspapers, on radio, exactly what the Member is going to do and how he is going to do it. If that isn't cheap politics, then I don't know what cheap politics is.

MR. H.D. DENT (Skeena): I would like to direct a question to the Hon. Premier in his role as president of the B.C. Rail. I'm concerned about a problem which is developing along the CN line west of Prince George, and I will just read the first part of a letter I received from the secretary of the chamber of commerce in New Hazelton:

"Since February 15, 1974, one shift consisting of 31 men at the local sawmill, Rim Forest Products Ltd., were laid off due to an excess inventory caused by the railcar shortage. There is dire concern by all involved that if the situation continues this could result in total shutdown of the sawmill, further affecting logging contractors hauling to the mill."

I draw this to your attention, through you Mr. Chairman, to the president of the B.C. Rail, since you will be meeting with Hon. Jean Marchand,, federal Minister of Transport. When you are discussing the problem of the shortage of boxcars being made available to the B.C. Rail, at the same time would you take up this matter of the shortage of boxcars on the CN line west of Terrace?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I informed the House yesterday that the Hon. Jean Marchand has responded to my statements in the House of last week. I expect to be meeting with him in my office this Monday. I hope I am able to give the House some full report of that meeting, hopefully with positive results.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver–Howe

[ Page 887 ]

Sound): I am pleased to have had the Premier stand in his place today and so clearly indicate his belief, based upon the recent evidence, that a committee of this House could never impartially determine the conflict that exists between his statements made here and the sworn statements made by citizens outside this House. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, it is obvious that the resolution of this most serious conflict can only be brought about by a public inquiry carried out under the Public Inquiries Act.

I can't understand why the Premier and the members of his cabinet and the Members of his party who sit on the floor of this House can't recognize the very serious, indeed tragic, situation which is created by the refusal of the Hon. Premier to have this difference of opinion resolved. It casts reflections upon his office; it casts reflections upon him as an individual; it casts reflections upon all Members of this House.

The question, however, Mr. Chairman, on reflection goes much further than just whether or not anyone has lied. I was astounded yesterday afternoon to hear the emotional defence of the Premier from the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. I read in Hansard today that he said yesterday,"It is abundantly clear that the main issue is that those marketing boards have to be changed." Now, that's what this Minister believes. Yet that's not what is said in the sworn statements by citizens of this province.

We know that in September of 1972 the Premier received the Garrish report indicating that changes needed to be made in marketing boards. He had that in his possession when he met with the Egg Marketing Board as a result of an agreement between the Premier and the Minister of Agriculture.

The Premier has not denied all of the sworn statements of people who attended that meeting. I hope the Attorney-General is listening very carefully and I hope he has taken the time since yesterday to read the affidavits, because I'm going to refer to them again, and that he would listen, very carefully, Mr. Chairman, and Mr. Attorney-General.

In fact, it is quite clear from the affidavit that the meeting was called to deal with the complaints of one Sy Kovachich, nothing more. That's all that the meeting was called to deal with. The meeting was not called to deal with marketing boards and their performance. The meeting was not called to deal with marketing boards and their operations. The meeting was called only to deal with a problem of one citizen. And the Premier told that meeting that the charges against Kovachich must be substantially reduced and that "if these charges are not reduced" you will break him.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: The members of the board who were at that meeting asked Mr. Barrett if his order was a precedent that would apply to other egg producers.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You read that before.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: And the meeting was told by Mr. Barrett, "No, just this one instance. If any other producers get out of line step on them." This meeting in the Premier's office was called to deal with only one matter.

And it has also proven to be true that this was the case. While there has been all the concern expressed in this committee about the Egg Marketing Board and the way in which it carries out its responsibilities, we know now that the Premier had the Garrish report in September and October, 1972, and there has not been one change in the egg marketing scheme in this province, a change which the Premier of this province and the executive council can bring about. They don't need to come to this Legislature to change the scheme; they have that authority as the cabinet of this province.

So with all this mountain of smokescreen that's put up by the Minister of Lands and Forests (Hon. R.A. Williams) about how much we care about the Egg Marketing Board, we now know that in 18 months the government has not moved in any way to assist the Interior egg producers or the Island egg producers in this province. That makes it crystal clear that this meeting in the Premier's office was called to resolve the problems of Mr. Sy Kovachich, nothing more and nothing less.

Interjection.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Sy Kovachich. Samsom came later, Mr. Member, and you should well know it.

This is why I say the issue to be resolved is far greater than the matter of truth on the floor of this House. It would appear that pressure of the Premier's office has been brought to bear upon the Egg Marketing Board to resolve the problems of one egg producer, to reduce the levy against him of $21,000 down to $7,500.

I think it's significant that sitting on the floor of the House today is a man (Mr. J.G. Gibson) who was a Member of this House when the greatest political scandal involving a Minister and influence peddling was raised in this Province of British Columbia.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Are you calling this influence peddling?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Influence peddling. Who brought about the meeting in the Premier's office that was designed to solve only Mr. Sy Kovachich's

[ Page 888 ]

problems? The Premier read from The Vancouver Sun last night....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to withdraw any imputation of influence peddling on the part of any Minister of the Crown.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: How can you, Mr. Chairman? I haven't come to the point yet; I haven't even developed the argument.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would order the Hon. Member.... Order! I would ask the Hon. Member whether he is implying or imputing to the Minister that he used undue influence in his office.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's determined that himself.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I'm referring, Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Are you imputing an improper motive on the part of the Minister?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: No, I'm not implying an improper motive on the part of the Premier.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Of the Minister?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Of the Minister; of the Premier.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member continue?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: I'm glad you raised the point, Mr. Chairman, because perhaps it was one of the northern Members of this House from Skeena (Mr. Dent), or from Fort George (Mr. Nunweiler), or from Kamloops (Mr. G.H. Anderson) who brought pressure to bear upon the Premier.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Undue pressure.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Undue pressure, that's right. Oh, I forgot the Member for Shuswap, the egg producer. I wonder if he's brought influence upon the Premier.

You know, Mr. Chairman, in the Sommers case the facts were brought before the House, charges were made, sworn testimony was available and there were months and months and months of public scandal and debate in this province before the then Attorney-General acted, as he was obliged to act under his office, to bring the Minister to account.

HON. J.G. LORIMER (Minister of Municipal Affairs): Tell us about a meeting you know about.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Now, do we want to have this same public debate continue in this particular matter when any question of the motivation of the Hon. Premier can be resolved by a public inquiry, which will determine whether or not the sworn statements of Mr. Brunsdon and Mr. Unger are right or wrong? That's the only way you're going to resolve this difficulty.

We have the Premier in a position where it is claimed in this House that he has lied. We now have clearly and implicitly from these affidavits the imputation of influence peddling. Why else would he call a meeting just to deal with Mr. Sy Kovachich?

The Premier himself, Mr. Chairman, on the floor of this committee yesterday afternoon, referred to the story in The Vancouver Sun where Mrs. Kovachich said: "We couldn't get any help from the Social Credit, so we had to go to the socialists." To whom did they go to get their help? One man. One man in the Premier's office.

AN HON. MEMBER: She didn't say that.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: One man got a $13,500 benefit from that trip, from that meeting.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Oh, come on! Quote her correctly.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: These are the questions that are raised implicitly by these affidavits tabled in this House and unanswered by the Premier. He says: "I didn't order anybody." He denies that. Does he deny that the meeting was called to deal with Kovachich? Does he deny entirely the affidavit of Brunsdon? He's had his opportunities, day after day after day, to make those statements, but he very carefully avoids a complete denial of what Mr. Brunsdon says.

This matter, Mr. Chairman, must be resolved. It can't be resolved, the Premier indicates, by an inquiry by a committee of this House. That wouldn't be impartial. I demand therefore that he, with the authority that he has through the Attorney-General, convene a public inquiry under the Public Inquiries Act to have an independent inquiry into this matter.

Let us have these people, and the Premier, and anyone who knows about this particular meeting before this commission of inquiry, under oath, and let's get to the bottom of it. If we don't, I tell you, Mr. Chairman, that this debate will rage in this House and outside this House, and the future of Members of this House, the authority of the Premier's office and the character of the Premier himself will continue to remain in doubt.

[ Page 889 ]

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, we've been waiting once more to hear from the Premier.

AN HON. MEMBER: Keep waiting.

MR. McGEER: We don't know what was said in NDP caucus today and we don't care. All we care about, Mr. Chairman, is that the Premier begin to level with this House and with the people of British Columbia.

He stands by his statement, whatever that was. It certainly did not deal with the individual and explicit points raised in the Brunsdon affidavit and the three accompanying affidavits that were laid before judicial officers in this province.

We have heard from the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams), the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis) and the Member for Skeena (Mr. Dent) about how there had to be reform in agricultural production in British Columbia, and a suggestion that the orders given to the Egg Marketing Board were for that purpose. The Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) has narrowed it down far more exactly. The meeting was called for one man.

That one man was a known supporter of the New Democratic Party and of the Member for Fort George (Mr. Nunweiler). He got consideration from the Premier's office because of his political affiliations. No one ordered anybody to do anything, but that man got a $13,500 benefit from the meeting. No pressure was applied, but the outcome, which benefited one man and one man only, made it impossible for the Egg Marketing Board to function in the future in any kind of impartial way.

How could a member of the Egg Marketing Board defend a $13,500 favour to one man? What generality is there in that? How could anybody defend it when that one man was a known political supporter of the New Democratic Party? That was the significant thing, not that he was a northern egg producer.

How many people benefited from that influenced decision? One man. One man only. How much distribution is that? How much distribution is brought about by that decision?

Was any action taken at the fall session of 1972, the spring session of 1973 or the fall session of 1973 to help egg producers in general? No.

The Minister of Lands, Forests, and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) every time he stood on his feet in this House talked about the injustices done to agriculture all over British Columbia to benefit the Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder) and the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) as though they were egg producers. Was anything done about that? No ! All that was done was to bring a substantial financial benefit to one single person, who was a known supporter of the New Democratic Party. That, and only that, was done. Why did Mr. Brunsdon put an affidavit before the people of British Columbia? He was embarrassed and ashamed of the action that he was forced to take. Nobody ordered anybody to do anything.

I haven't met a single person yet who thinks the Premier has leveled with the public in British Columbia — not one. And I don't think the members of the New Democratic Party caucus do, either. The problem is that they're all in the same boat together. That's what the problem is, Mr. Chairman.

We're into the same situation again this afternoon with the speech from the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Lea). How disgraceful — accusing the Members of the opposition of being at secret meetings last night. One played checkers with his daughter, another played pinochle with his father-in-law, I was at my son's birthday party, and at a public meeting afterwards, in case anybody doubts it....

HON. J. RADFORD (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): How about the meeting before that?

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, it's time we had some specific answers from the Premier.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): We were out chasing porcupines.

MR. McGEER: Why did he really call that meeting? Did he say, as we have asked so many times — and which the Premier has pointedly and repeatedly refused to answer — did he say to the Members of the Egg Marketing Board: "If you say anything about this meeting outside my office, I will deny every word of it"? Did he or did he not say that to Mr. Brunsdon and other members of the Egg Marketing Board?

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Just very briefly, the Second Member for Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) reminded me that I forgot to advise the committee as to my whereabouts last night. I had dinner with a man who I believe is in the gallery, a member of the press. We went to that distinguished restaurant, well known to the Hon. Premier, Foo Hong's.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Hear, hear!

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: The best proof I've got is that I spent the evening with Michael Wong, aged six, who showed me how to write his name in Chinese.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The best thing you've done in weeks.

Mr. Chairman, now that we know where the Member was last week, will he tell us whether or not he's been attending meetings with opposition

[ Page 890 ]

Members in an attempt to formulate a new group in this House? Have you met with the Members at all at any time and had discussions with them?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: Every day with them.

HON. MR. BARRETT: To discuss the setting up of a new group, Mr. Member? You're denying that you've met with the Conservative leader...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

HON. MR. BARRETT: ...or with others to set up a new group? Is that what you're doing?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes or no?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask Members on both sides of the House to keep their...

