[ Page 861 ]

CONTENTS

Statement

Speaker's knowledge of committee debate. Mr. Speaker — 861

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: Premier's estimates. On vote 2.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 861

Mr. Gardom — 867

Mr. Wallace — 869

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 873

Mr. Fraser — 876

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 879

Mrs. Jordan — 882

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 884

Mrs. Jordan — 885

THURSDAY, MARCH 20, 1975

House met at 8:30 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, at the adjournment hour a question was raised about statements made by the Speaker when the Committee of the Whole House is sitting and has not risen but nonetheless takes an appeal to the House. There are three interesting cases on this, one by Mr. Speaker Manson in the Journals, found in our second volume of Speakers' Decisions, where he gives some advice to the committee which hasn't risen but still is in its appeal to the House. After giving that advice, he says:

"Without, therefore, going further than to remind the House that not only discussions but proposed amendments in committees must be strictly germane, I shall submit to the House the question: shall the Chairman be sustained?"

He then puts the question, and the Chairman was sustained."

That report indicates — and he goes into detail, I won't take your time up with that — about how you can ask some direction from the Speaker when you call him back to the chair to take a vote on the ruling of the Chairman. As you know, in those cases, the Committee of the Whole House does not rise. Nonetheless, as soon as the Speaker takes the chair, he is taking appeal to the House without the Committee of the Whole House having risen.

It seems strange, and I understand why some Members would be puzzled with this, but it has been traditional for many years.

Again, in another case in the same volume at page 11:

"...a point of order having risen in Committee of Supply as to whether a Chairman should entertain by way of amendment a motion to strike out a proposed vote to a certain supply. The Chairman having ruled that the proposed amendment, being a direct negative, could not be entertained, an appeal was taken to the Speaker.

"Mr. Speaker Manson, having resumed the chair, drew attention to the fact that an appeal from the Chairman of committee was to the House and not to the Speaker. The Speaker could only advise." Advise.

"Mr. Speaker referred to May, 12th edition, page 481 et seq., dealing with amendments to resolutions for supply, and pointed out that at no place, insofar as he was able to ascertain, was it suggested that a motion by way of a direct negative might be properly entertained. On the question being put, the Chairman was sustained."

There again, you had some advice from the Speaker when he resumed the chair.

Then again, Mr. Speaker Paulin did the same thing. You find that in the Journals, at page 11, second volume of Speakers' Decisions — and I won't go into all the detail except to say that he gave a great deal of advice to the House so they could go back into Committee of the Whole House without having any formality or motion to deal with the question. There again he put the question: shall the Chair be sustained?

Now I think that I've made it clear that the House has no knowledge of what went on in committee, but the Speaker does. Now is this entirely clear to everyone, including the Hon. Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) who came in halfway through? Now may we proceed?

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: PREMIER'S OFFICE
(continued)

On vote 2: Premier's office, $286,290.

Mr. D.A. Anderson (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, earlier this afternoon you told me that I was unable to ask for an apology because that would be imputing that someone had somehow done something wrong. I quite agree with your interpretation. I wonder how you're going to call Members to order and issue apologies across the floor. But as we are not allowed to ask for apologies, I will accept that ruling that you made.

What I will do, Mr. Chairman, in the light of that ruling, is simply refer to information never brought before this House before, transcripts from the proceedings of the trial of December 16 and 18, and simply leave these for consideration of all Members. I'm quite sure that when all Members consider them, some Members, or at least one Member, might want to jump to his feet and apologize. But that is not a request from me; I will leave it entirely up to him.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please! I would ask the Hon. Member, when he makes his remarks, to relate his remarks to the administrative responsibility of the Premier.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Yes. Well, this all deals with the general issue of credibility of government and the right of the Premier to interfere with boards and other bodies established by statute, and other things. I would just like, Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned to you, to refer you to testimony of Mr. Edmond Morgan, a witness called on behalf of the plaintiff in the British Columbia Egg Marketing Board

[ Page 862 ]

versus Veeken's Poultry Farm Ltd. and other people.

On page 2, it says:

"The board was advised by the Premier that the suit with Mr. Kovachich was to be settled out of court, that he was to be given certain amounts of permit or quota to satisfy the claims made by him."

On page 3, in answer to a question, Mr. Morgan says:

"The board met the Premier, I think, on October 26 of 1972 in his office. The other people, all the five...I beg your pardon, four members of the board were there out of five. I was there — Mr. Gilchrist, the marketing commissioner; Mr. Pope, the poultry commissioner; Mr. King was the Deputy Minister; Mr. Peterson, Deputy Minister of Agriculture; the Minister himself and the Premier, of course."

On page 4, Mr. Morgan stated:

"Yes, I was present. Yes, I was there. Yes. The main topic was that the court — the board should settle with Mr. Kovachich and comes to terms with him, settle the differences between the board and Mr. Kovachich which were due for action in court, to settle this out of court." Mr. Morgan was cross-examined. He went on to say, in reply to a question, that the Minister of Agriculture, as he recalled, said something to the effect that the Premier wished that to be, and that the Minister has since said words to that effect — that the interior producers would expand their local market demands."

This question was asked:

"In the past it has always been the board's policy to comply with statements to this effect emanating out of the office of the Minister of Agriculture and in some way affecting board policy. Is that not correct?"

Mr. Morgan's answer was:

"Yes, sir. We — the board has made every effort to comply with the Minister's directions, but he has not been most approachable in discussing ways and means in which they can be implemented without too great a disturbance to direction of board policy."

Q. "Well, the board acts on the recommendations of the Minister of Agriculture and the Premier?"

A. "Yes, it does. May I correct that to say, on the direction of the Premier?"

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Mr. D.A. Anderson: There is a question later on page 8:

Q. "Now the Minister of Agriculture told you, I presume, from what you have already said, just what the Premier had told him to attempt to implement board policy."

A. "To come to an arrangement with Kovachich so that the case would not go to the courts and Kovachich would be issued permits up to the amount of 200 cases, subject to certain conditions."

Mr. Chairman, that is, as I mentioned earlier from the testimony of Mr. Edmond Morgan on oath in the British Columbia Supreme Court.

Another witness whom I have not referred to is one Nicholas Cornelius Peter Samson. This was on December 18. Mr. Samson was a witness called on behalf of the defendants.

One of the first questions on page 3 is this — the questioner was Mr. Kenkins:

Q. "Did you have a conversation with someone at that meeting, and, if so, whom?"

A. "I didn't have. I listened most of the time and listened to what Mr. Barrett had to say. Mr. Barrett explained quite directly, initially, that he directed us producers in the north, myself and Mr. Kovachich, and he (that's the Premier) had said that he had already directed the board to settle the matter out of court....

Another quote from Mr. Samson:

"I think Mr. Link asked Mr. Barrett a question and just before the end of the meeting. I asked Mr. Barrett again...."

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I would ask the....

Mr. D.A. Anderson: It continues:

"Mr. Barrett turned around, pointed his finger at Mr. Stupich who was sitting behind a desk...."

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to relate his quotations or whatever it is that he is saying to the administrative responsibilities of the Premier.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: It is clear that the Premier feels there is some responsibility for the egg board and he has made certain statements in this House. This material is new, never before brought to this House — indeed, it has only recently been typed up from the court recording. I believe it is relevant. As I mentioned earlier, it is not for me to draw conclusions. It might be for you, as a person who attended one of those meetings, to draw conclusions. You, indeed, might want to volunteer your own information.

To continue:

"Mr. Barrett turned around, pointed his finger at Mr. Stupich, who was sitting behind the desk of Mr. Barrett, in Mr. Barrett's desk chair, and said, 'His head will roll or come off it he

[ Page 863 ]

doesn't do as I say,' and that was pretty well the end of the meeting at that time."

You bet it was the end of the meeting. That might explain why the Minister of Agriculture has had amnesia, both in the Legislature and in court. He had a choice of losing his memory or losing his head, and he chose to lose his memory.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I believe the Hon. Member now is....

Mr. Bennett: That is selective amnesia.

Mr. Chairman: I would ask the Hon. Member to relate his readings to the administrative responsibilities of the Premier.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Chairman, the relevance is this: we are discussing the credibility of office, the interference from the Premier's office to a theoretically more or less autonomous body, and whether or not there was interference, and whether or not certain affidavits and the statements made about them in this House would lead some Members, perhaps, to reconsider the position they took last year.

Mr. Chairman: I would ask the Hon. Member if he is suggesting wrongdoing on the part either of the Premier or the Minister of Agriculture.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Absolutely not. The only person raising the wrongdoing issue is yourself. But you were at the meeting and you might know. I don't. I was not at the meeting.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh! You were there!

Mr. D.A. Anderson: On page 11 of the Samson testimony, and I am quoting again:

"To start from the very beginning, Mr. McLatchie and Mr. Kovachich were called in prior to our entry into the Premier's room."

You will know how that corresponds with Mr. Kovachich's testimony which I read earlier.

"The Premier opened the door and he says: 'I'd like to talk first to Mr. McLatchie and Mr. Kovachich. Can you please wait, gentlemen? "

Then I will skip a paragraph or two and come back to where they came in:

"The Premier came up to me after he made some remarks and laid his arms around me and patted me on the back and he said: 'Arnold' — that's my first name — 'yesterday was one of my best political days, or my days in politics.'"

I quote again this quotation from the Premier via Mr. Samson:

"I chewed the ass off these people from the Egg Marketing Board."

Some Hon. Members: Ohhhh!

Mr. A.V. Fraser (Cariboo): Terrible!

Mr. D.A. Anderson: It continues:

"And then, of course, he turned around and I told him in a certain way or" — listen to this — " I ordered him to implement the, how do you call this, representations which in the meantime he had given us, to order him to implement them."

Now later on, after further questioning, the witness says again:

"Sorry, I forgot one thing. First of all, when he came in he said: 'Yesterday I had a meeting with the....

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I've listened to the Hon. Member now for a period of time and the only conclusion I can draw from the reading of this material is that he is indirectly attempting to make some kind of charge against either the Premier or the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich).

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Absolutely not. No, sir. I'm just raising evidence, never before mentioned, which the Premier has had no opportunity to consider up to now — none — because this testimony is court testimony and it's only been typed up in the last few days. Anyway, the Premier....

Mr. Chairman: Order. I would ask the Hon. Member this question again. I would ask you if you're not then suggesting any impropriety on the part of any Member of this House.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: No, sir. As I said earlier, Mr. Chairman, the impropriety has only been suggested by yourself so far.

Interjections.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Again, he is referring to the Premier, and he said:

"He [the Premier] "'was very lively, walking around and making the gestures with his hands, and he said, 'I order him,' and he pointed, and it is to him, and he pointed to Mr. Stupich who was sitting behind the desk — and I must say Mr. Stupich never said something. He never answered, even, or made a remark. 'It is him who has to implement or bring these representations into effect, and when you can't get results out of him you come to me.'

"So we had firmly the impression that this was an order given by the Premier as to the

[ Page 864 ]

effect that we would have all the chances to improve our markets."

Et cetera.

Interjection.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: No, the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) probably gets it so often that he was quite unable to remember. Now that standards have sunk somewhat he is not in such danger, but he still seems to be a man of very poor memory.

Now, Mr. Chairman, you will recall that last year, on page 479 of Hansard, the Premier said: "I told no one to draft an agreement." On page 510 on February 26, 1974, he said: "I've had conversations with many people but I recall distinctly in this issue, which is a very emotional one, that I made no order or did not order any solution."

Hon. D. Barrett (Premier): That's what I just said.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: On March 4, page 753, he said: "I did not order them to do anything. I suggested that this kind of fighting had to stop."

Mr. G.H. Anderson (Kamloops): The judge agreed with that.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: We're going to come to the judge....

An Hon. Member: Here come de judge.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Chairman, the argument has been made all along that somehow, because the judge stated there was no legal agreement, there were no such instructions to the board. I would refer someone who is heckling me now, who does not feel it is up to him to apologize, to the affidavits of Mr. Unger and Mr. Brunsdon where they said that — and I would like to make sure I get the exact words here — where they said on page 13 of the Unger declaration: "If you don't toe the line, I'll make a law to cover it."

Right from the very beginning in the Premier's office everybody knew that it could not be a legal agreement, and that was the whole purpose of those threats both to the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) and to the egg board and to those other people who were present. So this whole question about there could not be a legally binding decision...

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: ...of course, is fallacious because it's never been suggested that there was, right from the very first affidavits.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Again I would ask the Hon. Member if he is suggesting any impropriety on the part of the Premier.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: No, I am not suggesting any impropriety.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Mr. D.A. Anderson: I've done that before, but I have been corrected by you. Therefore, I am simply putting forward testimony which the judge accepted — the judge accepted — as being accurate when he stated on page 6 of the judgment, and let me read it again: "At the trial Mr. Stupich did not recall the direction of Mr. Barrett in the terms in which it was stated by the defendants. I accept the testimony of the defendants that it occurred as described by them."

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Mr. D.A. Anderson: That's the point at issue. I have given you some evidence, Mr. Chairman — and please do not take notes from the government benches directing you how to act as Chairman — I have given you, Mr. Chairman, some information as to what the testimony was that the judge accepted.

I've given you the testimony and I've contrasted it with statements made in this House. On your instructions, I am not suggesting that an apology should obviously follow. That's not going to be for me tonight. I tried it earlier but you stopped me.

What I am saying is that given the new evidence, given the acceptance by the judge of this evidence as factually accurate, there is an opportunity for yourself, among others, as a person who was there in that meeting, to come forward.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: You and others, as there were other people there as well.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I think the proper way to refer to an Hon. Member is in the third person, rather than....

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Right, The Chair, among others, will want to come forward and make clear what their understanding was and where they feel the right lies with respect to two people who made affidavits which were later denied. I'm leaving it entirely up to you — up to the Premier, the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) and the other

[ Page 865 ]

Members of the back bench. Oh, he's gone — the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis). He was there, too.

Interjections.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Right, he was there. I'm saying that it's up to you people who had knowledge of that meeting, who were present at it, who have allowed this matter to go on for a full year, in the light of the new testimony, to come forward and make a clean breast of it.

The judge agreed with the people whose quotations I read out — the plaintiffs whose quotations I read out. The information of Brunsdon and Unger, the two people who swore affidavits, is totally corroborated by Mr. Morgan's statement to that court.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. It would appear to me that the Hon. Member is identifying himself with the remarks he is reading. Therefore it would seem that in some way he's suggesting impropriety on the part of the Premier or of other Hon. Members,.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Chairman, I hope it will never happen again in this House that you will make a statement that it is wrong to identify yourself with a judgment of a British Columbia Supreme Court judge. I think that that has to be a questionable decision from the Chair. I would suggest that you reconsider that, because I see no reason in the world why I should not identify myself with a decision of a judge of the British Columbia Supreme Court.

He examined the witnesses, he heard the cross-examination, he heard the testimony and he came to certain conclusions. The conclusion: to support the affidavits which were tabled in this House. It is my responsibility in an effort to protect two citizens, who otherwise have no other recourse — no other recourse whatsoever — of having their names cleared, to bring these facts to your attention, Mr. Chairman, and the attention of other Hon. Members who have special knowledge and who could, indeed, clear their names.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member whether he is suggesting that the remarks he is quoting by the various individuals that he's quoting suggest or imply wrongdoing on the part of any Member.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Chairman, you keep asking me that. I accept your judgment earlier in the day that it was not up to me to do that and that I could not do that. I couldn't even ask for an apology, let alone start pointing the finger of blame. So tonight all I have done is this: I have put forward information — new information never before in this House, never before, indeed, heard outside a courtroom, because it was the transcript of the court trail that I quoted from today — which I think puts a new light, a very compelling light, on certain actions that took place last year and certain statements that were made last year. If you think that this constitutes accusation, you might know; you were there. But in my mind it's not. I wasn't there, and I don't know what took place at those meetings, you did.

I can only take the decision of the judge. I can only take his professional competence in analyzing what witnesses say, hearing cross-examination and coming to a judgment accordingly as being factual.

Mr. Chairman, you have suggested that perhaps I should not accept the word of a judge, and I should not accept his judgment. That's fair enough; you're entitled to suggest that.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. This was not the statement of the Chair. The Chair was simply asking whether you were identifying with the remarks and construing them in such a way as to suggest wrongdoing on the part of the Premier or any other Member.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: You keep on making these interpretations, Mr. Chairman, which you've forbidden me to make, so how can I follow your lead?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The purpose of asking....

Mr. D.A. Anderson: If I follow your lead, you'll rule me out of order.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please! The purpose of asking these is so that the rules of the House may be enforced. As the Hon. Member knows, you may not do indirectly what is forbidden directly to be done. If the intention is to suggest or imply wrongdoing on the part of a Minister, then the correct procedure is to do it by substantive motion.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Yes, we went into all of that this afternoon. That's why I listened. I pondered on what you said. I spent a long time scratching my head and thinking of the wise words from the Chair. That's why when I came back this evening I told you I was accepting your decision of this afternoon. Please don't change it, because I've accepted it and I've made no suggestion of wrongdoing. I have not suggested — as I did this afternoon — that certain apologies are owed. I simply suggested that after hearing this testimony perhaps apologies will automatically be forthcoming — just spontaneously.

Mr. Chairman, back to the point I had when you interrupted me. It may be, Mr. Chairman, that the

[ Page 866 ]

judge is wrong. It may be that the Attorney-General, that devout pursuer of justice, thinks that somehow or another the affidavits are still inaccurate, and thinks that somehow or another the information in the trial and the testimony in the trail was therefore false, and somehow thinks that the judge came to the wrong decision.

If that's the case, if indeed the judge is wrong, well then, surely it's up to him to make sure that justice is done and this decision is overturned. I wonder whether or not we're going to see that from the Attorney-General. I mentioned this afternoon that his job is justice. He's not simply a legal gunslinger for the government cabinet Ministers. He's not there as an advocate for them if they are going to be slander suits or libel suits against the Premier. We don't expect the Attorney-General to defend him; that's not his job. He's responsible for justice in this province, not defending his colleagues.

I hope that before the time his estimates come forward he will have an opportunity to look at this and make up his mind as to whether he's going to insist upon justice — justice for Unger and Brunsdon — or whether he's going to go ahead and insist that this judgment be overturned. He can't have it both ways. There's just no way in the light of the testimony which the judge accepted and in the light of the testimony which backs up those two affidavits.

Now, on the question that was raised earlier, it was said in the judge's decision, quite rightly, that there was no agreement of legal consequence as a result of the meeting in the Premier's office. And I only refer you, once more, Mr. Chairman, to the fact that in the affidavit it was stated flatly that there was no question of a legally binding agreement, because they said in those affidavits, quoting the Premier: "If you don't toe the line, I'll make a law to cover it."

Even at the very, very beginning there was no question that there was a legally binding agreement entered into. It was strictly muscle; it was strictly chewing them out — or, to use the Premier's descriptive words, "chewing their ass off." It was strictly turning to the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) and telling him his head would roll if he didn't do as he was told. That's when he got the amnesia which affected his brain.

It's this area which is simply being forward as a red herring. If you check the judge's statement, if you check the original affidavits, you realize that defence falls to the ground.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The Hon. Member has considerable latitude. I would ask him if the remarks that he's made in regard to the Premier's conduct constitute misconduct or impropriety. I feel that if the Hon. Member is suggesting this, then he should do this by substantive motion.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Well, I find it awfully difficult to follow your reasoning, because I tried this afternoon....

Mr. Chairman: Order, please! The reasoning is perfectly simple. I'm asking the Hon. Member whether he is suggesting wrongdoing on the part of the Premier.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Well, Mr. Chairman, if you....

Mr. Chairman: Yes or no? And if he is, then he should do it by substantive motion.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: I am making no suggestions except reading this testimony. That's what I'm doing. Now, if you want to draw from that certain logical conclusions, I would give you full marks for mental agility. But to ask me to charge anyone with something which you told me I cannot do is an obvious invitation for you to force me to sit down. And I'm not going to fall into that proposal of yours, if you don't mind, Mr. Chairman.

The fact is here that these statements of the witnesses in the court case the statement of the judge who accepted them, and the statements in the affidavit of William Henry Lawrence Brunsdon and John Unger all coincide. And that's the point that I leave with you, which may leave you, Mr. Chairman, and other Members scratching your heads and trying to realize what they should do, trying to develop some policy for themselves in the future as to what might be done for two men who, I believe, have been wronged.

Let me just refresh your memory on the affidavits, Mr. Chairman. The Brunsdon affidavit, paragraph 5:

"That at the meeting aforesaid (the meeting on October 26, which Mr. Morgan talked of too), 'There will be no court case against Sy Kovachich,' said the Premier, or similar words to the same effect."

And paragraph 6:

"That I was further informed by Mr. Barrett the the charges against Kovachich must be substantially reduced and, if those charges are not reduced, he will break him, or similar words to the same effect."