HON. MR. BARRETT: How's the group going?

MR. CHAIRMAN: ...comments relevant to vote 2; that is the administrative responsibilities and duties of the Premier or the Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Behind your leader's back.

MR. GIBSON: I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if the Premier would admit that he's been meeting with an old group in this House to try and keep it together while this affair goes on.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Very interesting. Very interesting. (Laughter.) Very interesting.

MR. GIBSON: I'm sorry the Minister of Highways has left because I wanted to tell him that last night I was having dinner with my father...

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, oh!

MR. GIBSON: ...and that we met Mr. W.A.C. Bennett. Now I don't know...

HON. MR. BARRETT: How many discussions did you have with him?

MR. GIBSON: ...if you would consider that a backroom meeting. We met him in the lobby of the Empress Hotel.

HON. MR. BARRETT: How close are you to a deal?

MR. GIBSON: We had an entertaining piece of irrelevant diatribe by the Minister of Highways, as we have had from all of these Ministers, and none of them have got to the point.

I'd like to ask the Premier, through you, Mr. Chairman: what's wrong with his Ministers? Where have they been in this debate? Why didn't the Minister of Agriculture once last week — not one time — say the Premier's telling the truth and these affidavits are false? Why didn't he say that one time?

Why haven't the other Ministers waded into this swamp? (Laughter.) Because they know they'd be up to their ears in alligators, that's why. (Laughter.)

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. GIBSON: They're staying out of this one.

AN HON. MEMBER: A pretty slimy mess.

AN HON. MEMBER: I hope they've got better things to do.

MR. GIBSON: It's a swamp the government's created. It certainly is.

AN HON. MEMBER: The quicksand is across the way, not over here.

MR. GIBSON: Now last night the Premier had a very touching windup for the afternoon. He told us about the poor little socialists, and I'm sure everyone on this side of the House was very touched. These are the poor little socialists with no power in this province. They're afraid of everyone, and no one's afraid of them.

These are the poor little socialists who muscled up to marketing boards, who've taken over almost 20 companies, large and small, in this province, who invite British Columbians from all walks of life into their offices and then push them around — poor little socialists who sit behind expensive desks in nice suites of offices — who proposed and who have the power in this province to cripple our second-largest industry, the mining industry.

These are the poor little socialists the Premier's talking about. It won't wash, Mr. Premier.

The Premier says that he's concerned about politics, if this question goes to a House committee. I wonder if the Premier might take the opportunity to explain how an inquiry under the Public Inquiries Act — perhaps headed up by a judge appointed by himself — how an inquiry of that kind would play politics. Take it out of politics, Mr. Premier.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's politics right now.

MR. GIBSON: And now this afternoon we have

[ Page 891 ]

another issue coming to the fore, brought to the fore by the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) and the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. McGeer). It is not just the first issue of political muscle against the boards in secret meetings.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: A little change in the script.

MR. GIBSON: It's not just the word of the Premier. No, the story's unfolding, Mr. Attorney-General; as day after day goes by there seem to be more things coming out.

What's coming to the fore now is the question of a political payoff.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: This is your Act 2, isn't it?

MR. GIBSON: No, Act 2 was the broiler meeting, Mr. Attorney-General. This is back to Act 1, October 26, 1972, when the charges against Mr. Kovachich were reduced from $21,000 to $7,500. During the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture I asked the Minister how these charges were arrived at, and he was remarkably imprecise.

To recall to the committee, Mr. Chairman, he suggested that there may have been some fines in there and there may have been some overage charges, but he wasn't quite sure just what it was. He certainly wasn't sure how the reduction was arrived at.

But later on in the testimony he admitted that he had authorized the reduction; so somewhere in the mind of the government there's the clear conviction that $21,000, as assessed by the legally constituted Egg Marketing Board, was wrong, and $7,500 was right, and that there was a difference of $13,500 — which did not have to be paid by a friend of this government.

I think, Mr. Chairman, at a very minimum, the House is owed an explanation by the Premier as the man who, according to the affidavit, directed that that settlement be made. Perhaps the Premier might want to consult with the Minister of Agriculture as to the kind of thinking that went on.

He said he told their lawyers to get together. How did their lawyers get together? What did they talk about; and was the final figure cleared with the Premier, or was there just some kind of general reduction cleared with the Premier? That's the issue that's coming to the fore this afternoon.

So there are three elements. There's the element of government power being exercised in secret when, if they wanted to cure a situation, they should have done it in public. Then at the end of that they say they'll deny it if it ever comes up. That's the first issue.

The second issue is the issue of the Premier's word and the conflict between what's specifically in Hansard and the affidavits of four respected British Columbians.

Then there's this third issue, and the Premier might perhaps favour us with some comment on this third issue since we've had so much difficulty with the first two. There's the third issue of a political payoff to a friend of the government arising out of a meeting on October 26, 1972.

MR. CHABOT: I want to talk about honesty in government. The Premier a few months ago talked about a steel mill being established in the Province of British Columbia. He made a trip to Europe and came back with good news that he'd talked to people in England and in Europe, and he was convinced that they were coming back to establish a steel mill in this province.

It was going to be a mini-mill and it would be only a matter of time until this would unfold — as to its location, its size and so forth. But he also said that there would be pollution controls. They would burn the cleanest type of fuel available in the province — and that is natural gas.

We've seen what has taken place on the question of natural gas relative to industry in this province, because they increased the price of natural gas to industry by 80 per cent just a few days ago.

That's going to certainly hamper the ability of this province to bring a steel mill in that will burn a clean form of fuel.

Also, the Premier is talking about further increases in the price of natural gas in British Columbia, not only to residences within the province, but to industry as well. With these constant statements and constant threats of additional costs, I want to assure you that the optimism which was expressed by the Premier last summer regarding the steel mill is fading away very dramatically at this time.

He's talking about a doubling; he's talking about two different prices when he was at the Energy Commission meeting in Ottawa last fall. He talked about $1.35 a thousand cubic feet, and since then he's changed his price. That's the export price I'm talking about which is 105 per cent of the domestic price.

Now he injects another figure. He talks about the Louisiana charge which is $1.10, if I remember correctly — $ 1.10 per 1,000 cubic feet.

AN HON. MEMBER: Some of the bids have gone higher.

MR. CHABOT: If that's going to be the situation — if there's going to be a dramatic increase to industry in British Columbia — I want to assure you that the optimism which you expressed some time

[ Page 892 ]

ago has faded, and it's faded very badly. I really don't think that there is a possibility of getting this steel mill in British Columbia at this time. Alberta's looking at the possibility of establishing a steel industry.

AN HON. MEMBER: A small one.

MR. CHABOT: No, it's not that small; it's fairly massive. They have large deposits of low-grade iron ore in Alberta. I would suggest that the steel industry that will be established in western Canada will go to Alberta because of its attitude towards industry. It's a government that believes in attracting secondary industry to its province. We see in British Columbia a punitive form of taxation, be it on natural gas or be it on minerals as well.

I'm wondering whether the Premier will tell us where it presently stands, whether Hawker-Siddley is coming in, as he expressed when he came back in June of 1973. He said a major announcement on a deal with the government would be made within a few weeks by the Hawker-Siddley group. That's June, 1973. Those few weeks have passed by.

HON. MR. BARRETT: And they have expanded their services.

MR. CHABOT: I'm wondering whether the contracts that the Premier had in Germany have expressed an interest in establishing a steel mill in British Columbia. Or have they rejected their intentions of coming to British Columbia?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, the Hawker-Siddley group did announce a few weeks after my return from Europe an expansion of their facilities at Surrey, and that was my reference.

The question of a steel mill is still uppermost in our minds. It is still government policy to develop a steel mill in the Province of British Columbia. The German contracts were essentially related to technological skills, but the British interest was beyond that. Now, we have not made a decision. We are still studying the matter, and further contracts will be made related to steel mill activities on our visit to Japan. The Japanese are interested as well.

AN HON. MEMBER: I thought that was a soccer game you were going for.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, two days will be on my personal business; for the rest, I'll be on government business. Part of the agenda to Japan will be discussing their interests, initiated in the previous administration, in the possibility of a steel mill in this province.

We have not, I repeat, made up our minds in terms of size, location or involvement, but we are seriously looking at a number of proposals.

I want to also say that NKK, I think it was, in Japan that issued a release, and I'm sorry the Minister's not here.... There was no truth in that release in terms of an impending steel mill.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, the question before us is vote 2, the vote of the Premier. Earlier today, reference was made to the speech yesterday by the Hon. Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams). The quote is:

It is abundantly clear that the main issue is that those marketing boards have to be changed. Change should be in order to see there is some justice, both for the people who want to get into production in this province and those who want to consume the commodities they're producing.

Those are the final words of the speech of the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources. This is given as the reason for the meeting in the Premier's office some 18 months ago. And yet, as the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams), the agricultural critic of our party, pointed out, we have not seen those changes. We have not seen any substantial change, all of which was within the government's power by way of a proper order-in-council. None of that has been done.

The meeting that took place, according to the affidavits filed, dealt with other subjects. Let's go through the affidavit of Mr. Brunsdon — the one that I believe, as I have stated previously, to be true. He lists his name, and he points out how long he was on the Egg Marketing Board, and talks about the fact that he met in the office of the Hon. David Barrett on October 26, He lists the people there.

But the first substantive paragraph of the affidavit is this one:

"(4) THAT I was personally aware on the day of the said meeting that a court action had earlier been commenced by the said marketing board against S. Kovachich for recovery of marketing board charges from Mr. Kovachich in the approximate amount of $21,000.

"(5) THAT at the meeting aforesaid, I was informed by Mr. Barrett in the following words that: 'There will be no court case against Sy Kovachich,' or similar words to the same effect.

"(6) THAT I was further informed by Mr. Barrett that: 'The charges against Kovachich must be substantially reduced and if these charges are not reduced you will break him,' or similar words to the same effect."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would point out to the Hon. Member that these particular quotes have been read into the record a number of times. I would say that it's tending to become repetitious.

[ Page 893 ]

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: They may be repetitious, Mr. Chairman, but unfortunately replies to questions on this subject tend to ignore the critical and important position of Mr. Sy Kovachich in this whole case before us.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. My problem is not to determine what the Hon. Members should say, but simply that they should avoid repeating things....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Sure, Mr. Chairman, and I understand that on the 67th time you'll probably tell me that I've gone too far. I understand we have precedents in this House on repetition in committee.

"(6) THAT I was further informed by Mr. Barrett that: 'The charges against Kovachich must be substantially reduced and if these charges are not reduced you will break him.'

"(7) THAT the board then and there asked Mr. Barrett if his order was a precedent that would apply to other B.C. egg producers.

"(8) THAT Mr. Barrett then and there informed me in the following words that: 'No, just this one instance. If any other producers get out of line, step on them,' or similar words to the same effect.

"(9) THAT I was further informed by Mr. Barrett that the said marketing board was to forthwith draft an agreement to reduce charges against Mr. Kovachich and that the Premier added in the following words: 'It has to be done today. Is there an office they can use?', or similar words to the same effect."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I cautioned the Member that he was tending to become repetitious because these same points have been read into the record a number of times. I would ask him to discontinue reading them into the record.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Well, Mr. Chairman, before you ruled me out of order, I had read getting on for half of this affidavit — a little more than a third of it. Every single paragraph dealt with Sy Kovachich, and that is the important issue to bear in mind, Mr. Chairman.

Who was Sy Kovachich? He was a man who was producing eggs in the northern part of the province. He was a man who the board itself had levied charges against — regular charges that all other producers in the province must pay. And if Kovachich doesn't pay them, others must pay more to make up the costs of the marketing board.

This is not the case of a government reducing the taxes of a citizen. This is the case of the Premier having the charge against Kovachich reduced, which increases the charge upon every other member of the board, and that is very important to bear in mind.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That agreement was made between two lawyers.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Why did Sy Kovachich get this special deal? Why would they ask whether this was a precedent? Why in this affidavit did it say that there was to be no precedent? "No," said Mr. Barrett, "just in this one instance. If other producers get out of line, step on them." Why was that said?