On paragraph 9:

"I was further informed by Mr. Barrett that the said marketing board was to forthwith draft an agreement for reduced charges against Mr. Kovachich, and that the Premier added in the following words: 'It has to be done today. Is there an office that they can use?'"

Paragraph 13 I've read to you.

Paragraph 15 — fascinating:

"I was informed by the Premier in the

[ Page 867 ]

following words: 'If anything is said outside this office I will deny every word I said.' Or similar words to that effect."

Now that's one area where apparently there has been absolutely letter perfect adherence to a commitment, because that's what we've had ever since. However, when you look at the new material brought forward by the judge, when you look at the witnesses' statements on cross-examination, the picture becomes clear. You, yourself, attended one of those meetings.

Mr. Chairman: I just caution the Hon. Member that he's in the home stretch.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: I'm in the green? Well, I will then shortly resume my seat. But I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, that many people feel that there are standards which transcend political loyalties, and one is to the test of fairness and honour towards people who have no recourse to the courts, who cannot get their names cleared in any way whatsoever unless by people such as Members of this Legislative Assembly getting up and saying: Yes, I heard certain things. Yes, certain things are right and certain things are wrong.

They can do it. They have the opportunity. If they have the moral fortitude to do it, well, I'm sure that the Province of British Columbia and the people of British Columbia would applaud them for doing it.

Mr. Chairman: Before the Hon. Member resumes his seat, I would just ask the question again: does the Hon. Member...? I take it, on the integrity of the Hon. Member, that he is not in any way implying any wrongdoing on the part of the Premier or any other Member of this House.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: I don't know how often I have to repeat it to you. I have my views that wrongdoing has been committed and that wrong has been done to two citizens of British Columbia who have no recourse to the courts.

Mr. Chairman: Then the Hon. Member is implying wrongdoing on the part of a Member.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: You asked me for my views, not what I have said up to now.

Mr. Chairman: I have asked the Hon. Member a number of times to tell this House whether or not he is implying any wrongdoing on the part of any Member.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: I am not implying it....

Mr. Chairman: You have told the Chair of this House that he is not implying any wrongdoing. I'm accepting the word of the Hon. Member.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Well, Mr. Chairman, you're constantly hooked up on this problem. I have not implied this, but if you want my personal opinion.... Is it okay? Do you want my personal opinion? I say wrongdoing has occurred. I said it before and....

Mr. Chairman: Then the Hon. Member has been violating the rules of the House and should have been doing this by a substantive motion. Will the Hon. Member be seated?

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Absolutely not. You cannot suggest that my personal views, which I have not put forward up to now, have bearing upon reading out a judicial decision. And you can't do that and get away with it, and you know it full well.

Why are you acting as a defence counsel, Mr. Chairman? You should not be doing that.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Your job is to enforce the rules and not to come up here as defence counsel.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The Chair is seeking to enforce the rules of the House, and I'm attempting to do this. The Hon. Member's time is up.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Well, you told me to get up after I sat down. You said to get back on my feet while you made your motion. Then you argued with me. I'm quite willing to resume my seat again, as I did previously before you asked me that final question.

Mr. G.B. Gardom (Vancouver–Point Grey): You don't wish to answer?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Well, he answered himself.

He said I haven't done anything wrong....

Mr. Gardom: Mr. Premier, it's overwhelming evidence. You know that. It's overwhelming evidence.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey if he's suggesting by his remarks, any wrongdoing....

Mr. Gardom: I'm just saying the evidence is overwhelming. Form your own conclusions — as the general public will, Mr. Chairman, as the general public will and have.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. In keeping with the rules of the House, I would suggest that the Hon.

[ Page 868 ]

Member use the proper methods under parliamentary rules — the substantive motion.

Mr. Gardom: What about? You're sensitive tonight, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Would the Hon. Member continue with his speech?

Mr. Gardom: You're just a little sensitive tonight. Are we sure we have the right brother in the chair? You've got a twin, you know. That's right.

Since the Hon. Premier is in charge of tax gathering in this province and since the Hon. Premier is the man who can make tax concessions possible in this province, I'd just like to talk for a few moments about a tax concession that the Premier should give very, very serious thought to.

Probably the most serious and continuing problem that exists today in British Columbia is work stoppage and disruption in the public service. Without any question of a doubt, Mr. Chairman, an amazing amount of harm and inconvenience and expense are being experienced by the general public and by the taxpayer. This taxpayer feels — I'd say unhappily so but very correctly so — that he's without rights and without remedies and without redress. What the public continually has to encounter is something that must surely be considered as a denial of natural justice to them.

They are continually facing, in the public sector, a round of cessation of public services. This is a situation that is not improving. It's not improving in this province. It's not improving in the rest of the country for that matter. But it's getting worse, and it's getting worse every day.

The public are clamouring for one thing: for an effective remedy. The Hon. Minister of Finance has the power at his fingertips to provide that effective remedy. I suggest, as I've mentioned before — this is a personal point of view — that there should be binding arbitration in the public sector and that should be a condition of service: eliminating the privilege to strike and eliminating the privilege to lock out.

The question to the Premier is: why should there not be some tax relief to the taxpayer when public services are not being provided?

There's no question that the public welfare and public interest must be the primary test and the primary requirement. But in the labour-management confrontations in the public sector, there is no way that the government can get hurt in a strike because it doesn't lose any revenue and it doesn't lose any productivity because productive most governments are not.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member to relate his remarks more directly to the administrative responsibilities of the Premier.

Mr. Gardom: I'm just getting there. As he is the chief fiscal officer, he is the person whom I'm making this appeal to on behalf....

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Gardom: ...tax concessions that the Hon. Premier can give, Mr. Chairman. Would you not agree with that?

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

Mr. Chairman: I would ask the Hon. Member to remain seated until the Chair has made its point.

First of all, I would reprimand the Hon. Member for failing to obey the Chair. The Chair has requested that the Hon. Member stop talking until such time as the Chair has made a point of order. But I would also caution the Hon. Member that the matter he is discussing is, in my judgment, not in the administrative responsibility of the Premier. I would ask him to confine his remarks to the administrative responsibilities of the Premier.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

Mr. Gardom: With all due respect, I have to question your judgment, Mr. Chairman, because I'm talking about finances, and if finances are not the bag of the Premier, whose are they?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Gardom: Whose are they, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Gardom: If I can't speak to the Minister of Finance as being the Minister of Finance, who should I speak to — the Premier?

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

Mr. Chairman: Would the Hon. Member be seated for a moment again, please, so that the Chair can elaborate? And remain seated, thank you.

Now the Chair attempted to establish this afternoon in this afternoon's sitting the fact that if we were going to consider every department's estimates because of the involvement of the Finance Minister, then we would be able to debate all the departments quite easily. This is clearly not the intention of our standing orders. Therefore the proper place to bring up a Labour matter, or any other matter pertaining to another department, is under those estimates.

[ Page 869 ]

I would ask the Hon. Member to confine his remarks to the administrative responsibilities of the Premier or Minister of Finance.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

Mr. Gardom: Now to the administrative responsibilities of the Minister of Finance, one of which I assume is to collect money and to pay money out and grant tax concessions if they are reasonable and in the public interest. Would you possibly agree with that as a fair definition, Mr. Chairman?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Every department is affected by that definition.

Mr. Gardom: All right, fine and dandy. Now this is the point I wish to make with the Minister of Finance. I'm asking him for tax concessions on behalf of the general public. Since by law, Mr. Chairman, children have got to go to school and since by law people have to pay school taxes, is it too much to ask that, by law, schools should be kept open to function and operate, and if they are not, that the general public should be entitled to some kind of a fair and reasonable tax concession or tax rebate? I would like to hear what the attitude of the Premier is on that point.

It is a rebate that could well be made annually. If services are not being rendered, which are compulsory — compulsory services are not being rendered — and the payment for those services is compulsory and they are punishable by law.... And the liberty of the subject can become involved. A person can end up in jail if they don't pay. Under those circumstances, is it too much to ask, if the government does not ensure that such services are provided, that the taxpayers should be entitled to some kind of a reasonable and fair tax concession?

An Hon. Member: Hear, hear!

Mr. Gardom: I say, Mr. Chairman, apart from anything else, that this would indeed put the bargaining process into a far better perspective than it now is in this province.

I'm asking the Premier, as a point of view of policy and a point of view of personal attitude, if he would care to remark on these points, all flowing completely from his administrative and fiscal responsibilities.

Mr. G.S. Wallace (Oak Bay): Well, Mr. Chairman, I listened to a great deal of the debate, and I would like to just add a few comments.

After the lengthy discussion we have had on the whole question of the Minister's dealings with Ottawa, I would like to ask one particular question. Most of the people in this province who are not skilled in financial matters must be following this debate with some interest. We've heard two conflicting points of view. One is that the government had no choice but to reach the agreement it did. The other point of view is that the government sold out its constitutional rights, or the constitutional rights of the province.

The Premier took great exception to a comment this afternoon that perhaps one approach might be to threaten the federal government that we would turn off the tap. The Premier took great exception to that statement. I wonder if we could at least have the clarification also that the Premier has rejected two options in this very important federal provincial debate. He has turned down the option of threats to turn off the tap. And I assume, from listening to the debate and the Premier's comments, that he has also turned down the option of taking the matter to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Mr. G.F. Gibson (North Vancouver-Capilano): I hope not.

Mr. Wallace: I seem to recall during the public comments made by the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) that when one gets into this kind of situation of taking important national provincial disputes to the supreme court, there is tremendous delay, years of preparation for the case and a long time-consuming harangue. Years go by before the issue is ultimately solved. Certainly from my observation and reading of this whole lengthy matter it would seem that if the Attorney-General was correct in making that prediction that the time involved would be years, then at a time when the world energy situation changes fairly rapidly it would be a very risky proposition and a very disruptive situation for this country and this province, if, indeed, the wrangling that is going on at the present time was to be left to simmer for two or three years while we wait for the supreme court to give the ultimate decision.

Because of the length of debate that has taken place and the amount that has been said by both sides of the House, I think it's only fair to ask the Minister of Finance and Premier if he has ruled out these two options which are certainly two of the obvious options open to him in providing leadership on behalf of British Columbia in this very serious dispute over natural resources. Has he, in fact, ruled out the option of going to the supreme court, and has he ruled out the option of threatening to cut off supply?

There's another issue I'd like to raise, Mr. Chairman — perhaps one of less importance, but very important within our own borders. This is the whole issue of the Premier's action and the government's action when it was supposed or suggested that City Savings company might merge with Block Brothers.

[ Page 870 ]

There was a great deal of reporting in the media, and one interesting headline from the Colonist of December 21: "Barrett Says Whoa." Whoa, not woe, although probably there are occasions when woe would be more appropriate.

At any rate, this was an intervention which the Minister of Finance took when it appeared likely that Block Brothers and City Savings might work out a merger. Again, I think the public of British Columbia must have wondered, as the reports unfolded, as to what exactly the Premier was so concerned about. One of the questions that was asked was whether such a merger would in some way be a serious obstacle to the Premier's own proposals for some form of banking system sponsored by this government. That was one of the questions.

The Premier winces, and if I cause him concern, perhaps answering the question will clear up the doubt.

This certainly was widely covered in the media. At the same time, or about the same time, a little later, it became public knowledge that it was suspected that the government might be planning to acquire Yorkshire Trust. Co. I think this raises another very interesting question which is worth being asked because at the same time as the Minister of Finance was asked about his opposition to a merger between Block Brothers and City Savings — publicly stated on January 9, and I commend him for the statement — he said: "We have to protect the public interest in the trust area." Of course, as the Minister well knows, the word "trust" has a very significant meaning, and where it relates to an institution which takes money from the public in deposits, it gives the impression to the public that their money is very safe and redeemable at all times, compared to, perhaps, other less secure forms of investment.

About the same time, in another interview, the Premier did refer to Commonwealth Trust when he was asked why he was intervening, suggesting that the government had a rightful role to play in investigating the situation before any mergers took place or before Block Brothers and City Savings could come to any agreement.

Now as an ordinary citizen of this province, the reaction that had with me, and I think with many other citizens throughout British Columbia, was simply: are trust companies as completely trustworthy as the word has always implied in the past?

Certainly when the Premier has made a public statement about concern for the investment and concern for the public in the area of trust companies. I think it caused a great deal of concern among many people.

I wonder if the Premier would tell us, first of all, why he was concerned about the proposed merger; secondly, in the kind of references he made, is the Minister of Finance still concerned about the fact that we could have another Commonwealth Trust fiasco in this province?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: That wasn't the allegation.

Mr. Wallace: The Premier says that wasn't the allegation. I have a clipping here, Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Chairman, which, in the context in which you made the statement....

Hon. Mr. Barrett: That's an important distinction.

Mr. Wallace: Okay. You were asked why you wanted to intervene and perhaps stop the merger. Part of the public statement that you made....

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You guys, you're always interpreting. Just read the facts.

Mr. Wallace: Part of the statement you made was that you must assess the situation. I'm quoting so that we get this clear on the record. Perhaps you can clearly deny, if you wish, the content of the statement...

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Go ahead.

Mr. Wallace: ...from The Vancouver Sun, an article by George Froelich...

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Oh, you're already off.

Mr. Wallace: ...on January 10:

"When confronted on December 20, the Premier, in his role of Finance Minister, acted quickly and decisively."

I continue to quote:

"In a statement released through his press secretary, the government admitted that it had asked for the delay in order to assess the situation..."

Here the article quotes the actual press release:

"...and protect the public interest in the trust area."

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Right! Right!

Mr. Wallace: The Minister is saying, "Right." I hope we can assume from that that he has an explanation which he will give us shortly.

The other question relates to the Yorkshire Trust Co. and the whole question of trust companies, as to whether the Minister of Finance is satisfied with the regulations involving the capitalization of trust companies where much of their investment is on fixed-income securities, which is not a very stable

[ Page 871 ]

situation in times of inflation. I would like to ask the Minister of Finance, in the light of some of these events which I have mentioned and which have been given publicity, whether he is concerned at all that legislation regarding finance companies perhaps requires rewriting and tightening up in relation to the tremendous turmoil in the financial world, both nationally and internationally, in the last year or two.

Many people invest in various ways through trust companies, and the word "trust" certainly gives a measure of assurance and a feeling of security to the investor. Some of the publicity that I have described leaves the public in some doubt as to whether, in fact, their investment is as secure, is as well guarded, whether the trust company has the necessary capacity to guard and protect and ensure the investment by the individual.

Another issue I would just like to raise briefly is the recent publicity given to the experience of the Municipal Finance Authority. I have frequently spoken about municipal autonomy in the House and I would like to think that that is a very useful way of decentralizing government. I think it is a rather shattering experience to find that the Municipal Finance Authority made the kind of decision which led to the fact that we are repaying loans on behalf of municipalities in foreign currency.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Who were their advisers? They are in the Social Credit now. They should have had all that wisdom that we had from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett.)

Mr. Wallace: Mr. Chairman, on this issue I choose not to indulge in individual responsibility of individual persons. I think that the Municipal Finance Authority was a new creature. This is not a situation where I am trying to make excuses for anybody either. What I am trying to do is to prevent the same thing happening in the future. All I would like to the ask the Minister of Finance is: in the light of just a few years of experience, is the Minister giving any consideration to some measure of provincial government supervision not presently in the legislation to govern the actions and decisions of the Municipal Finance Authority, because regardless of the goodwill and the intentions of the Municipal Finance Authority to obtain funds for the municipalities at the lowest possible interest rate, even with these good intentions some unfortunate consequences have followed. The person who suffers is the individual homeowner and taxpayer in the municipalities across the province.

Although, personally, I would like to maintain the greatest degree of municipal autonomy possible, nevertheless, in the light of events, one has to wonder whether there should not be some greater degree of provincial participation in the functioning and actions of the Municipal Finance Authority. I wonder if the Minister could respond to that suggestion.

The last point I would like to make relates to the question of the Treasury memo which was issued to the departments of government regarding government spending, or spending within different departments. This memo has been quoted by other Members of the House, and I won't belabour the point. But one of the very significant paragraphs in the memo which was subsequently sent to Deputy Ministers, I think, should be quoted, because the first paragraph of the memo talks about.... I think maybe I should quote it — it's a good quote:

"A good many people now on our staff come in at the top of the cycle and tend to regard this more affluent period as the norm rather than an abnormal situation."

Then the paragraph goes on:

"This attitude is reflected in frequent requests for travel to various events, sometimes of dubious benefit to the department, requests for expensive equipment when less exotic equipment will do just as well, and a generally relaxed attitude toward expenditure of public funds."

Mr. Chairman, I think one of the most prevalent concerns expressed by the man in the street when you talk — to him these days in any part of this province is his impression that this is a free-spending government and that, indeed, a very relaxed attitude to spending pervades this government in the very terms that the Minister's memo to the Deputy Ministers describes: "...travel to various events...of dubious benefit, requests for expensive equipment," et cetera.

Whether the Minister makes the point that this was correcting old history or not, I just find it surprising, to say the least, that when one looks at the Minister of Finance and we'll come to some of the specific votes later but in some of the divisions of the Minister's responsibility.... We find under his office, for general administration, that equipment is up by 210 per cent — the cost of equipment. Travelling is up by 33 per cent. Salaries are up by 41 per cent. I would like to deal with these specifically with specific votes.

Vote 54, for example — furniture and equipment — is up by 525 per cent. All I'm saying is that is that I would like the Minister to explain to us one simple matter regarding the Treasury memo. It said that no extra staff should be hired before April 1 and that these other austerity measures that I mentioned should certainly pertain until April 1.

Are we to assume that after April I we go back to the relaxed attitude toward spending? Because certainly if one reads through all the different votes under the Minister of Finance, there is this recurring example of very substantial increases in the very

[ Page 872 ]

items of expenditure which the Treasury memo said should be restricted. But the memo, of course, only said until April 1. I hope this doesn't leave the impression that after April 1 all the departments of government can go back to this relaxed attitude. I think that's a frightening phrase in that letter to the Deputy Ministers: "...a generally relaxed attitude toward the expenditure of public funds."

I don't think there's one single issue which concerns the people of British Columbia today more than their impression that this is a freewheeling, high-spending government that not only does employ more and more people in the public service doing jobs the financial benefit is anything but clear.

But on top of that, they do best buy the most exotic, expensive equipment, that they do a great deal of travelling in excess of previous department staffs, and that furniture and equipment and salaries are substantially increased over previous years. Again, to refer back to the Premier's office and vote 2 very specifically, the executive assistant's salary has been increased by 35 per cent.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Where's that?

Mr. Wallace: In vote 2, Mr. Minister. The administrative assistant is listed as having an increase of 34.5 per cent in the Premier's office. And further down we have an item that we will no doubt be referring to right through the estimates, under a heading called "salary contingencies." The salary contingency is $37,280.

Now there may be very valid reasons for this which the Minister of Finance and the Premier will tell us, but it does seem to me that there's a substantial contradiction here between the philosophy and the instructions outlined in that Treasury memo and the clear, documented financial facts that are being proposed in vote 2, in various votes under the Minister of Finance, and, in fact, as you go through the estimates, of almost every department of government. You find very few in the area of travel, office furniture, salary contingencies that are anything under 25 per cent on average, and some of them are a great deal more.

I think the Premier is well aware of the serious nature of inflation and the fact that the public tend to be quite naturally influenced by the percentage increase which employees in bargaining procedures are asking in different sections of our labour force. The action and example of government surely has to be a very significant, factor in some of the wage increases which are being requested. I realize, as the Minister has pointed out, that some people on the very low end of the scale do have some catching up to do. But if you talk to the person in our society — and I talked to the old-age pensioners this afternoon in the Newcombe Auditorium whose bargaining power is virtually nil....

Hon. Mr. Barrett: That's why we have Mincome.

Mr. Wallace: Yes, Mr. Minister. And if you look at the percentage by which Mincome is adjusted, compared to the percentage that CUPE is asking in Victoria right now and for which we have the schools providing three hours a day education, we are talking about figures in the neighbourhood of 46 per cent. You're not giving 46 per cent increases to the old-age pensioners on Mincome, Mr. Minister of Finance. Don't give me that!

It's all very well and quite reasonable to talk about catch-up. But when there's one segment which has the power to bargain and is leaping ahead by 30 and 40 and 50 per cent increases, the gap on the part of the segments of our community which cannot negotiate for their own increase is becoming increasingly great. While the good intention of indexing Mincome and indexing old-age security is sound, I think the government has this other responsibility: within its own ranks and within its own employees there has to be some sober recognition of the fact that catch-up is all right but you can't do it all in one year. The inflationary effects on the rest of society, when you try to correct in one year by increases of 30, 40 and 50 per cent, I think are just catastrophic.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please!