Well, it's pretty clear. Kovachich was a supporter of the Hon. Member for Fort George (Mr. Nunweiler). He had influence. He had special influence. He had the ability to have the Premier of the province step in between him and a legally constituted board and for political reasons — partisan, political reasons — reduce the charges against him.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member whether he's imputing an improper motive either to the Premier or to the Member for Fort George.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I can only answer that by continuing. I have stated flatly, as a fact, that this man was called in for this purpose and this was the reason that he got special treatment.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I'm asking the Hon. Member whether he is imputing an improper motive to a Member of this House, which is contrary to the standing orders.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, if you don't know that I've made such an imputation, how come you ask?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I would ask the Hon. Member then to withdraw the imputation.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: I will in no way withdraw the imputation that Sy Kovachich was given a special deal because he's a supporter of that man sitting there!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to withdraw. I would order him to withdraw!

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Chairman, I have no intention of withdrawing something that is so blatantly obvious from an affidavit that I have read to you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, the Member

[ Page 894 ]

is talking about an agreement that was arrived between two lawyers, and he's deliberately attempting to misinterpret that and somehow leave the influence and cheap politics that something was going on.

I demand that he withdraw it. It's a calculated manoeuvre; there was no one out in the hallway before you spoke in this House.

Members of the press gallery knew exactly what you were going to do this afternoon. They knew what the strategy was going to be. I was informed....

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: You are again lying to this House.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BARRETT: There it is. There it is!

Interjections.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Would the Hon. Members be seated?

There is a report, I understand, from committee.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to report that in the full committee the Hon. Second Member for Victoria was on his feet speaking, and he made an imputation of influence peddling to the Premier and to the Member for Fort George (Mr. Nunweiler). I asked the Member to withdraw the imputation. He refused. I ordered him to withdraw. He refused again.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

The Hon. Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson), on the basis of the report from the Chairman, is he prepared to withdraw the statement he made in committee?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I did not use the words used by the Chairman, which was influence peddling, but it accurately describes the statement I made, which was that Sy Kovachich got a special deal because of his relationship with the NDP.

MR. SPEAKER: Is the Hon. Member prepared to withdraw that imputation?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, I have no intention of withdrawing that imputation.

MR. SPEAKER: I have the duty, as you know, and all Members know, of asking you — and I've asked you. I now have to order you to withdraw the statement. Is the Hon. Member prepared, upon order of the Chair, and upholding the authority of the Chair, to withdraw the statement?

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: I want to point out to the Hon. Members.... The Hon. Member has a point of order?

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, in the exchange I clearly heard, along with the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips), the Member for Fort George (Mr. Nunweiler) call the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) a liar. I think that should be included in the discussion in this House.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, there is one question.

MR. BENNETT: I think the questions should be dealt with simultaneously.

MR. SPEAKER: I agree with you, if I get a report from committee. Now, as you know, matters of privilege must be taken up at the time, not later.

MR. BENNETT: I tried to stand, Mr. Speaker, but he was reporting to you.

MR. SPEAKER: Oh, no, excuse me. I had come back to the chair and I'm listening to a report from committee. If you have some matter that happened in committee, it must be taken up in committee, then the chairman reports to the Speaker what has happened, or transpired. I know nothing of what happens in committee. Therefore, it follows that if there is some matter of another word of heat being exchanged during committee, it should be raised when we go back to committee. Then the chairman will report it back, if necessary, to the Speaker. But we must do things in an orderly fashion.

MR. BENNETT: The only question is, Mr. Speaker, the Second Member for Victoria might not be here to accept the apology. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: Well, I'll tell you what I'm prepared to do. I'm prepared to leave the chair, and have the House go back in committee, and then if there's any further report I'll deal with the matter at the same time. I think that's fair. Mr. Chairman.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Dent in

[ Page 895 ]

the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The committee will come to order. What is your point of order?

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, in the heated exchange in which discussion was on the floor between the Second Member for Victoria and the Chair, I distinctly heard, along with other Members, the Hon. Member for Fort George call the Second Member for Victoria a liar. I think this should be treated at the same time as the other accusation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. I heard a number of things while we were in committee.

I would ask the Hon. Member for Fort George if he would stand in his place and indicate whether he called the Hon. Second Member for Victoria a liar.

MR. A.A. NUNWEILER (Fort George): Mr. Chairman, I did not call the Hon. Member a liar. I said simply that that's a vicious lie, if that's what I heard that he said. If you care, Mr. Chairman, I will withdraw that statement. But I would say that it simply is not true.

MR. CHAIRMAN: He has withdrawn the statement.

MR. BENNETT: Well, Mr. Chairman, that's not a complete withdrawal. He said that it wasn't true.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Order! It is not unparliamentary to say that a statement is not true. It is unparliamentary to call a person a liar or to say that that person lied.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think the Hon. Members will observe that it is a rule that is set out in our precedents of authority, particularly May, Parliamentary Practice, that when any matter of privilege arises, whether it be a libel or an insult on one Member or another occurring in the chamber, a matter of privilege of that kind must be taken up at the moment it happens, and it must be the first matter to be discussed with the Chair. It cannot wait to a later date or a later time. It must be taken up when it happens.

Last fall the Hon. Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) took up a matter when it happened, when a dispute arose between himself and the Hon. Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan). It was dealt with immediately, at that time. But we've been faced in the last few days by the conduct of the Hon. Second Member for Victoria, who did not take up, at the time last week that he should have, the question of privilege between himself and the Premier. Consequently, he is too late to continue his course of conduct in the manner he is doing.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Please, I want to discuss this because it is a serious matter of how we conduct parliament in this province. Therefore, it follows that since this is the highest court, in a sense, that reviews our conduct, it is important that we follow these rules which have been established for centuries. There is a way of dealing with this matter, but it does not include continual defiance of the Chair or the authority and dignity of this chamber. I call upon the Hon. Second Member for Victoria, since he has failed to do what he should have done in the first place, I call upon him now to withdraw his aspersion against another Hon. Member of the House.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, there is no way that I can withdraw that statement. I believe it to be a true statement.

MR. SPEAKER: Then I must say, with all regret, that when you assert a question of privilege and do not do it in a proper fashion at the time you should do it, you are out of court so far as your right to sit here is concerned, and I must again ask you to leave for the rest of the sitting.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What a big surprise.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Mr. Chairman, would you take the chair?

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

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

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I don't know whether the Premier was pleased or disappointed to see the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson) leave the chamber for the second time for the crime of telling the truth.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, oh!

MR. McGEER: That was his transgression — and sticking by the truth.

[ Page 896 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member whether he, also, is imputing an improper motive to the Premier and to the Member for Fort George (Mr. Nunweiler)?

MR. McGEER: I'm only stating a simple fact, and that is that the Second Member for Victoria is telling the truth. Is that out of order? I would hope it isn't out of order to say that somebody is telling the truth in this chamber, Mr. Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Let it go, let it go!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Let them go, it's straight smear.

MR. McGEER: Surely that would be a mockery of parliament.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): It's an attempt to destroy this place. Go ahead, destroy it.

MR. McGEER: I think if there's any destruction, Mr. Chairman, it would be on the part of the Premier, the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan), other members of the cabinet, and the backbenchers of the New Democratic Party, because affidavits...

AN HON. MEMBER: Vilification.

MR. McGEER: ...sworn by citizens of British Columbia have been placed before the public, and as the Speaker has just told us, this is the highest court in the province; the affidavits challenged the highest office in the province. We have appealed for alternatives to hear this matter. Failing that, we have appealed to the Premier to answer the kinds of questions he would be forced to answer if there were a judicial inquiry.

It is very clear that the Members who sit in this House are not all equal, because when it came to charges laid by the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) and the government felt it had some defence, they moved with a swiftness that was astonishing. Similarly when the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) laid some charges in this House they were dealt with with swiftness.

But when it came to the Premier, that was a different matter altogether. If there's to be an inquiry of the Premier, only the Premier can order that inquiry. The Premier is in a conflict-of-interest position; he has to set up a trial of himself. He's unwilling to do it. I think all of us can understand his unwillingness.

If right were on his side he would have no difficulty at all in establishing his position. The Premier is a superb orator; he could have demolished his accusers in a matter of minutes. But he groans. Yes, he's got something to groan about, Mr. Chairman.

We have no choice but to keep asking the questions here because there is no other place where they can be asked; there's no alternative. We understand that a Minister who is asked questions is not obliged to answer them, Mr. Chairman. But I can tell you this: we're obliged to continue asking them.

No one understands better how to get headlines than the Premier. No one understands better how to ask the same question again and again and again. He holds the record: 67 times.

The Premier is a master of public relations. Never had anybody who is his equal in British Columbia history. Never! When the heats on, he's out usually getting his picture on the front page of the paper. He's miffed because the Second Member for Victoria (Mr. D.A. Anderson), leader of the Liberal Party, succeeded in that for telling the truth. I think when the Premier was thrown out of the chamber for asking a question 67 times, when he was Leader of the Opposition, he was right too and he had my support on that occasion. Mr. Chairman, regretfully, he doesn't have my support now.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nobody has!

MR. McGEER: The Premier has been asked by nearly every Member of the opposition to refute or deny or agree with the individual points raised in four affidavits. I ask the question once more: did the Premier say to Mr. Brunsdon and the other members of the Egg Marketing Board,"If you breathe a word of this outside my office, I will deny every word I said "? Did the Premier — yes or no — say that to Mr. Brunsdon?

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a few words that I'd like to say in this debate. I've sat by and listened with a great deal of interest for the last seven days. But one of the most interesting parts of this whole debate as far as I'm concerned was the little speech the Premier of this province made in the dying hours of the debate yesterday afternoon; one of the weakest, lowest, slithering defences of his own position that I've ever heard by any Premier or by any Member of this House.

He accused then, and again this afternoon, the opposition parties of playing cheap politics strictly because they are doing their job for the taxpayers of British Columbia. He said he had discussed with his other cohorts when they were in opposition that they might be attacked. He said they were being attacked because they were socialists.

Mr. Chairman, this government is being attacked because it is the government and because the government has not done right by the people of

[ Page 897 ]

British Columbia and because there is doubt in British Columbia about the integrity of the government and about the competency of the government. That's what this debate is all about. If, because we stand in this Legislature doing our job as the official opposition, we are going to be branded as cheap politicians, it's a new low as far as I am concerned.

I brought several matters to the floor of this Legislature two weeks ago yesterday afternoon. I put a motion on the order paper to have a royal commission inquiry into certain trading dealings that this government has entered into. I endeavoured to have my motion debated. What action did the government take? They brought in a motion to have me censured before a committee of this House. That motion was to be called a week ago last Tuesday and now that motion supposedly is hanging over my head as a threat. Why? To keep me quiet? The Premier this afternoon said that this matter would not be further discussed because there was going to be documents and more evidence introduced outside of this Legislature. This has absolutely no bearing on whether I misused the privileges of this Legislature or not.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Will the Hon. Member confine his remarks to vote 2?

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, let me inform you right here and now that you have allowed this debate to range from politics and accused secret meetings to every other thing in this House. I have no intention....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would you state your point of order.

HON. MR. LEA: Yes. I think the Member should be more accurate than that. You weren't even in the chair when I was speaking about secret meetings.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I can only speak on which I have knowledge. I would request that all Members confine their debate remarks to vote 2.

Interjection.

HON. MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I would like to have the Member for Columbia River withdraw his remark that I'm a dummy. I think he's looking in a mirror. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! As I asked the Hon. Member for Fort George (Mr. Nunweiler), did the Hon. Member say that the Minister of Highways was a dummy?

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm not the Member for Fort George, and he was talking about the Member for Columbia River. You're mixed up.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm addressing myself to the Hon. Member for South Peace River. Did he refer to the Minister of Highways as a dummy?

MR. PHILLIPS: No, I didn't, but I should have maybe, after that speech this afternoon. I'd be remiss in my duties if I don't.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm satisfied. Would the Hon. Member proceed with his remarks?

MR. PHILLIPS: There is a great deal of doubt floating around British Columbia. I think the Premier or the Minister of Education, who was the Deputy Premier at the time, should call this motion or withdraw it off the order paper.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I pointed out that the Hon. Member should confine his remarks to vote 2 and I would state that any discussion of motions on the order paper is out of order. I would ask him to confine his remarks to vote 2, to the administrative responsibilities of the Premier.

MR. PHILLIPS: We're discussing the salary vote of the Leader of the government, and it is the Leader of the government who has the right to take this House out of committee and to discuss motions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order.

MR. PHILLIPS: So, Mr. Chairman, even though he has seen fit to leave the House at the present time and not listen to the debate.... Are you trying to send me a message?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, I would say again to the Member that any reference to motions on the order paper during this debate would be out of order in that they are procedural motions and have nothing to do with the business of the House. I would ask him to confine himself to the administrative responsibilities of the Premier.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, when the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) stood on the floor of this Legislature yesterday afternoon and severely attacked the press of this province, the news media, hotline shows, radio announcers, press reporters, TV people — I don't think he missed anybody — I wonder what that had to do with the administrative ability of the Premier of this province. But was he stopped? — absolutely not.

Maybe it's because he is Minister of Transport and Communications and he wants to take over the entire

[ Page 898 ]

communications of this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. When a point of order is to be made, it should be made at the time.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm not making a point of order. I'm merely pointing out to you the latitude you have given the debate in this Legislature.

It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that sometimes — and I hate to say this — you are very unfair to some of the backbenchers in the official opposition. Do you have to be a cabinet Minister in this Legislature to be able to speak on any subject you want to speak on?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member proceed with his remarks under vote 2?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, you know, Mr. Chairman, this is the second time that you have done this to me. When I was speaking not very long ago in this Legislature and I changed my remarks you drew me to order — after the Premier of this province had given a 15-minute dialogue on the very same subject. I'm getting sick and tired, every time I stand in this Legislature, of being brought to order for things that you allow other people to do.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Chair ruled the Premier out of order just a short time ago. I think that the Chair is fair, and I would ask the Hon. Member to continue.

AN HON. MEMBER: Put an X on the wall.

HON. MR. LEA: What do you want to sign?

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I wonder what would happen if the Minister of Transport and Communications had his way to free speech in this province? It would disappear entirely.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Oh, stop talking nonsense.

MR. PHILLIPS: It would disappear entirely.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: You talk nonsense.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm not talking nonsense; you said it yesterday afternoon. You severely attacked the press, severely attacked the news media....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, would the Hon. Member confine his remarks to vote 2?

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not good enough.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Point of order. That Member must withdraw the statement that if I had my way I'd do away with the press. I demand you withdraw it immediately, because I would do no such thing. That's a terrible accusation against any Member in this House. I demand you withdraw it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member if he imputed an improper motive to the Minister of Transport.

AN HON. MEMBER: You bet your life you would.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, you wouldn't do away with it. You'd take it over.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, I ask the Hon. Member....

MR. PHILLIPS: You would. You've got the power now under the Transport and Communications bill.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Mr. Chairman, I have no such authority. That Member knows it, and I demand he withdraw that statement — right now.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's smoked out.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I'm not smoked out. That guy's smoked out. I don't know what he's been smoking but I can tell you....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the Hon. Minister be seated?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I want the Member to withdraw that remark right now. Never at any time have I given any such indication. I wouldn't do it and you know it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Minister be seated?

AN HON. MEMBER: More of your cheap politics.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would repeat my question again to the Hon. Member for South Peace River. Did he mean to impute an improper motive to the Minister of Transport and Communications by his remarks?

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I'll ask you the same: what implication did that Minister of Transport just say when he asked me what I'd been smoking?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

[ Page 899 ]

MR. PHILLIPS: And I ask you to ask him to withdraw that first.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I apologize.

MR. PHILLIPS: All right, I'll withdraw the statement then that you.... (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: A rare display of mutuality. Would the Hon. Member for South Peace River continue his remarks on vote 2?

MR. PHILLIPS: I'll continue my remarks, Mr. Chairman, when the Minister of Finance returns to the chamber.

I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 15

NAYS — 33

MR. PHILLIPS: Now that the Premier's back, Mr. Chairman, I hope he enjoyed his tea.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Coffee.

MR. PHILLIPS: Coffee and tea?

I'd like to ask the Premier the same question that I asked in his absence in the House. Does he feel that documents introduced outside of this Legislature with regard to Dunhill or Colcel will have any bearing on the fact that I misused the privileges of this House when I asked certain questions in the House? I'd like the Premier to answer that question for me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would make the same ruling and that is that any consideration of the motions on the order paper....

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm not talking about motions on the order paper. I'm asking the Premier of this province a question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I would ask the Hon. Member to confine his remarks to the administrative responsibilities of the Premier.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, that is his administrative responsibility, Mr. Chairman, with all due respect to you, Sir. It is his administrative responsibility.

I'd also like to ask the....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! I would rule that the matters that you've raised are relevant to these motions and therefore they are considerations of the motions. Therefore any discussion of them is out of order.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll certainly abide by the Chair's decision in that regard.

I'd like to ask the Minister of Finance and Premier, who these days seems very insecure in his office, if he feels it was cheap politics when the people of this province rose up in arms over the assessment chaos.

I'd like to ask the Premier and Minister of Finance if it's cheap politics when the "love feast" he said he was going to have with business turned out to be just the opposite.

Is it cheap politics when the business community of this province says that they feel insecure due to the policies of the Minister of Finance?

Is it cheap politics that caused a breakdown in his relationships in Ottawa? Is that cheap politics? If so, on the part of whom?

Is it cheap politics that the British Columbia Railway is going to lose money this year? Is that cheap politics?

I know all of these things are weighing heavily on the conscience of the chief administrator of this province. But he calls it cheap politics, because he's concerned himself. He's concerned for his own ability.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm worried as to why you weren't called to those meetings.

MR. PHILLIPS: Is it cheap politics when the mining industry raises up in arms because of legislation that's introduced into this session — a legislative measure that will ruin the small mining companies of this province? Is that cheap politics?

Is it cheap politics when the forest industry is not doing any planning for future development because of the policies of this government? Is that cheap politics?

[ Page 900 ]

Is it cheap politics when the taxpayers of this province want some answers as to whether or not there were irregularities in the purchase of certain companies on the stock market? Is that cheap politics on the part of the taxpayers of British Columbia?

Is it cheap politics when independent boards who are being threatened, or who have been allegedly threatened, by the Premier draw up affidavits to the effect that he did indeed threaten them? Is that cheap politics?

Is it cheap politics when the taxpayers of British Columbia want to look at the log books of the new jet airplanes? Is that cheap politics?

Is it cheap politics when people who are waiting for assistance from this government to develop small industries — assistance which was promised from this government — ask for it? Is that cheap politics?

Is it cheap politics when the boards of education in this province accuse the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) of not being fair?

All of these things and all of these subjects I have mentioned, Mr. Chairman, were not created by the opposition. These problems have been created by the government in power.

For someone to think that the government in power is incompetent to run the business of this province — is that cheap politics? Is that what the Premier of this province was talking about last night in his defensive tear-jerker speech that he made just before the closing of the Legislature.

Would the Premier explain to me if he considers that when the opposition, doing their job for the taxpayers of this province, has to put some pressure on him because he won't give the answers, that is cheap politics?

Maybe the Premier would like to advise us on some of the subjects that I have brought up this afternoon, and advise us if the problems that he has created are still termed cheap politics on his part.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, through you to the Premier, the other day we were discussing the northern development of the B.C. Railway. During that discussion, when we were talking about whether interest would be charged, or whether there would be loans, or whether there would be paid-up capital between the agreement between the CNR and the B.C. Railway, we also touched on another area. of boxcars. The Premier announced that if this was the attitude of the CNR we may have to deal with the CPR.

I'm worried whether we have had discussions with the CPR. I refer back to articles last year where the president of the CPR in a newspaper interview in Vancouver said he couldn't see CP-NDP partnerships as likely.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Which one are you quoting — Sinclair?

MR. BENNETT: Yes. I would question the Premier as to whether he had discussions with other officials of the CPR as to taking over the CNR's position. I don't ask this for any other reason except that all Members in this House are in favour of the B.C. Railway as a resource railway. We would hate to see this development in the northwest of our province jeopardized because of a railcar shortage and other problems. I would hope that we haven't painted ourselves into a corner of alienation with the CNR without having made arrangements to talk to the CPR before we did it.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I thank the Member for the very valid question. I did meet with Mr. Sinclair, and he did make those statements to the press. I joshingly referred to them in terms of saying: "Well, he can't roll up the railroad tracks and leave."

The evidence that we have is that the federal government wishes to pursue the agreement in principle that we've signed. That's why the immediate response, which I appreciate and publicly acknowledge from Mr. Marchand. You will recall that I said I do not believe that Mr. Marchand is responsible for this problem. I think the very fact that Mr. Marchand responded by phone call directly to my office, the fact that he's coming Monday — if I may use the euphemism — puts the thing back on the rails again.

As far as co-operation with CPR since that particular exchange, things have improved dramatically.

MR. BENNETT: I'd like to also question the Premier about the fact that the figures of $340 million and $200 million have been discussed. These are figures that are not available to the Members of the House, although we do have the sharing agreement between the federal and provincial governments. We have sharing estimates of 25 per cent and 75 per cent.

Am I to understand that the province under this, for the first time in history, will pay a subsidy towards the CNR and their connection, that the money they pay, which is 25 per cent provincial share on the Terrace connection, will be a provincial subsidy to a CN line?

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, Mr. Member, you are incorrect. Well, the question is one of running rights, in railroad language; it is a question of joint participation. We're not giving up something, nor is the CNR. It is a matter of co-operation between one public railroad and another public railroad. I just don't see the whole question of "it's yours, it's mine," or otherwise; it's a matter of co-operation; it's

[ Page 901 ]

a matter of joint use. The jurisdictional control over sections is a matter to be negotiated.

MR. BENNETT: But it does become a question, because there is a chance, as the Premier suggested, that it might not be another public railroad; it might be the CNR.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Then there would have to be another agreement, obviously.

Let me make this clear. The comment I made about the CPR in co-operation had nothing to do with northern developments or the Clinton-Ashcroft cut-off, When I made the statement that we would seriously have to consider thinking about developing the north alone, as I said last week I was talking about us, the Province of British Columbia, going it alone. Obviously, Mr. Marchand doesn't want this agreement we have signed in principle to falter, and that's why he is coming out. But if it did falter, we would not consider going in with the CPR for that part. What we were talking about was the Clinton-Ashcroft cut-off.

MR. BENNETT: Then another question: if we went it alone, would we have the authority to develop the Port of Prince Rupert on our own?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, we wouldn't have the authority on anything off tidal, as I understand it. In my opinion, without the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) here or the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams), it is my understanding that we would only have authority up until tide water. So the development of the Prince Rupert port would still be a federal matter.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Premier has stated on various occasions in the House that he would table the history of the trading of shares of B.C. Tel and the dates the shares were traded. Would the Minister of Finance table those documents this afternoon?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, Mr. Member, I can read them to you now; I have them in the book. Or would you like me to table them?

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'd like them tabled, but you can read them into the record if you would, Mr. Minister of Finance.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'll table both the Bank of B.C. shares and B.C. Tel shares. I'll have the girl go out and photostat them right now, and then she can distribute them to the House.

MR. PHILLIPS: Would the Premier advise me if there are any new developments in the negotiations with Brascan with regard to the development of the Sukunka coal deposits?

Are there any further negotiations taking place with the British Columbia Railway for the extension?

Are there any further developments with regard to British Columbia Hydro in building the hydro line down in the valley?

Are there any further negotiations or anything happening with the Department of Highways with regard to the highway in that area?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, we had a recent meeting with the Brascan officials. We have set a target date within the next few months to try to come to a final agreement. It is an extremely complex matter. We have said that we are interested in the project. We've been in intensive negotiations and we hope to have a definite answer one way or the other at the latest, I would say, by the end of July of this year. But it is not automatic.