Mr. Wallace: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, that I woke up the Member for Esquimalt (Mr. Gorst). He's been silent all session.

Interjection.

Mr. Wallace: Yes, and you'll wake up when we get after you at the next election, too.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Wallace: That's one of the seats that the Conservatives will win, Mr. Chairman.

Hon. Mr. Lea: Which one?

Mr. Wallace: Esquimalt.

Interjection.

Mr. Wallace: No, they won't lose Oak Bay. Don't get upset about that. But I think the little bit of interjection from Esquimalt and from the government benches suggests that maybe some of my

[ Page 873 ]

comments are just causing a little bit of concern.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Somebody has got to applaud him. He's all alone. (Laughter.)

Mr. Wallace: Mr. Chairman, I do believe that is a very valid point. Collective bargaining and the kind of wage increases which many sections of the labour force are now seeking are somewhat related to the example set by government. It surprises me that when the government issued that statement to the various departments of government from the Treasury Board to restrict some of these expenditures such as travel, furniture, office equipment, salary contingencies, and so on....

Mr. Chairman: I would caution the Hon. Member that the green light is on.

Mr. Wallace: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to ask the Minister of Finance if he doesn't feel that within his own office and under the various votes of the Minister of Finance the kind of increases which he is proposing in these very areas of expenditure is something of a contradiction to his espoused belief that these expenditures must be reduced.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I will try to answer all of the questions raised by the Member. I have extensive notes here. First of all, I will deal with the questions he raised about the forthcoming discussions at the energy conference in Ottawa. I'll quote from the Member of the Liberal Party, and I'm going to have to take this back to Ottawa with me. I have no alternative but to take it back. It's not that I agree with it, but it shows you a level of irresponsibility that I'm going to have to tell Ottawa I've got to cope with at home.

Mr. Wallace: That's not an option.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Well, Mr. Member, I don't think it's a.... Let me read what was said. Let's read what was said by the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) "You can do it very simply," he said, "If necessary, he's got to put the threat right back to the national government." The Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound was assuming that the national government was threatening British Columbia. The Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) said they were trying to scare us. Today we get the rest of the story from the Liberal Party: the national government was trying to threaten this little Government of British Columbia and the people of British Columbia. The Liberals said that.

He went on to say: "You can do it very simply...." Let the people of British Columbia understand that this is what the Liberal Member said: "You can do it very simply. If the national government is not prepared to give what is rightfully British Columbia's, ask them how they would like it if you turned off the tap." Ask them how they would like it. "I'm not suggesting that that is the course of action you can take." But what's the point of asking? Now he was trying to say — and I tried to pin him down later on.... He was trying to leave the impression that he would have a counter-threat to Ottawa to turn the gas off to our American friends."

He attacked the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Lauk), and he said: "If you read the budget in November, you would have recognized that the national government was not attempting to attack Premier Lougheed." Here's the scandal. Here's the words out of a Liberal's own mouth. I know it will be headlines in The Vancouver Sun tomorrow, because they would want to tell all of British Columbia what the Liberals are really up to.

The national government had its guns trained clearly on the Province of British Columbia, not Lougheed, because of this province's use of the Crown corporation technique. The Liberal Member was saying that because British Columbia had the guts to protect the people through a Crown corporation, they would threaten us. That's what he was saying. He was saying that because we were the only province in all of Canada that made sure that the people had a fair return from their resource, the Liberal Member was admitting that they didn't care a hoot about Lougheed's giveaway to the oil companies. What they wanted was to stop British Columbia from protecting its own people. That's what the Liberal Member said.

If I said it, they'd say that I was just being political. If I claimed it, they'd say: "Oh, that's an NDP line." But it's a Liberal Member who said it in this House. He's so embarrassed he didn't show up after supper.

Mr. Wallace: I just want to know that you won't turn off the gas. I want a commitment from you.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Member, I tell you right here as I stand here that I will never take that irresponsible step — never. Never! There are valid contracts and I, as an NDPer and as the Premier of this province, will never break a contract as the Tories in Alberta threatened to do with their Attorney-General and what the Liberals are advocating in this House tonight. Shame, I say, on the Liberals! Shame!

Thank you, Mr. Member, for your support.

I am making it very clear that in no way will I threaten to turn off the gas to the Americans. I want to warn the CIA, if they're listening in, not to worry

[ Page 874 ]

about us socialists; it's the Liberals you've got to watch out for. So I am going to tell the CIA and the FBI that all you have to do is read Hansard and you'll know who the real anti-Americans are in this province. Save the CIA its money. Don't send in agents; just subscribe to Hansard and you'll find out.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: The Chairman's what was bugged? Well, you guys ought to know; you've been buggy for weeks here.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I think that this is directed directly to the Hon. Member, and I would ask the Hon. Premier to withdraw that unfortunate adjective.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I withdraw, Mr. Chairman. That's right. I withdraw. They are not....

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Three days in a row you've flopped. You haven't said a word today. Three days. You fellows, you want to come crashing back in and collapse again. I think you ought to talk to Davey Brown and get your heads straightened around. You paid all that money for PR.

Look, he's up, everybody. There he is. He's up, everybody. Say something bright. Have you got a note?

Davey Brown. They spent all that money on public relations and the best they can come up with is some inane interruption. What is the matter, man?

You lost back there, Mr. Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland), and that doomed your party. At least you could have done something with the group. The only thing you didn't have was money. The only reason you didn't get the job of leader was that your name was wrong.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member....

Hon. Mr. Barrett: That was what kept you from ascending to the crown.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Premier to confine his remarks to the vote.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I have to answer the questions, but they keep on interrupting. They shouldn't interrupt.

Well, now, the question of the Supreme Court. We have been negotiating with Ottawa. We've been having conferences, and as a result of the conferences we've been making some progress. You will recall that the gap was 33 cents. We got it up to 57 cents. Then we got it up to $1 when we were asking for 99 cents. That was a funny incident.

We were asking for 99 cents, and our American customers said: "No, we won't pay for it." So we filed with the National Energy Board for $1.35. All of a sudden the Energy Minister (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) announced it would be $1. Some cynics believed that the national Energy Minister announced $1 because he didn't want to have public hearings at our request for $1.35. That shows you how cynical some people can be, Mr. Chairman. All I said was that we asked for 99 cents and he gave us $1 without hearings — a penny for his thoughts. He never answered.

Now I will not go back and threaten the United States about cutting off the gas, as suggested by the Liberal Member. I think that's a disgraceful suggestion, coming from him. We have an obligation to our customers and we understand contractual obligations, even if Conservatives in Alberta don't and Liberals in B.C. don't.

But we do not intend to continue the subsidization of competing American industry with low-cost gas.

Now I have not considered the option raised by the question, if the federal government turns us down, because, quite frankly, I do not believe the federal government will turn us down. How could they? How could they turn down our request for an increase when just this week Alberta has had a significant increase on gas to make up for our production in British Columbia of $1.61 to $1.90.

Now, how in the world can they say that the private companies from Alberta can get $1.60 to $1.90 for gas that is Canadian but owned by the multinational oil companies, but for British Columbia, where the people own their own gas through the petroleum corporation, can't get the same money that is guaranteed to them by Ottawa to private companies. Now, that's illogical. It also is highly charged politically. No Liberal could justify giving away our gas while the oil companies get rich in Alberta, that we shouldn't have a chance at least at the same level of prices.

So therefore I do not believe that Ottawa will turn us down. I don't believe it. I just don't. I don't believe it, that's all. So I'm not going to deal in the ifs or threats. I'm not the kind of person to go around threatening anyway. It's not in my nature to go around and threaten.

Mr. W.R. Bennett (Leader of the Opposition): How about the Egg Marketing Board?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: No need to threaten, especially politically. Some people are suicidal anyway. (Laughter.)

[ Page 875 ]

Now the next thing you asked me was about the trust companies. We have no intention of purchasing Yorkshire Trust. We have no intention of purchasing Yorkshire Trust.

Mr. Wallace: Did you get that, fellows?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Yes, that's under commercial — under 148 in classified ads, commercial. We have no intention of purchasing Yorkshire Trust.

Mr. Wallace: One more time.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I'll bet you there's going to be three different versions in the paper tomorrow. (Laughter.)

"What Barrett was really saying was that unless they did this.... On the other hand...." There will be all kinds of interpretations. That's the way it is. But I'll do it again: no intention of purchasing Yorkshire Trust.

An Hon. Member: You had.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Why did we look into the proposed merger? Well, Mr. Member, it is the responsibility of the Department of Finance to administer the Trust Companies Act. This was a significant merger that was being proposed. It is incumbent upon us, in administration of that Act, to review all aspects of the proposed merger to satisfy ourselves that the merger would not harm the people who had invested in the trust company. I did allude to Commonwealth Trust by saying: "Look, I'm not suggesting that this is the same as Commonwealth Trust, but I am telling you that we must be responsible to ensure that such a thing doesn't happen again, because an irresponsible government was warned. A lot of people lost a lot of money, and a man went to jail. If I am the Minister of Finance, I want to be sure of what is going on under my responsibility." And I did a good job again.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

Continuing in my modesty, with the assistance of my excellent advisers and staff, I was able to conclude our inquiries very quickly. I said publicly that City Savings got a clean bill of health and was a good investment; Block Brothers, fine. Be my guest, I told them they could go ahead if they wanted to. They decided not to go ahead, but they certainly had no impediment from us to go ahead.

Mr. Wallace: What about trust companies in general?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Trust companies in general? We monitor, we watch, we are conscious of the problems. Excellent staff; excellent advice; highly sensitive because of earlier experiences. They are watching things very closely.

The Municipal Finance Authority. From everything that I've learned in the two and a half years I've had the responsibility, I wouldn't advise anyone to borrow in foreign currencies. But that wasn't a choice on which I had to advise them. They made a decision. That's fine. I'm sure the Leader of the Opposition will severely condemn them with his brilliant hindsight. I'm sure that they will take it on the campaign trail, whenever it comes. But aside from that approach, I want to say that the Finance department is willing to be consulted if the Municipal Finance Authority wishes to consult with the Finance department. That is entirely up to them.

Mr. Wallace: Won't you consider making it mandatory?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: No. What's the point of having a Municipal Finance Authority with elected officials on it if we are going to control everything? The philosophy of the former administration was to say: "Okay, you go and borrow." I must say, if we did that kind of borrowing as socialists and made that mistake, I can guarantee you that every paper from here right up to Pouce Coupe would have a front-page story about Barrett and Swiss marks and Liechtenstein and financial mukabuk. But these guys made a mistake and they are businessmen, not socialists. That's different. If socialists make a mistake, the world comes to an end. If businessmen make a mistake, well, they are businessmen; they know how to make mistakes.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I am not going to pass judgment. I am just a casual observer of the political scene in this province. (Laughter.)