We have made it very clear that it's not a project we feel is an absolute either/or situation. Both Brascan and the government have serious concerns in terms of what kind of partnership, what kind of development, and these are the areas we're having very intensive discussions on.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I thank the Premier for his answer to that.

Would he further advise me if the development of a port facility for the export of this coal is having any serious effect on the negotiations?

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, not at all. At no time has the Minister of Transport, Mr. Marchand, indicated any reticence towards the development of that port. The problems have been the environmental conflict as to the location of the port, exchanges of opinions between this government and Mr. Jack Davis (federal Minister of Environment) as to whether or not X reports were produced or not, the conflict around the Fora Bank or Ridley Island.

This in itself, in terms of the best environmental location, is not going to stop the coal port from being developed. The exact location is a matter of environmental dispute and we want to handle that in the best possible way, including public hearings. But that is not a factor in the Brascan negotiations as they stand at this point.

MR. PHILLIPS: Just one further question, Mr. Chairman. Will the Premier assure me that when this project goes ahead — and I am positive about it by saying "when" — will the original concept of covered coal cars still be in effect? Will the Premier assure me of that?

HON. MR. BARRETT: No question of that, Mr.

[ Page 902 ]

Member, no question of that at all. Hopefully the ideal situation would be the integration of construction of those cars by B.C. Rail itself, which would really maximize B.C. Rail's involvement in the whole project.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, in speaking to the estimates for the Premier's salary, I want to make it clear to the House that over the past several months there has been one thing that has become obvious to the people of British Columbia: it is that this government has been abusing its powers to a very serious degree. Over and over and over again we've heard from the people of British Columbia that they are upset, they are uneasy about these kinds of abuses of power.

The kind of bureaucracy being set up by this government with civil service is growing at a pace the like of which has never been seen in this country before. And it doesn't show any sign of slowing down. Many of these increases in the civil service, Mr. Chairman, are at a very non-productive level. They are not, for instance, in the Health department; they are not public health inspectors. We don't see any new public health inspectors but we do see a lot of new executive assistants. It doesn't seem to me that's the kind of productive addition to the civil service that we need in British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nothing productive!

MR. McCLELLAND: Nothing productive. Premier Barrett himself has now five executive assistants at well over $17,000. The previous Premier (Hon. Mr. Bennett) managed to get along quite nicely with only one for 20 years. Five executive assistants now at over $17,000.

I want to remind the House of some of the statements made some months ago in a column in The Vancouver Sun by Mr. J.V. Clyne, who likened the problems of British Columbia and the growth of bureaucracy to the Watergate situation in the United States. The Watergate situation could never have happened if the control of government hadn't been given away by the elected officials to appoint people who had been appointed probably on the basis of party loyalty or at least party sympathy.

Mr. Chairman, it's when that kind of control gets given away that Watergates can happen. Those people who have been appointed for those kinds of reasons know very well that their jobs only last as long as the government lasts. They have a vested interest in making sure than no kind of scandal ever hits the government, that conflicts of interest are buried, never to come to light.

I'd like to warn the Premier that we are in great danger in British Columbia of seeing the same kind of thing happen because of the rapid expansion of the bureaucracy at the top level. The increases and the advances in our economy are being wasted rather than being used for services to people. We see them being wasted in the expansion of government itself.

Along with the abuses of power that are becoming very clear in this province, we are also seeing too many instances of conflicts of interest developing by this government. Too often it is shrugged away by members of the executive council, just shrugged away.

We've seen it again, of course, in the problems that have developed with the British Columbia Egg Marketing Board and the British Columbia Broiler Marketing Board. Serious conflicts of interest, serious accusations of abuses of power, serious accusations of direct government intervention in the independent boards, serious accusations which haven't been answered by this government, by the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich), by the Premier, by the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) who, in fact, treats the matter so lightly that he hasn't even read the affidavits in question.

In the budget speech, the Premier said this government has been prudent. Well, I take strong exception to that; I think this government has not been prudent but has been wasteful and extravagant. That is a far more accurate description of the actions of this government.

The Premier said earlier that he felt that adequate housing is a basic right. Yet we see this government squandering $6 million to purchase a company which gave us not one new housing unit in British Columbia. Six million dollars would have serviced a lot of residential land. Six million dollars would have created a lot of new housing for people in British Columbia, or at least given a pretty important start to some new housing impetus. Not one new house, not one new suite for an elderly pensioner, came from that $6 million, for a company which demonstrably was worth at least half of the amount, probably even less.

Since this government took office there has only been a 1 per cent increase in housing starts. That's the lowest in 20 years — the lowest in 20 years, Mr. Chairman, by this government, which says that adequate housing is a basic right.

We see the Premier promising the people of British Columbia that there will be no new taxes on individuals, and at the same time we see spiraling land costs in British Columbia, land costs that are reflected in smaller pay cheques for the people who want to get involved in owning a home of their own. Smaller pay cheques mean that somewhere along the line they are getting new taxes.

We see a Premier whose policies, Mr. Chairman, have resulted in spiraling assessment charges throughout this province. That means smaller pay cheques for the people who own their own homes.

[ Page 903 ]

Smaller pay cheques, Mr. Chairman, mean new taxes. We see this government pledging to increase natural gas rates, and in a discriminatory manner at that, whereby the natural gas users in the Interior of this province will be charged more than the natural gas users in the lower mainland of this province. And that means smaller pay cheques for the people of British Columbia. Smaller pay cheques mean new taxes, Mr. Chairman.

We see a government whose policies caused pretty drastic increases in amounts of insurance to automobile owners of this province. That means smaller pay cheques for the workers of this province, and that means new taxes.

Municipalities were given a shocking increase in their per capita rates, and it goes on and on and on and on.

Mr. Chairman, I don't think that this government can be very proud of its record to this date. In any of the major areas of need, whether it be housing, health care, rehabilitation, welfare, education — any of the real areas of need — this government has been a dismal failure.

As he is president of the British Columbia Railway, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to bring a matter to the Premier's attention. I hope that he would see fit to raise this matter with the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) at some future date and get together with him with regard to the terrible state of British Columbia Railway crossings in the municipality of Surrey, and in other areas as well.

In Surrey, there have been some pretty serious accident records over the past few years, particularly in recent years since traffic has been increasing so rapidly. There are 18 crossings in Surrey, which is probably the fastest growing municipality in British Columbia, unprotected by any kind of signals whatsoever. There is no protection for the motorists in that area.

AN HON. MEMBER: Railway crossings?

MR. McCLELLAND: Railway crossings by British Columbia Railway. Most of these crossings for one reason or another are at a very sharp angle, which makes visibility a pretty serious problem. Most of them as well — at least the ones in question — have a high traffic incidence.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's my department.

MR. McCLELLAND: I'm bringing this up to the Premier as the president of the railway because for the last 18 months or so it's been impossible to get any action from the department of commercial transport. I think that the president of the British Columbia Railway should be aware of what's happening with his own railway. That's why I'm bringing it up under the Premier's estimates, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the Member's concern, but these matters must be brought up under the Minister responsible.

MR. McCLELLAND: Are you not the president of the British Columbia Railway?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Minister has indicated that this is a matter under the jurisdiction of another Minister. Therefore I would rule that this matter should be brought up at this time when his estimates are being considered.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Commercial transport has to order them, Mr. Member.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Chairman, I indicated that the municipality of Surrey has been trying to get somewhere with the Department of Transport for a year-and-a-half.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Is it BCR tracks you're talking about?

M R. McCLELLAND: It's British Columbia Railway tracks.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What is the exact location?

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, I have them all here, Mr. Chairman. There are 18 of them.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Would you send them to my office? I'll check back.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, and I'll further ask if I can have a commitment from the Premier that he'll attempt to set up a meeting among the members of the Surrey council and....

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'll get a report and then from the report I'll see what flows. But let me get the report first. I don't recall receiving a letter from you on this issue before.

MR. McCLELLAND: No, I haven't dealt with it before, Mr. Chairman, because Surrey has asked me to intervene on their behalf.

HON. MR. BARRETT: If you write me, I'll look into it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would just point out to the Hon. Member that it is not proper, actually, to ask

[ Page 904 ]

one Minister to advise another as to what to do.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, he's given me his answer, Mr. Chairman, and I'm satisfied with that answer. That's all I have at this time.

MR. FRASER: In the debate on the Premier's office, there has been no mention made of the special funds that are in his care. I refer to the special purpose funds.

I might say that in the budget we are dealing with an amount of $2.2 billion. These special funds don't appear in that total at all. As of December 31, 1973, there were in these special funds $382 million. That's a lot of money, Mr. Chairman, and I have a few things I would like to ask about this $382 million account.

Some of the funds are made up as follows: Agricultural Aid to Development Countries Fund, $5 million; British Columbia Cultural Fund, $15 million; British Columbia Economic Research Fund, $5 million; Drug, Alcohol and Cigarette Education, Prevention and Rehabilitation Fund, $25 million; First Citizens' Fund, $25 million; Physical Fitness and Amateur Sports Fund, $15 million. And so it goes.

I repeat, these funds, as of December 31, 1973 — it's fairly current — have a balance of $382 million. I would like to know from the Premier what is the average interest that these funds are accumulating.

More important, I realize a lot of this money is being granted out. I'll take as an example the First Citizens' Fund. I think almost $2 million flowed out of that fund during 197 3, and that's fine.

The point that I would like to find out from the Premier is when a grant has been made to a deserving organization, and I appreciate the fact.... I get copies of the letters when the grants are made, if there are any grants made in my riding, and I'm sure all the rest of the MLAs get copies. One paragraph in that letter that goes out when the grants are made advises the people receiving it that these funds are subject to audit, and at some future time they could have an audit on how they spent those funds.

Really my question to the Premier, Mr. Chairman, is: have any audits ever taken place for any funds that have come out of these special funds and gone to deserving organizations? I think the odd spot-audits should be made, but I don't believe any of them were made. I'd like to know that.

The Green Belt Protection Fund — I think there's been a change there. I believe it's been turned over to the environment land use secretariat or the B.C. Land Commission. That amount of money is $16 million. I would like to know exactly where this money went and what direction, if any, was given by the fiscal agent, the Premier, as to how they're supposed to spend these funds — to acquire greenbelts or just acquiring anything they feel like acquiring. I'd like to know what's going on there with that money. As I said, I believe it's around $16 million that was turned over to either the B.C. Land Commission or the environment and land use secretariat.

One other fund I'd like to ask about is the Power and Telephone Line Beautification Fund. I think this fund here should have a hard look given to it because it was set up several years ago by the prior administration and it now has $9,955,000 in it. I think it was originally set up about five years ago with $10 million. There are no expenditures shown on the sheet I have in front of me. Not one nickel has been spent in this fund, if I am correct here. Oh, yes a $27,000 expenditure was made in 1973.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like the Premier to comment. What's the matter with this fund? I think you get some poor salesmen in the provincial government here because....

AN HON. MEMBER: It's paid on application.

MR. FRASER: Yes, well, right. It's obvious, Mr. Chairman, you're not getting the applications, and that's really the basis of my question. Do you realize why you're not getting the applications? I think there are a lot of telephone power lines that can be put underground. Well, what's wrong? It must be something wrong with the form here.

So I'll leave those few questions and see if we can get some answers.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Chairman, I don't have the particular information on the last two items. I suggest that on the greenbelt fund you ask the Minister of Lands and Forests (Hon. R.A. Williams). On the beautification fund, you should ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer.)

On the terms of the grants, I've been advised by the Provincial Secretary that on a one-grant basis to societies, they are governed by audit under the Societies Act. But on a renewal of a grant, they must give us last year's audited statement before a renewal is given. I understand that was a practice just carried on from the former administration.

MR. N.R. MORRISON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could ask the Minister of Finance if he would file with the House the stock market purchases up to date of all the funds that have come under his control. I'd like to know if he would also file the brokers that were used for those stock purchase funds.

I would also like to ask if the purchases of stocks were with the Vancouver Stock Exchange exclusively; and if they were not, would he tell us where the funds were spent? Were they spent in the Toronto market, or exactly what stock market was used? I'd like to know which brokers you used out of the

[ Page 905 ]

province; I'm not concerned with the ones within the province.

I'd like also to know if he does have any buy orders in now. I don't know what they are; I just wanted to know if he does have buy orders in. I'd like to know what method he uses to secure privacy for those buy orders, if he has any, and also what method he uses to secure privacy of all stock purchases initiated by his department.

Yesterday the Minister of Finance referred briefly to the tourist train in the Interior of British Columbia. I'd like to ask him about the proposed tourist train here on Vancouver Island — if he could give us a current situation as to what has happened to that. There was a group of people trying to get a tourist train I think somewhere around Six Mile Bridge — in that area. I wonder whether that train will be functioning this year or not.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge of Vancouver Island's tourist train. I'll try and find out for you.

We have no buy orders out. We do look at offers. We have no buy orders out. That way we control the situation from here.

We have dealt with a number of firms. I'm going to file — the Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) reminded me — the details of the Bank of British Columbia shares, purchases, and also the B.C. Telephone shares, if you'd like those now. If I'm permitted to file in Committee, I'll file in Committee. I don't know.

I'm not permitted to file in Committee. I'll do it tonight.

AN HON. MEMBER: What about trust companies?

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, not to my knowledge. We're not going into any trust companies.

The one purchase that is in the air is the shares of Westcoast that El Paso was ordered to divest themselves from. We bought those from Weisner and Company. They're a Toronto office. It was an aggressive approach by that office and that's why the sale was accommodated through there.

The rest lists all of the houses we traded through.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, to the Premier as president of the railway, while we were dealing with tourist trains in the spring session of '73 there was a discussion and the Premier brought up that he, as president of the railway, was investigating ski trains on the BCR and that he would make a further report. I would ask the Premier to advise us now.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, we have the tourist train report. That's the only report I have at this point and it's in it's preliminary stages. We have bought the steam engine. But the ski train would be, as I understand.... My recollection of the report was that the same tourist train that we use during the summer be converted to a ski run in the winter. But I haven't had a final report on that.

MR. BENNETT: Could you use those steam engines for a ski train in the winter?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, that was a hope, but I don't know if they could. I don't know if it has enough power; that's the question.

MR. BENNETT: Further, Mr. Chairman, to the Premier: about the relocation of the tracks at White Rock through the Burlington northern relocation Act; the B.C. Railway has the responsibility on the re-sitting of those tracks. Could the Premier as president advise us?

HON. MR. BARRETT: The Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland) is going to write me on those track problems.

MR. BENNETT: That's in White Rock?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, he's going to list those. You can check with him; and if it's not, you can include it in his letter.

AN HON. MEMBER: There's a copy on file.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Okay. The question was about the relocation. of White Rock. Was that in there as well?

Okay, would you add that too? If you write me on that, I'll get an answer from the railroad on where it's at.

MR. MORRISON: I'm not sure if this is the right point, but I'd like to ask the Minister of Finance if he could give us the current situation on the Forest Museum in Duncan. I'm not sure whether that comes under this department or under someone else's.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Provincial Secretary.

MR. MORRISON: I'll bring it up at a later date.

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, I understand we got off the track here for a while this afternoon. I'd like to ask a question on a completely different subject if I may, Mr. Chairman.

The Hon. Members have heard me many times in the House suggest that the public cannot follow the course of its money through all the expenditures of government. It cannot do so because what takes place

[ Page 906 ]

in the Crown corporations is not subject to a similar kind of public scrutiny as what goes on in departmental spending in government itself.

In my view, a Crown corporation should not be allowed to hide from public view. No corporations in British Columbia are as hidden as are our Crown corporations. I refer particularly to the B.C. Hydro and the B.C. Rail. But there are other corporations now, like the Ocean Falls corporation, that will similarly be hidden from public view unless action is taken by the Premier and Minister of Finance.

I can give some examples. The Ocean Falls Corporation has been exempted from 200 provisions of the Companies Act. Safeguards are provided for shareholders of so-called private corporations who must make their company dealings public. A shareholder can attend an annual meeting of a private corporation. There must be these annual meetings open to shareholders.

There is no annual meeting, as far as I can tell, of the B.C. Railway. I asked the Premier if there was a public meeting last year; he was president, and he didn't know of one. It's required in the Act, but there never is an annual meeting.

There's only one official shareholder; that's the government — and therefore, the Premier. But I believe our Crown corporations should have an annual public meeting where any citizen of British Columbia can attend that meeting and ask direct questions of all the executive officers, including the chairman of the Crown corporations.

I think that should apply to every single one of the corporations that have been purchased by the government — Ocean Falls, Can-Cel, South Dehy Products. I don't need to go all through the list...ICBC particularly.

AN HON. MEMBER: Dunhill.

MR. McGEER: Yes, Dunhill. One day of the year should be set aside for an annual general meeting for all the shareholders — that meaning every single citizen of British Columbia — to attend the meeting, hear the executive officers of the Crown corporation present their annual report and answer questions or any charges that individual citizens might wish to raise, as if they were a shareholder of a private corporation.

The other thing I believe must be done is to have a complete and thorough audit, as done by our Comptroller-General here in Victoria, on the operations of each of these Crown corporations with every voucher of expenditure made by those Crown corporations subject to the same kind of public scrutiny as are the vouchers of the government itself. I intend to introduce an Act which will make this mandatory before this session is over.

But I would like to ask the Premier if he agrees that these things should be done. And if he does agree, will he implement them?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, I find them very interesting concepts. But at the present time all the shares of Crown corporations are held by the government and the annual meeting takes place with the board of directors. There is an opportunity during the estimates to question the various boards of directors of corporations.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm willing to take your suggestions under consideration. But I'm saying there is an opportunity to ask the various Ministers who are on the boards during the estimates.

MR. GARDOM: We're just arguing with you what you argued in opposition.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Look, there appears to be a number of situations where that occurs. (Laughter.)

MR. McGEER: Mr. Chairman, may I pursue this for just a moment or two to cite a number of examples?

The Premier did order an investigation into the B.C. Railway after I repeatedly raised the request to do so from this side of the House. He was generous enough in saying at the time that he revealed practices that were unacceptable in the awarding of contracts. He appreciated the fact that we had raised these questions.

Prior to that time, one whole session almost was devoted to a quasi-public company, Commonwealth Trust, which theoretically was under the closest scrutiny of the government under the Trust Companies Act.

HON. MR. BARRETT: But there appeared to be some neglect of the report, if you will recall. I don't think you can make a parallel case. The Member who sits behind you, as I recall it, brought to the attention of the House that reports had been filed internally and that vigilant scrutiny obviously has not taken place over the reports. If you're making a specific charge....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: They had been filed.

MR. GARDOM: They were never, ever filed.

HON. MR. BARRETT: They were withheld from being filed. That's right. Yes, but the Inspector of Trust Companies who was a government employee

[ Page 907 ]

did make these reports, didn't he?

MR. GARDOM: Oh! yes. He's got to do it....

HON. MR. BARRETT: If you have a specific case where you feel reports on file with the government indicate that there hasn't been.... If you have one right now, I want you to bring it to my attention and I will get a report back on it.

MR. McGEER: I wasn't making a specific charge. Perhaps the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) has more to add on this point.

What I was attempting to illustrate in raising this subject was that that trust company had had an audited statement signed by a recognized firm. Just because we have for our Crown corporations audited statements signed by reputable firms does not in my view come nearly close enough to the standards required for the expenditure of public moneys.

It is impossible for those of us who sit on Public Accounts to do our job in the very limited time we have during the session of the Legislature, in examining how funds are spent, to the point where we can tell the public, yes, that money has been spent properly. There is no way at all. If the public accounts committee submits a report saying that the public accounts are in order, all that really means is that in the very superficial inspection we have been able to give them, we haven't been able to find anything wrong.

Interjection.

MR. McGEER: One of the Members says it may be that you can't even find anything. I'm not suggesting that the records be kept in such a way — and usually it is only the opposition Members who bother to examine vouchers anyway — to make our job easy. The important thing is that for all the government operations — and they're extending now far beyond the confines of the government precincts — we establish rigid accounting methods. And one more thing: we set up an adequate watchdog system so that everybody knows, if it's their responsibility to handle public money, they are going to be watched with the closest possible scrutiny.

It has been one of my objectives for many years in this House to see that this kind of thing was done. The progress that has been made is small. There has been progress, but I'd like to see the Premier announce, if he would, a break-through during this session.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I will take that under consideration. But I would like to pursue the matter on the trust funds. I've been informed that it is and always has been — and I make no editorial comment on this statement — the practice of the Department of Finance to alert the Minister of Finance on any negative report on trust-fund situations. Since I have been Minister of Finance no alert has been brought to my attention. I'm not responsible for anything in the past; I'm talking about right now.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, okay. Well, he went on to Commonwealth. That's where I make this statement here.

The other recommendation of the Member I will take under consideration.

MR. GARDOM: Just to clear this topic up, during the discourse of the Premier and the First Member for Vancouver–Point Grey, what I was referring to is the fact that you can now have, by the Inspector of Trust Companies, a report in the House indicating that a trust company has been suspended.

I asked a question about that a few days ago and you said you would take it as, notice I'm sure I'll get the information from you. It's known as the Western Pacific Trust Company. I'm referring to the report of the Inspector of Trust Companies which you circulated, Mr. Premier. I'm sorry, you didn't circulate it; you filed it in this House, dated January 31. I think it would be of interest for us to know why this particular trust company was suspended. Is it still suspended today?

I would like to not only associate but very much support and enforce the remarks of my colleague. The point that we've been missing in British Columbia constantly insofar as Crown corporations are concerned — and now with the government intervention into the private sector — is that there is not an opportunity for examination of error.

An annual report, Mr. Premier, as you are well aware, gives a balance sheet. The thing balances. Sure it's going to balance. There are going to be deficits and there are going to be overruns and there are going to be contracts improperly attended to or too much money spent. All sorts of things. There could even be thefts, and you can still end up with a balance sheet that will balance because it records some misadventure in the thing. But it doesn't refer to it with any degree of particularity at all.

This was the unfortunate situation and the grossly unfortunate situation with Commonwealth Trust Company. There was a balance sheet and a shortage in the trust funds of $600,000 and no explanation of that fact,

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

It's not enough just to have the balance sheet. Balance sheets have got to be supported by auditor's

[ Page 908 ]

footnotes explaining discrepancies. Which did happen, I will say, in the material you filed...was it last session or the one before, dealing with B.C. Rail? That's the first time there has been really any explanation of a public body put into this House. I would find it personally very difficult to accept that there are not problems of judgment, problems of contracts not being performed as they should be in all of our Crown corporations. That knowledge has been denied consistently to the general public and it is still denied. It's not possible to acquire that information via the public accounts committee.

That's why I very strongly feel that there should be the safeguards that have been indicated by my colleagues, and also by myself and other Members of the House before.

Further, we certainly should have, without transgressing upon a bill that is before the Legislature now and introduced by myself, an auditor-general — somebody who would be an independent watchdog of government expenditures and would be able to report directly to this Legislature; someone totally without political influence; someone totally independent of the political process to say, if there's trouble,"Boys, this is it. There have been problems — it's time they were rectified."

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: Maxwell Henderson, as the Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) mentions, is a most useful vehicle, in my view, in the democratic process, which is becoming far, far more complicated than it ever was.

At one time I would tend to think that the staffing that the provincial government has, and the methods that it is now following, were quite satisfactory, but that goes back to horse and buggy days and we're now running an enormous amount of money here. We've got a greatly increased population, and everything we're doing is more complicated, more interwoven, yet the information is scantier — and that's wrong.

Now I'd like to refer you, Mr. Premier, to another topic. During the last election your party stated very categorically that the central problem facing the cities today is their chronic inability to pay for the services people need. You emphasized that and that was one of the strongest points in your platform, but unfortunately, Mr. Premier, the central problem that is facing our cities today is your chronic inability to remember what you said in your own platform and do something effective about it.