Mr. Wallace: Are you still just a country boy?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Am I still a country boy? Yes. You can't take the country out of the boy even if he comes to the city. I'm still a country boy.

Mr. J.R. Chabot (Columbia River): Some country.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Some country. Some boy! I make extensive notes.

Mr. Fraser: You've lost them all.

[ Page 876 ]

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Well, I've answered a lot of the questions.

Mr. Wallace: What about your own office?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Yes, I'm coming to that right now.

The salary contingency used to be a lump sum in the Finance department. As a result, when you go through estimates and you get down to each Minister the excuse used to be, when you wanted to discuss details, that the salary contingency has already been passed and it's in the Premier's office, the Minister of Finance. So this year we worked out a system of saying: "All right, let's give the opposition the full reign. Let's break the salary contingency out in every Minister's department and let him be available and responsible to respond." That is the decision we made. I think it is a good decision — make more information available to the Members of the opposition and, if necessary, hire more research staff for them. We try to help every way we can. But no matter how much help you offer some people, they still crash. That has been a puzzle to me as a social worker for years. But I never give up trying because my heart is full of love.

Mr. Wallace: What about all that furniture you're buying for yourself?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Oh yes. We moved the offices of the purchase of new equipment, not furniture. Also, the question of the staff in the Premier's office — when you compare that staff to other Premiers, it's still a very modest number of people.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I tell you quite frankly, Mr. Member, I don't operate as a one-man, one-decision, central operation. It's a very complex business. Seat-of-the-pants decisions can end up with fiascos like the Columbia River. I like to get help, and we're slowly....

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: My visit to Ottawa will cost more than the Columbia River?

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Well, we're travelling Economy. I don't see how it's going to cost that much, but I don't know. "Liberals Threaten the Americans Tonight" — I can see that headline. (Laughter.)

The last question...I think that's the last question. Yes, that's it. Now you did ask me a question on section 54, and I'm prepared to answer that when we get there.

Mr. Chairman: I recognize the Member for Cariboo.

Interjections.

Mr. Fraser: I sure appreciate that ovation, Mr. Chairman, but I think we should get down to the facts of the matter here. We're dealing with the Minister of Finance's vote here.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Sit down while you're ahead.

Mr. Fraser: You know, this Minister of Finance told us, Mr. Chairman, on June 18....

Mr. H. Steves (Richmond): Watch your back.

Mr. Fraser: Yes, I'm watching. (Laughter.) Mr. Chairman, you'd better believe I've got to watch, too. (Laughter.) But this Minister of Finance told us on June 18, 1974, that he'd only borrow $100 million.

Hon. G.V. Lauk (Minister of Economic Development): We're going to run a candidate in the Cariboo.

Mr. Fraser: You can't find anybody. You blue savages will never find a candidate in the Cariboo, I'll tell you that. But anyway, getting back to the discussion....

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Lauk: Hansard wants a translation of that. (Laughter.)

Mr. Fraser: They'll never get it. (Laughter.) This Minister of Finance told us on June 18, 1974, that he'd borrow $100 million, even if we authorized the bill under debate for $500 million.

Mr. Chabot: We voted against it, too. You better believe we did.

Mr. Fraser: We voted against that because we were suspicious at that time. Do you know what's happened, Mr. Chairman? We have his quote that he'd borrow $100 million maximum, and no more.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: And no more.

Mr. Chabot: His word of honour. His word of

[ Page 877 ]

honour.

Mr. Fraser: He's borrowed $375 million. And he announced today that he's going to borrow another $125 million.

Mr. Chabot: His word's no good.

Mr. Fraser: His word isn't worth the paper it's written on.

An Hon. Member: Careful, Alex.

Interjections.

Mr. Fraser: Yes, right. But the point I'm trying to make here is that he said he'd borrow $100 million.

The other point I would like to make is that he's borrowed all this money from unknown sources. We can't find that out, and that's fine. It could be the Mafia. But what I would like to know is: what is he doing with the money he's borrowed? Where is it? He hasn't had to spend it. He must have borrowed it, got the liquid funds, and reinvested it. I'd like to know where they're reinvesting it. What interest rate...?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Hydro. It's all spent on clearing up the Columbia River treaty.

Mr. Chabot: Clearing the corridor down the Moberly River.

Mr. Fraser: I don't believe that. Site 1 is just started.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Sit down and I'll show you. I'll give it to you in detail.

Mr. Fraser: I feel that this capital borrowing has been made and you haven't had to use it. I would like to know where it is invested, or if it is invested at all.

Interjection.

Mr. Fraser: Well, I don't think you've spent it, and I think you should tell the public of British Columbia where you have invested it.

Hon. G.R. Lea (Minister of Highways): We sent his dad to barber school. (Laughter.)

Mr. Fraser: Another thing that hasn't come up here, Mr. Chairman, in this debate.... You know, Allan Fotheringharn has talked a lot about it, but it's regarding the....

Interjection.

Mr. Fraser: We're dealing with the Minister of Finance's vote here, and I have reason to believe that this man we're talking about here now won't be the Minister of Finance very long. I'd like to know who the new Minister of Finance is going to be.

Interjections. (Laughter.)

Mr. Fraser: Oh, they're all jumping up. They're all jumping up.

It's my understanding that the Minister Without Portfolio for northern affairs could be the new Minister of Finance. I think the Minister of Finance, now that we're debating his estimates, should come clear with the House tonight and tell us: is he going to be the Minister of Finance?

We're talking about a lot of money here. All of us poor poverty-stricken MLAs at $24,000 — that's one thing. He gets left with another $28,000.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: What does your leader get? That's what Bob should have got.

Mr. Fraser: Well, just a minute now. I want to know who's going to get that other $28,000.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Bob needs it more than that millionaire leader of yours.

Mr. Fraser: It's our information that he's going to shuffle the cabinet, and I think the people of this province should be told....

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Watch your back.

Mr. Fraser: Yes, I'm watching it. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Alec, you've chased your leader out of the House. You've chased your leader out.

Mr. Chairman: Order!

Mr. Fraser: Tell that Minister of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Hartley) to sit down, because it's obvious that lie's out entirely.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: The Member for Cariboo has the floor.

Mr. Fraser: Is it correct that the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) is going to become

[ Page 878 ]

the Minister of Finance? I think it's up to this Minister of Finance, the one who has the portfolio now, to tell the public of British Columbia. There's going to be a further roll-out from that. If the Minister of Agriculture becomes the Minister of Finance, it's my understanding that the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Hall) becomes the Minister of Education, and the Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) ends up as the Provincial Secretary.

I think that when we're dealing with the Minister's vote, we should know all these things.

I realize that you feel quite jovial, Mr. Chairman, but I want to tell you that I don't appreciate the legal advice you're getting. I think you're getting wrong legal advice.

Interjections.

Mr. Fraser: Really, what I'm saying, Mr. Chairman, is that the Minister of Finance had better level with this House and the province. When we're dealing with his salary, is he going to be around to earn it? In my opinion, I don't think he is.

Mr. R.H. McClelland (Langley): Well, he hasn't so far. Why should he change?

Interjections.

Mr. Fraser: The big issue made here last evening about the tendency of the revenue side....

Interjection.

Mr. Fraser: Oh, baloney!

Mr. Wallace: We weren't here last night.

Mr. Fraser: Well, garbage, then, is a better word.

But anyway, there was a big issue made here last night — I think a good one — about the facts of the revenue side of the budget. I want to make a further issue here about the authenticity of the revenue side of the budget the Premier brought in.

In the budget they show $135 million from stumpage revenue from the forest industry of this province. It's my information — and I said it in the budget debate and I'll repeat it — that $90 million is already owed by the Forest Service to the industry for road building. Nobody can find out any answers about that, so I'm challenging the revenue estimate there of $135 million. It should be reduced by $90 million. And due to the lumber market and so on, we're going to see, for the first time in the province's history, a net loss from the Forest Service as a contribution to the revenues.

What I'm saying is that when we arrive at March, 1976, rather than a revenue asset from the Forest Service, it will be a loss. I'd like to know what the Premier has to say about that, as Minister of Finance.

Another thing seems to be the Premier's big suit going on now. He was in North Peace River a couple of weeks ago. Last week he was in the riding of Cariboo, which I have the honour to represent, and when he was up there....

Hon. Mr. Barrett: They asked me how you were.

Mr. Fraser: Yes, I'll bet!

Hon. Mr. Barrett: They haven't seen you for a while.

Mr. Fraser: Yes, right.

Interjections.

Mr. Fraser: Anyway, the issue came up in the Cariboo about the problem the industry has with chips. Due to the chipping bill we passed here in November, there's a real problem in the industry.

I'd like to know from his public pronouncements — I refer to the Premier — whether he has been able to talk to Woody Woodchips since he came back — which he said he would. I realize you have to have an appointment quite far ahead, including the Premier. But has he been able to talk to Woody Woodchips about the problem of the surplus chips? What is he going to do about it?

An Hon. Member: He's never around.

Mr. Fraser: It's a real problem. Because of the chippy bill we passed here in November everybody's producing chips like mad and now there's no one to buy them. I refer to the pulp mills, because in effect what the pulp mills are doing is scuttling the legislation that was passed in this House. They're producing their own chips rather than buying the chips at the price that was established by Woody Woodchips — $35 a cunit. The pulp mills have their own timber harvest licences and they have their own woodroom. Now they're telling the independent operators: "Quite frankly, we can't take your chips. We haven't got room for them."

What is going to happen, and I think the Premier found this out last Friday, is that the independent operators will be out of business about April 1, unless the government takes action.

The other problem they have up there is that Woody Woodchips, the Minister, has put on a $ 1.10 basic minimum on stumpage expiring March 31, and the operators can't find out what's going to happen on April 1. I think they are entitled to know. I think

[ Page 879 ]

the Premier as Minister of Finance has the answers and I'd be glad to hear from him.

Before I sit down I would just like to say that we've had a lot of gas go on here and a lot of facts. I refer to the natural gas issue as it relates to the municipalities. I don't think that the municipalities are going to get a thing out of this because, as somebody said.... I think even the plastic mayor of Vancouver said that they'd get one-third of nothing, and for once I'll agree with him.

I would urge, through you, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister of Finance, that if he would, rather than wait on this deal from Ottawa.... I think lie knows already what price he's going to get — about $1.35. The municipalities of this province would be quite happy if they had a minimum guarantee of $20 million.