I'd like to refer to the per capita grants. I'm not going to transgress upon the bill, because the bill is so insignificant it's barely worth talking about.

I'll just give you some comparative years. In 1970 the per capita grant was $30, and the provincial revenues then were $1,165 million. In 1972 the provincial revenues increased 48 per cent. They went up to $1,722 million, and all you did for the municipalities and the cities was increase their per capita grant by $2, so you had a 6.65 per cent increase. And you've got your $2 bill here today.

From 1970 to 1974 you're talking about a 13 per cent increase. But, Mr. Premier, your provincial revenues have increased, from 1970, from $1,165 million to $2,177 million — they're up 90 per cent! Provincial revenues are up 90 per cent and your per capita grants to municipalities and cities are up only 13 per cent in this four-year period.

What you're doing — if I can pronounce this correctly — is Ebenezering the municipalities. If you prefer the old word, you're Scrooging the cities, because that is happening — make no mistake of it. Their costs are just going up, up, up and away, and it's totally out of proportion to the provincial costs.

There's a lot of solid fact behind this. There was a very good report filed and it was the Plunkett report, which was pretty well ignored by the former administration. It laid it down very, very clearly — the Plunkett report of 1971 — and it was a real indictment against the provincial government of British Columbia.

The indictment is just as strong today as it was then, and it said this: "The provincial government is avoiding its constitutional responsibilities to the municipalities." Those are very strong words and very true words, and I think they've been gypped of receiving their fair share of provincial revenues.

We all know today that about two-thirds of our population is urban. By the year 2000 every estimate is that nine out of 10 people are going to live in the cities, Yet the cities are still receiving a workhouse approach to the revenues that they receive.

So once again, Mr. Premier, I'm going to ask you to have a complete revision and a total reform of the municipal/provincial taxation formula — and include the federal side in there, too. Here is what I would suggest that you do....

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's partly and hopefully what's going to come out of the committee on assessments, Mr. Member. You are talking about bills that are on the order paper.

MR. GARDOM: Oh, no. I have no intention of talking about some of your fine bills, or even about some of the ones that aren't that good. I don't wish to do that.

I'm afraid this is not going to come out of the assessment committee because it's a bigger problem than that. One of the greatest problems we have in Canada today is dealing with the disposition of the tax dollar, and you know that as well as I do. We have three levels of competing governments.

[ Page 909 ]

Personally, I think we are grossly over governed in this country. We have three levels of government competing for the taxpayer's dollar, yet there is never a continuing fact-finding process — call it what you will — a commission whereby the ills can be attended to constantly. I would think it would be a feather in your bonnet, if nothing else, that you establish as the policy at least of this government that you would welcome to have a continuing never-ending commission to equate, rationalize and report its findings and conclusions, and have members on that from the municipal side, the provincial side, and the federal side, because the abuses I'm talking about are just not ending.

Next, I would commend you, Mr. Premier, to make available a better supply of money for municipal needs. To do that I would say that you have got to guarantee 100 per cent of the municipal bonds — all of it.

Another thing — and there's no reason why you can't do this yourself. You don't have to look to the federal government to do this. Provide income tax relief. This would create a source of money for our municipalities, and they need it. As I've illustrated to you, their revenues on per capita grants have just increased 13 per cent in four years, and your revenues have increased 90 per cent. The horse race is going the wrong way for them. So in order to at least provide a vehicle whereby they can go ahead and look to a better money supply, provide income tax relief to individuals for the interest that they would receive from municipal bonds.

This has been tried. It's been tested and it's worked very well in certain of the states in the United States. I believe California is one. Maybe the Premier is better aware of the history of success of this topic than I am, but it's a great idea. Why don't we do it? Just give me one single, solitary reason why we couldn't incorporate that here.

Now another point. I think you've got to ensure that municipalities and the cities receive full taxes on all provincial government properties and on all provincial government operations, including the Crown corporations. Once again, you are transgressing more into the field where we used to find it in the private sector. You are more visible in the municipalities in the cities than ever before as a government, and you're not pulling your weight. It's just that simple.

Look at Vancouver. I'm going to give you some specific figures here. This is a great example of Vancouver being — with apologies to Dickens — Scrooged.

Look at B.C. Hydro. It does not pay hospital purposes property tax. Now, by virtue of its exemption from that, that is costing the City of Vancouver $35,000 a year.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The City of Vancouver is happy this year.

MR. GARDOM: Oh, just let me finish now — let me finish this. Hydro does not pay the general purposes tax on equipment on city streets. That amounts to $143,000.

HON. MR. BARRETT: They get a grant.

MR. GARDOM: Just let me finish. I'm going to come to your grants, too.

Hydro does not pay business tax. B.C. Electric used to pay $220,000 business tax. That's what the City of Vancouver is losing on that. Penalties for late payments of taxes. Everybody has to pay their taxes at the beginning of July. Hydro doesn't; it pays at the end of November. A similar penalty in the private sector would amount to $33,000.

Look at B.C. Railroad. No taxes, eh? — $24,300 to the City of Vancouver alone. It doesn't pay school purposes, which are $8,100. It doesn't pay general purposes, which would be $10,000. It doesn't pay hospital purposes, which would be, say, $200. It doesn't pay business tax of $7,000. So B.C. Rail is not paying $24,300 worth of its way.

Now, the Liquor Control Board. It doesn't pay any business tax. If it paid business tax to the City of Vancouver it would be assessed $60,000 — that's a lot of money.

What about ICBC? Are you going to suggest to me that private insurance companies didn't pay property tax, didn't pay business tax, didn't pay these other taxes I'm talking about? Of course they did. ICBC will be depriving the City of Vancouver, roughly, of $30,000 worth of tax this year.

Now those figures that I've mentioned: Hydro, $35,000; $143,000; $220,000; $33,000; B.C. Rail, $24,300; Liquor Control Board, $60,000; ICBC, — it totals over half-a-million dollars there alone.

Now even worse than that, provincial properties, which are being used, Mr. Premier, for purely provincial functions, say, as opposed to Crown Corporations, pay grants in lieu of taxes. You were making quite a point of this a few moments ago. But they only pay grants in lieu of taxes up to 50 per cent, not 100 per cent. So you're Scrooging there too.

And of the general purposes, property tax, they don't pay any grants at all in lieu of school or hospital property taxes. So they just pay 50 per cent of the general purposes tax and no grant at all in lieu of hospital or property taxes.

You know, Mr. Premier, from an economic point of view, the provincial government is a bad neighbour in the City of Vancouver — it definitely is. It certainly is a worse neighbour from a tax and revenue point of view in the City of Vancouver than is the

[ Page 910 ]

federal government, because it pays pretty well all real property taxes, as you know.

Now, Mr. Premier, it seems to me that the City of Vancouver has always been the best tax cow that British Columbia has ever had, and we still continue to see that it's not receiving its fair share of provincial revenues.

Motor vehicle user taxes, according to your budget, come in at about $132 million, and Vancouver has some very, very desperate transit needs. There's a bill on the order paper, but that's not restricted to the City of Vancouver; that's a provincial transit fund so is Vancouver going to be left out there? There was $27 million set aside by a former government for a bridge.

HON. MR. BARRETT: We'll have the debate when the bill comes up.

MR. GARDOM: I'm talking about the City of Vancouver. I'm not talking about your transit fund for the province, which is the bill. I'm talking about the City of Vancouver.

The $27 million that was set aside for the bridge would be worth about $40 million today, Mr. Chairman, if interest had been given to that fund, if the interest had accrued on it.

Where did the interest go? What happened to it? Did it disappear? Or wasn't it in an interest-bearing fund; and if it wasn't, shouldn't it have been? What's happened to all of that?

Now of the $132 million that you're collecting from motor vehicle user taxes, I don't think that it would be an unfair formula to suggest, by virtue of the recognition of your statement,"The central problem facing our cities is their chronic inability to pay for the services people need"..... When I say your statement, it's the statement of the New Democratic Party in their election material. In order to do something at least to ameliorate this chronic problem, of which probably the greatest single one is going to be transit — and there still ain't no dough for that — you should go ahead and set aside one half of those motor vehicle user taxes this year, and I'd say a similar amount next year, so at least a fund can develop.

Vancouver has been planning transit left, right and centre. You know, I think it has over planned, but it hasn't had any money. You can plan till hell freezes over but it's got to be able to feel that it's got a source of funds, and it does not have that source of funds today. I would repeat that you have a chronic inability to remember that the central problem facing our cities today is their chronic inability to pay for the services that their people need.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the Member fighting for his constituency and laying out his case. When he states the per capita grants, he neglects to mention that we've made substantial moves this year in other areas. We've cut the welfare costs. Don't shake your head, Mr. Member; you fought for that. Don't you want to take a little bit of credit for that?

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You don't want it changed? It's changed. Okay, then you cut costs on the courts. You want the world changed overnight and it's not going to happen that way.

We also eliminated tax concessions to some of the smaller communities where industry has been established under tax havens. We also took over all responsibility for raising capital for schools and hospitals.

We've made a number of very significant moves this year to help the municipalities, and guess what? They've still got problems. We intend to make some more moves, but we're not going to solve all their problems.

MR. GARDOM: They've got the population concentration.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, we appreciate that, Mr. Member. We appreciate that far more than the previous administration. We've made the moves and the direction is clear. In terms of the specifics of transit, I would ask that you raise that with the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer). If we go into all the specifics of programmes through the finance door, I'd have to answer for every Minister. On the specifics of transit, he has the transit section and I would ask you to refer your questions to him.

Look, the points you raise are valid. But we're not in a position to change everything overnight, and I don't know how much work we're going to be able to get done at the rate we're going now.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to support the general remarks that the Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) made about municipalities, and make, I hope, one or two constructive suggestions to the Premier in that regard.

I have here a publication of the Department of Urban Affairs of Manitoba, the number for last June, 1973, in which they report, I think, a very progressive move in the matter of municipal finance. Manitoba pays a much lower unconditional per capita grant than we do in British Columbia, buy they've now decided to tie these grants directly to the growth in total provincial personal and corporate income tax.

That, to me, is one useful way of being able to transfer to the cities in an unconditional way, so that

[ Page 911 ]

local representatives can be responsible for the disposition of these funds, a rate of growth in municipal resources to meet the duties they have. That's said in a general way.

I'd like to ask, through you, Mr. Chairman, a question to the Premier, in his capacity of president of the British Columbia Railway, on this matter of the payment of taxes by the railway to local authorities.

The British Columbia Railway, I am told by officials of the district of North Vancouver, should pay something like $250,000 of taxes to the district of North Vancouver if it paid taxes like any other corporate citizen. And $250,000 is a very significant share of the budget of the district of North Vancouver.

I would ask the Premier if he would take that into account very seriously when he is thinking of the financial planning for the coming year, and see what he can do about removing this inequity which impinges particularly heavily on my constituency insofar as the British Columbia Railway payment of taxes goes.

I would think that under this general vote of the estimates of the Premier we would be considering, among other things, his general superintendency of the activities of his Ministers. In this regard I welcome very much the words of the Premier the other day to the effect that the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Nimsick) would be available to interested groups to discuss matters relating to Bill 31.

I don't want to discuss Bill 31 at this point because we can't under the rules of the House. But people in the public are discussing Bill 3 I to a great extent. I want to ask the Premier if, commensurate with his statement that the Minister will be available to interested groups ... I'd like to draw to his attention again this very large meeting in Vancouver on Monday, where there's....

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I want to correct the Member. I did not say the Minister would be available to interested groups. I said he'd be meeting with the B.C.-Yukon Chamber of Mines with the cabinet next week. That's my statement. Now where he chooses to go beyond that is, of course, up to him. But we are meeting with the leaders of the industry next week.

MR. GIBSON: Well, let me carry on and describe this meeting in any case, because it is a large meeting.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I suggest that it is not under my estimates. That's the Minister of Mines, and where he goes for his meetings is not under my estimates. Now we've ranged all over the ballpark. I would like you to stick to my estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the point was well taken. I hope the Member will recognize this. You are speaking to vote 2, which has nothing to do with the Minister of Mines.

MR. GIBSON: Well, I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. I was coming back to the statement of the Premier that the Minister would be meeting with members of the mining industry, and there are 1,500 members of the mining industry getting together in Vancouver on Monday.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, that's my statement. Now beyond that you are into his area. I think we are going to get to his estimates this year. (Laughter.)

MR. GIBSON: I was trying to make a constructive suggestion to the Premier as a politician, through you, Mr. Chairman, that this was a meeting that it would be a good place to be at. Let me just....

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): I'm the one to decide that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Member should continue his speech but the reference to the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources comes up under his estimates. If you continue on that basis you are going to be out of order.

MR. GIBSON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It seems to me that the rules of relevancy are now being much more narrowly enforced than they were earlier on in this debate. But perhaps it would be proper to refer to the Premier's assignment of responsibility of Indian affairs within the cabinet. I take it that the assignment of the responsibilities in the cabinet are things which come under the proper powers of the Premier.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Look, I've assigned things to all kinds of cabinet Ministers. I can't discuss their estimates because I've assigned a task to them, surely.

MR. GIBSON: But surely the Premier can discuss the fact that he has made an assignment of the particular matter of Indian affairs to a particular Minister. The Hon. Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder) the other day in his talk, I thought, made the very good point that the Indian people in his representation were....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think your point is well taken, Mr. Premier. You are kind of making a budget speech; you're not dealing with vote 2, and I think you've got to stick to that. Deal with the Premier's vote.

[ Page 912 ]

MR. GIBSON: But surely, Mr. Chairman, the fact that the Premier assigned duties to Ministers....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Then you question those Ministers.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's why you can discuss it in their estimates. I'm not responsible for their estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I'm not discussing....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will you make your remarks to vote 2?

MR. GIBSON: So I will, and I'm not discussing the duties of the particular Minister, Mr. Chairman. I'm discussing the fact that the Premier has chosen to assign a specific responsibility for Indian affairs to a specific Minister.

I was echoing and reinforcing the words of the Hon. Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder) the other day that it might be a better thing if the Indian people could feel that they had the ability to deal with each of the departments of government without having to go through a special responsibility.

Now that seems to me a proper thing to discuss under the Premier's votes.

On this further question of Indian affairs, the Premier and Minister of Finance is certainly responsible for the question of the general policy of the government in the payment of land claims, and, under the head of federal-provincial relations, in the negotiations with the federal government in the matter of land claims.

I would ask him if he could at this time give any report to the House as to his feeling on this subject and the extent to which the province is now prepared to work with the federal government and the Indian people in the negotiation of these land claims, and the funds that he, as Minister of Finance, might project will be needful as these negotiations go along.

Those are the major specific matters I would raise right now, Mr. Chairman.

I would ask the Premier to react to a suggestion I made earlier in this session concerning the usefulness of the publication of an annual economic report on the general shape of the economy of British Columbia. Certainly this would be useful to Members of this House, not only in analyzing the budget, but all of the other activities of the government. I believe it would be useful to citizens of the province generally as well.

I would ask him also, in view of the fact that the share of the tax take — the share of gross provincial product, provincial revenues — apparently has increased this year by something like I per cent, does the Premier have a view as to what is about the right percentage of the gross provincial product that governments should take and dispose off Are we about right at the moment? Does he anticipate this going much higher in successive years? As I say, it apparently went up I per cent this year. Those are the major questions that I have at this point, Mr. Chairman.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's not so much a question, but a suggestion of a concept. It's a very interesting concept, but I don't have a specific response to it at this point.

I'm sorry I haven't had a whips' report. Is there an arrangement between whips at all? Could you let me know about this evening? If the whips could instruct me, I would know what's going on.

MR. PHILLIPS: I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for recognizing me, and I realize that sometimes it's very difficult for you to see. I offer my glasses to you sometime.

I would like to ask the....

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm sorry; to enable us to continue the business, a form of a motion must be presented at this time because of a previous motion. So if the Member would give way, I will move the motion.

I move that the Chairman do leave the chair. And after moving this, I hope the motion is defeated.

Motion negatived.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I ask you to carry on.

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I would like to discuss the subsidy to rural electrification. I'd point out to the Premier, Minister of Finance, that the formula presently in existence is way out of whack with the times.

The reason I say that, Mr. Chairman, is that most of the areas that have come within the present formula now have rural electrification. It's the areas that couldn't come under the existing formula that are experiencing the difficulties.

Not only that....

MR. CHAIRMAN: You're in order; you can continue.

MR. PHILLIPS: The Premier seems pretty busy, and this is a pretty important.... What's that? What's that, Mr. Provincial Secretary?

[ Page 913 ]

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

Leave granted.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Leave granted.

Hon. Mr. Cocke files the answer to question 27.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I would like leave at this time to table two documents relating to the details of the Bank of British Columbia share purchases, and details of the B.C. Telephone stock purchase.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'd ask leave of the House to move motion 19.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I move motion 19, standing in my name on the order paper, seconded by the Hon. Leader of the Opposition.

MR. SPEAKER: The motion before the House, motion 19, moved by the Premier, seconded by the Leader of the Opposition, is

"That the Legislative Assembly unanimously honours by these presents Willard Ernest Ireland, BA, MA, LLD, upon his retirement, for 34 years of loyal and distinguished service to the Legislative Assembly, its Members, and the public generally, as Provincial Librarian and Archivist.

"The said Assembly wishes him continuing enjoyment of his well-earned leisure and further useful contribution to the public life of British Columbia in the years to come."

MR. SPEAKER: Is there any debate?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that the House is invited to a party in honour of Mr. Ireland. At that time we will have the opportunity of sharing with him far more intimately than this present situation allows our appreciation for his many, many years of service.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I move the House do now adjourn.

MR. SPEAKER: I think we have a motion on the floor.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Okay. (Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: I would like to call upon the Leader of the Opposition as well.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, the occasion tonight is the motion honouring Mr. Ireland. It gives us a great deal of pleasure to second this motion because we realize that not only has he made history come alive in B.C., which could have been a very dull subject, but more than that, during B.C.'s many centennials Mr. Ireland was available as an after-dinner speaker on many occasions. Those who know him know how much it used to bother him to speak, but he did it as a duty to history and to British Columbia. We feel proud to second this motion.

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to record the support of the Liberal Party to this motion and add some personal congratulations and gratitude to our retiring archivist. I do this because he's made a particular study of medical men in the B.C. Legislature I'm told that he's the "humerus" historian of the province and I want to be very careful of what I say.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Ireland has been the banker of B.C.'s history, and future generations are going to be even more grateful than we are for the 34 years he has put in collecting memorabilia about B.C. As a member of the public accounts committee, I always thought it ironic that he would appear before us for permission to destroy documents. We assisted him by passing that motion regularly.

He has done for British Columbia over these years what he would not do for himself, and this is to work tirelessly to help British Columbia and future British Columbians to enjoy their own province.

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure to speak on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party to this motion and to say how happy we are to see Mr. Ireland and Mrs. Ireland present in the House. This is a rare honour, I realize, one that is reserved for very special people. Certainly Mr. and Mrs. Ireland are in that category.

I, on more than one occasion, have been involved in arrangements for some kind of an event where the question has been asked all round,"Who is the outstanding speaker we can get?" — particularly in instances where visitors have come from other parts of Canada to British Columbia. On many occasions the answer has been unanimously, Willard Ireland.

I am delighted to see him here. He is one individual who, because of the nature of his work,

[ Page 914 ]

will not be forgotten after his retirement.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Mr. Speaker, I suppose, being the dean of this House, having been here longer than all these Johnny-come-latelys (Laughter) that I can have a word to say on behalf of Willard Ireland.

MR. SPEAKER: I notice you know how to use the mike now. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. NIMSICK: Well, it takes a long time to change old habits. I was here in the days when there was no mike — and Willard knows that well. He could still hear me speak.

But I want to say how much I've appreciated Willard Ireland. I'm sure that what has been said here is true and what he has done will be a great service to our children and children's children to come in the years after we're gone. I hope he doesn't do as I did: take a pension and then get a job where he's working harder than ever. That's exactly what I did. I hope he enjoys his retirement and I hope he continues to leave something for the future of British Columbia in his retirement.

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, as Mr. Ireland's departmental boss for just a short time, I think I should perhaps say something on this occasion. I have already been to a couple of functions as Willard retires. I can't remember all my French tenses and verbs, but it seems to me that Willard is "in the process of" retiring. The Premiertoo has been at those occasions and has paid his tributes to the service of Willard Ernest Ireland.

Because Willard is an archivist, perhaps we should make sure that the record does state exactly what happened on this day. I think I should perhaps tell the House that Willard was born in Vancouver in 1914. He was educated in various schools in British Columbia, so he's an archivist of the province born in the province. I suppose in some ways that's part of B.C.'s history, as so many, many people in B.C. did come from elsewhere.

He matriculated from Victoria High School, graduated from the University of British Columbia in 1933 with first-class honours in history, followed by teacher training and MA degree at the University of Toronto, and won the Alexander Mackenzie Research Fellowship for the succeeding years.

In 1937 he did research work in London, England and Washington, D.C. He taught school, Madam Minister of Education, in South Burnaby High School and was appointed the Provincial Archivist in 1940.

From 1942 to 1945 he served with the Royal Canadian Air Force and, upon his return to British Columbia in 1946, he was appointed the Provincial Librarian and Archivist.

An office holder in various historical and library associations and past-president of the B.C. Library Association, the Canada Library Association and a past-president of the B.C. Historical Association, Willard also served a term as regional vice-president of the American Association for State and Local History. He's been a councilor of the Canadian Historical Association, a member of the Canadian Social Science Research Council and, from 1956 to 1959, served, as we all remember, as the honorary secretary of the British Columbia Centennial Committee. Along with his old colleague, Mr. Wallace, my Deputy, he shares a rivalry as being Mr. Centennial.

Also in 1961, other areas recognized the value of Mr. Ireland and he was loaned by the provincial government to the federal Royal Commission on Government Organization. In 1964 to 1968 he was the honorary secretary of the Canadian Confederation Centennial Committee of British Columbia. He was the recipient of the Canadian Centennial Medal in 1967 and served two terms as elected member of the Senate of the University of British Columbia.

Again, he involved himself in centennial affairs in 1971. He's also a member of the Restoration Advisory Committee of Barkerville, Fort Steele Foundation, the B.C. Archaeological Sites Advisory Board for Fort St. James Restoration Advisory Board, which is a federal-provincial body. The chairman of the Board of Governors, University of Victoria, and honorary LLD of Simon Fraser University in May, 1971.

Mr. Speaker, after presentation which will be made by the Premier shortly, there will be another presentation. We've already seen some gifts by staff of the Provincial Secretary and his many, many friends in the public service who gathered just a couple of weeks ago to say bon voyage and happy retirement to the Irelands. I may also say, just as a friendly note, that I have seen more of Willard since he started on the retirement path than I saw in previous time. Only this week we were at a meeting of Heritage Canada here in Victoria. Willard, I'm sure, is going to be working even harder for matters historical and matters of heritage than he did when he was fully active.

I want to add my voice and wish him and his charming wife well in the future. Thank you very much.

MR. SPEAKER: Before putting the motion, I'd like to break precedent just to say that I want to assure Willard Ireland that most of the books I used to hide under my desk have been returned to the library. (Laughter.) I also want to say to all those people who wondered whether he had a firm grip on his job that when I was a mewling infant of a few

[ Page 915 ]

months, he used to push me around in a baby carriage in Kamloops, and I'm glad he had a firm grip on his job then. (Laughter.)

Motion approved unanimously.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, with your permission I would like to hand to Mr. Ireland a document commemorating this historic motion, with the very best wishes of all Hon. Members to him and to his wife. For the 10,000th time, just one more.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, may I say before we adjourn that there will be a short ceremony in the rotunda of the library, followed by a reception in the Ned DeBeck lounge and after that a dinner, to which Hon. Members have been invited, in the parliamentary restaurant, in honour of this signal occasion.

Hon. Mr. Barrett moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.