I would like to ask the Minister of Finance if he acknowledges the fact that on March 5 he got a letter from the president of the Union of B.C. Municipalities laying this out. Is he prepared tonight to answer that letter?

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: The Member for Cariboo has the floor.

Mr. Fraser: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, This First Member for Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) comes in here and seagulls about twice a month. He always makes the headlines. The press really go for that seagulling stuff.

Interjection.

Mr. Fraser: Yes, right.

But what I want to ask again of the Premier, because he is kibitzing with the First Member for Point Grey: does he acknowledge the letter from the president of the UBCM, and what is he going to do about it? Are you going to answer it or just acknowledge it as a friendly...?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: It's been answered.

Mr. Fraser: Has it? Fine.

Interjection.

Mr. Fraser: Well, we'd sure love to be tied into that, you know. (Laughter.)

With that, Mr. Chairman, I'll sit down, but I'm sure that the Premier has lots of answers.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I'm concerned about something you said, Mr. Member. You said — if I got it down right — that the pulp mills are scuttling the legislation.

Mr. Fraser: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You said that. Do you think that the pulp mills are in a conspiracy to squeeze but the independent operators by opening up their woodrooms?

Mr. Fraser: No. It's to squeeze out the government.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: It didn't work that way, because the next thing you said was: "The small operators will be out of business unless the government takes action." The only way we can take action is under the legislation that you opposed.

Now I hate to do this to you, because as one country boy to another (laughter), it always isn't a good thing to be logical. But in this case we've got to be. You can't interfere.... You've confirmed that you think that the pulp mills are scuttling the legislation. Now the legislation was designed to get a higher price for chips so the little guys can stay in business.

Then you make the claim that these large companies are opening up their woodrooms and chipping, and then telling the small operators that they won't buy. Then you say that the small operators will be out of business by April 1 unless the government takes action. The only way we can take action is under the legislation. You have taken a tortuous route to admit that the legislation is right. Now you want us to impose it more strictly than we have up to this point.

Interjections.

Hon. A.B. Macdonald (Attorney-General): Come on over.

Hon. Mr. Lauk: Good boy, Alex.

Hon. Mr. Lea: We'd like you to come on over with us.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: No one on our side will ever tell you to sit down, Alex.

I met with the small operators in your area. I flew up there and spent the day with them because they have problems, and we are a responsible government. I went up there. I think I have been in your constituency more since I've been Premier than you ever had in visits from the former Premier when you were the MLA.

The only reason you got elected is that you attacked Phil. Otherwise, you would have gone down

[ Page 880 ]

the tube too. You know that is right. You made a wise political decision. You dumped him before he dumped you. The others are smiling; they narrowly made it. (Laughter.) The Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) — a 21-vote victor. They were all carrying that albatross. You complain about the birds known as seagulls. Your biggest problem was the albatross.

Now we go back to your other statement. After I came back from your constituency, where the people are very hospitable.... I really love that country up there; it's beautiful country. I really admire you for being the representative from that area. It is a lovely part of British Columbia.

The problem was that they were producing these chips. We all thought that the big pulp companies wanted to keep these little operators in business. That is what they told us. They never told us, these big capitalist operators, that they were trying to squeeze the little guy out in that economic jungle out there. We took them at their word. We passed the legislation to see that they didn't squeeze them out, because that is what they told us.

Now this Member is coming in and making a very serious charge. He is saying that the pulp companies are scuttling the legislation. They are opening up their woodrooms; they are chipping and not buying chips from the small operators. He wants the government to do something about it.

We are going to have to study his request very seriously because he has made a serious charge against those big companies. When that kind of charge comes from someone who supports the free-enterprise system, we know he has got information; otherwise he wouldn't be saying that they're scuttling the legislation for political gains. You must know something. You think those big boys are up to squeezing the little guys out?

I am going to talk to the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources....

An Hon. Member: You only talked to him on Monday!

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I talked to him on Monday, and he has made arrangements to go up there and spend some time up there. But now he is going to have to get up there sooner, because the situation is serious. You're charging that the big guys are ganging up on the little guys. We are the only ones who are supposed to be doing that, because we believe that's happening in that rotten jungle known as free enterprise. When a free enterpriser says it, we've got to check. I'm going to talk to the Minister right away. You've given me information. That'll be headlines on the finance page: "Socred MLA Charges Major Pulp Mills are Scuttling the Legislation." I'm sure we'll see that on the business pages: "Socred MLA Says Small Operators Will Be Out of Business by April 1 Unless the Government Takes Action." (Laughter.)

Now there he is, a free enterpriser, threatening the free market.

An Hon. Member: Write the article. You'll get lots of sympathy.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

Hon. Mr. Barrett: That will be on the finance page. There will be two editorials attacking the vicious capitalist system for doing this. (Laughter.)

On the export of chips, we have to consider that proposition, Mr. Member, even though Can-Cel has been making a lot of money and the people are finally getting a little return back from their own forests because of the wise decision by that Minister and the support of this room. We have the best board in the world making money for the people of British Columbia.

Mr. Chabot: New York directors.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: There is nothing wrong with New York directors when they are making money for the people of British Columbia.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Oh, there they go. They are crying. Listen, with the kind of advice you guys got.... What was the name — Stonehill and the glass house that you guys played around with? What was it, Harry Stonehill and the glass house?

An Hon. Member: You made black marketeers....

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Oh, no. I don't want to bring this one up. I know it's past the deadline. Talk about political advice, these are the guys who are going to build the monorail down the Rocky Mountain Trench. That is a triumph of imagination over economic facts. You went to Sweden for Axel Wenner-Gren.

Mr. Chabot: That's a tunnel.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Oh, it is a tunnel through the Rocky Mountains. They've got to hide the Socreds somewhere.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Shh! Wait. I've got to finish answering the rest of this question.

[ Page 881 ]

The export of chips. Now it's not the policy of this government to give medium-term export of chips.

Mr. Chabot: Long-term then?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: It's not the policy of this government to give long-term export of chips. However, if what the Member is saying is correct and there is a threat to the small, indigenous operator whom we socialists want to protect, then we will have to consider medium-term export of chips. And if that comes home to haunt the big companies, they may be the authors of their own disaster. I don't believe in threatening; I'm just explaining the situation. I want to repeat: if it is necessary for the survival of those small entrepreneurs in your riding, Mr. Member, or the riding of Omineca, the riding of Skeena, the riding of Mackenzie, the riding of Nelson...half of the constituencies of this province cannot be threatened by the multinational corporations who run those big pulp mills. I'm not threatening; I'm not warning; I'm just taking what that Member told me tonight. I say this: if they keep on using their woodrooms, we may have to consider medium-term export of chips, and if they want chips to help them make money, and we've committed medium-term export to Japan, they may lose money. So I'm telling them tonight to put two and two together and come up with four. But I am not warning them. (Laughter.)

The Minister and I have discussed this and the big companies have got the message. We want a little fair balance; that's all we are asking for. Let's help the little guy, even if he doesn't vote for us.

I've talked to some of those small businessmen and they say to me privately: "You know, Barrett, I've got to admit," and they look around to see if the door is closed first, "if it wasn't for your legislation, we'd be out of business today."

Fort Nelson Forest Products up in North Peace River — you ask the manager. He even told the press that it was true that the NDP saved his sawmill. He told them. I had to tell him that he voted against the bill, but I didn't want to do it. Then when I spoke to the chamber of commerce....

Mr. D.E. Smith (North Peace River): Why doesn't he get some of that money back?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Mohammed said that if it hadn't been for the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams) he'd be out of business in two weeks.

Mr. Smith: He's still waiting for every cent of that.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Oh! Shh! Shh! Two hundred people would have been out of work if it wasn't for the socialists. I have talked to small businessmen in the sawmill business and they tell me, after they close the door: "You did the right thing." But they're frightened to death of the big pulp mills that have been squeezing them for years.

The only government that's had the guts to say to the big boys: "Leave the little kids alone." Let the little business grow and survive, even if they vote against us. Some of them remind me of the guy you rescued from the burning house: you take him out, roll him in a blanket, give him love, save his life, then he looks at you and runs back into the burning house. That's what they are politically, but we don't make anybody pay political homage to us. What's right is right. And we've saved those small sawmill operators now. I tell you, when I hear a Socred Member say: "The pulp mills are scuttling the legislation; the small operators will be out of business unless the government takes action: I have been warned by free enterprise and we must seriously consider medium-term export of chips.... " Please get the message out.

Mr. Wallace: No wonder his leader left the House.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Well, I don't blame him for leaving. When that party was in power we lost more small sawmills to the big integrateds than at any other time in the last five years of their administration. I don't want to go through the whole history of Houston in that Member's constituency — when Bulwater-Bathurst went into that town and wiped out about a dozen small sawmills, centralized one sawmill....

Mr. Chabot: Commie Bathurst.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Commie Bathurst. They took a bath all right and so did the local people — $60 million. Noranda came in and the whole history was of instant towns, instant solutions by the former Minister of Lands and Forests. Instant disasters were guaranteed. Now we're not going through that again. No way. I'm taking the warning you've given me tonight because it confirms what I've been seeing out there. And when you tell me, I know it's true, so I say again — very quietly, no threats, just a very quiet statement — we are going to have to consider medium-term export of chips with all the problems that has for the big pulp mills, including our own....

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: We're going to have to consider it.

[ Page 882 ]

Mrs. P.J. Jordan (North Okanagan): We've heard from the Cariboo Kid who just rode again in the Coquitlam Kewpie. I don't want to insult CUPE, but you know you can't but listen to him and think of these fat little kewpie dolls — you press their little navels and suddenly they talk, talk, talk.

Mr. Premier that's all that speech was — talk, talk, talk; flap, flap, flap. There wasn't a word of truth in it.

Mr. C. Liden (Delta): What's this one going to be?

Mrs. Jordan: You know perfectly well that your legislation, the Timber Products Stabilization Act, came in to suddenly rescue the small operators after you and your government and your Minister had knifed them in the back. And this is one of your favourite...

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mrs. Jordan: ...accomplished tricks — squeeze the banana in the corner, then skin it...

Mr. Chairman: Order! Order, please.

Mrs. Jordan: ...and then tell us you saved it.

Interjection.

Mrs. Jordan: You sure are a banana-skinner, Mr. Premier.

Mr. Barrett: Please don't call me names — I'm sensitive.

Mr. Chairman: Order! Before the Hon. Member continues, I would ask her to use more reasonable language for parliament. Would the Hon. Member continue, please?

Mrs. Jordan: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I certainly won't use the word "guts" like the Premier does, and I accept your warning.

But that doesn't alter the fact that that whole last speech was talk, talk, talk. The Premier always likes to stand up here and say how benevolent he is, how concerned he is about the little guys, and by jingo, he says, and he said tonight, how modest he is. But you look at his estimates and you look at what's going on in this province under his jurisdiction, and you'll find out how much action there is and how much talk there is.

There are just two small points I want to make at this time in the debate. The first relates to this modest offer that the Premier told us just a few minutes ago that he had. If you look through his vote, Mr. Chairman, you'll see that his executive assistant, indeed a very modest man, received a salary increase from $27,000 to $36,432 this year, just a modest increase for a political appointment of 34 per cent in one year. Just a modest increase for a modest office for a modest Premier.

But in his next increases, his administrative assistant...he has an executive assistant; he has an administrative assistant. He has one with a red button and one with a green button so he knows which is which. His administrative assistant's salary increase went from $17,628 to $23,710, a 34 per cent increase...

Mr. Wallace: Time, time!

Mrs. Jordan: ...for a modest administrative assistant, for a modest office, for a modest Premier.

The press secretary, ah, another political appointment — a press secretary for a modest Premier so that he gets modest press coverage at a modest cost to the taxpayers. He got a salary increase from $17,628 to $19,646, and that is, Mr. Member, a modest increase because that political appointment, for the modest publicity the Premier wants, is only a 10.4 per cent increase.

An Hon. Member: What did he do wrong?

Mrs. Jordan: Well, I don't know. What did he do wrong? I guess he was twigging around. Maybe he lost a cheque. I don't know. Maybe he lost a cheque or maybe he lost a message that was supposed to be given to the Premier.

His administrative officers — six — an increase from $17,628 to $20,180. That's a 20 per cent increase. He's just half as good.

No guidelines. No reasons. It's like when this Premier talks about borrowing money — it makes you quiver in your roots. We're in one of the most inflationary and most dangerous economic periods in the history of the post-war era, and this Minister of Finance stands up here with his social work mentality, which is great in the field and not so hot in the accounting books, and says: "We're going to borrow carefully, modestly, $116 million that's going to cost the people of British Columbia over 20 years to pay back $200 million."

At the same time, while he is managing his budget modestly with 34 per cent salary increases for political appointments and spraying gold filigree around, living in the lap of luxury himself, he's jeopardizing the future of this province and the future of the children of this province. And no guidelines for his tinkering in the marketplace. No guidelines in his office.

If you examine the rest of the salary increases in his office — after you have heard him talk about how he's for the little guy, and how one Minister has set

[ Page 883 ]

up a bureau of economic research for women's rights, and another political appointment is sent to search out through the civil service for inequalities for women — we see that his own secretary, a lady, and a lady of great accomplishment and well-respected in these buildings, but nonetheless, an order-in-council appointment the same as the administrative assistant, the same as the executive assistant, the same as the press secretary and one of the many that this man, the Premier of this province, has said comes with him and goes with him.... Political appointments to do a political job that he wants, subject to the political salary that he wishes to give.

I don't want any misunderstanding, because the flowers are not ordered for this lady. But I would like to point out that her salary increase was $115 a month, while the executive assistant's salary increase was $788 a month: a 34 per cent increase for the executive assistant, a 34 per cent increase for the administrative assistant — in this modest office of this modest Premier who cares about those who are the small guys — and barely a 10 per cent increase for his chief secretary. Mind you, Mr. Premier doesn't know about business, but he always tells us he does. Anyone who knows anything about business administration knows that an executive's efficiency can only be as great as that of his secretary — whether that secretary is a man or a woman.

Mr. Liden: That's why you're not a secretary.

Mrs. Jordan: Now come clean, Mr. Premier and Minister of Finance — and kewpie doll that winds up with his benevolence to the little people — why don't you practise what you preach? Why don't you back up what the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Lauk) is doing in spending thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money on economic research into the rights of women? You don't have to pay me a thing. You pay me as an MLA. I tell you right now: you're underpaying your secretary, a lady. She's an order-in-council appointment. She rises and falls with you, and you give her a piddly 10 per cent increase. But you give your others a 34 per cent increase. Come on, let's practise what you preach. Let's practise in your own office what you like to spread through the newspapers in terms of protecting your own employees.

You know, Mr. Premier, I couldn't help but think as I looked at your expenses, and your own salary which you set yourself — and you set yourself a salary of $52,000....

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Before the Hon. Member continues, would you address the Chair, please?

Mrs. Jordan: Oh, yes, Mr. Chairman. I'm glad to see you, again. Mr. Chairman, $52,000 a year this Premier gave himself. I think he was earning $11,200 or something, before he got this job — by default. That's $52,000 a year and $20,000-odd per year in travelling expenses.

You know, Mr. Chairman, there's been a request put before this government and this Minister of Finance by a group of people in this province who have been frozen to their jobs by this government, who make a major contribution to our environment, and who make a major contribution to the greatest problem we have in this Legislature, the problem of waste. It's the producers of this province, the farmers of this province. All they ask of this Minister of Finance at this time is for him to remove the estate tax in passing their farms to their sons and daughters.

Now this Premier stood up and said how he wants farmers to stay on the land, how he wants young people to go into farming. Yet he makes it almost impossible for a father or a mother to pass their farm on to their son and daughter. You know, Mr. Premier, if a farmer has a parcel of land worth $100,000, which is less than double your annual salary — you get $52,000 a year plus $22,000 expenses — this individual has put a lifetime of work into that land that is worth $ 100,000. When they go to pass that on to their son or their daughter.... I want you to follow your hero, Peter the Red, from Alberta and remove gift tax and inheritance tax between the farmer, the producer, their wives and their children.

Mr. Premier, they have to pay gift taxes on $40,000 on a $100,000 piece of land. That amounts to $4,350.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: What? In inheritance they get a $150,000 exemption.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mrs. Jordan: Mr. Premier, you get $70,000-odd a year that you had the audacity to set to yourself.

You should hide your head in that desk. (Laughter.) You should get right in it. You're sitting there getting nearly $100,000 a year from the taxpayers for fumbling and fiascoing around this province, and you begrudge a producer and his family a little piece of land.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Look, if I have to stand it, you should be down there too.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

[ Page 884 ]

Mrs. Jordan: Mr. Chairman, I have the floor.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: If I have to stand it....

Mr. Chairman: Order! The Hon. Member for North Okanagan has the floor.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please!

Mrs. Jordan: Mr. Chairman, perhaps as the Premier is so anxious to talk, he'll stand up and tell this House, first, that he's going to raise the salaries of his order-in-council secretaries in this government to the equivalent of the executive assistants and, secondly, that he's going to remove the gift taxes from the land of the farmers so they can pass from father to son, from mother to daughter, so that a hard-working, lifetime farmer can have the same benefits in a lifetime that this Premier took for himself in one year and that he will remove the inheritance tax. It's a very simple request.

You know, I imagine that it's little more than the cost of financing that elf from the north and some of the other extravagances we've had. It's very simple.

Would the Premier like to give us an answer?

An Hon. Member: Did she say "elf" or "elk?"

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Yes, I'll give you the answer.

Mrs. Jordan: All right, will you raise your secretary's salary?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I'll give you an answer, Madam. Please sit down and I'll give you an answer, because you're wrong again. I always hate to ruin a good speech with facts, but in this case I have to do it again. You have my complete sympathy on this occasion, Mr. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett).

I'd move exemption under the Succession Duty Act, special beneficiaries: husband, wife, father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, child, grandchild, son-in-law, daughter-in-law — $125,000 plus home, property, insurance to $25,000, pension to $250 per month...home and insurance and not a total of $25,000. Total exemptions deemed to be $150,000.

The next line — family farm. The whole family farm is exempt as defined by regulation if passing to the child.

Hon. L. Nicolson (Minister of Housing): No homework.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: No homework again. You get up here and say....

Mrs. Jordan: Get off it.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Sit down, sit down, sit down!

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please!

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Sit down!

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The Hon. Premier has the floor.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I don't blame you for staying down there, Mr. Leader. Please get your Members to do some homework. I don't mind being yelled at, I don't mind being insulted, I don't mind being prodded, I don't mind being accused, but do a little research. Thank you for nodding. I recognize, with wisdom, the space you put between that Member and yourself.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Family farm, as defined by regulations, if passing to a child. This is about the sixth time you've raised this point, and you refuse to read the Act.

Let me say once and for all: if you are a farmer, if you have a son and daughter, and you decide before you die to write in your will that you want your son or daughter or both to have the farm and everything that goes with it, you put it in your will and this government says that they can have the farm with no tax.

Some Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Hon. Mr. Barrett: That's what she's asking for. (Laughter.) She's asking: would the government please allow the son or daughter...?

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Shhhhh!,Shhhhh! Shhhhh! Edu-ma-cation is going on. (Laughter.) Don't ask questions unless you know the answers — the first rule of politics. (Laughter.)

Mr. Bennett: I think 1,000 calories a day would help.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: A thousand calories a day?

[ Page 885 ]

Why, I don't think you should discuss your conversation with her in public. (Laughter.) I find that rather shocking. I want to tell you that you can't come back here and say the law is something other than it is. I'm going to send a letter from my office tomorrow with a copy of the Act for you.

Let me say it again. What the Member wants and demands and is fighting for is that, if a family farm passes to a son or daughter, she doesn't want them to pay any inheritance tax. I got news for her — that's already the law.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson: That's action! (Laughter.)

Interjections.

Mrs. Jordan: I wonder if the Premier, now that he's finished his waving — he didn't ask what he could do about his secretary.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Mrs. Jordan: The Premier is doing exactly what he says — expressing his ignorance. He knows as well as I do that many family farms are incorporated because of the federal law and for many other reasons, and they are not exempt. Is he willing to waive the deferred tax?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: It doesn't matter if they're incorporated.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please! One person....

Interjections.

Mrs. Jordan: Oh, under $150,000!

Mr. Chairman: Order!

Mrs. Jordan: Do you know how much a tractor costs today? A Ford 3000 costs well in the neighbourhood of $6,000 without a loader — which you should know about — and a backhoe, my friend. It's nothing to get tip to a value of $150,000 on a farm. You don't even know what you're talking about.

Interjections.

Mrs. Jordan: Well, a spreader is worth $7,000. Ask the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis); he's an authority on it.

Hon. Mr. Nicolson: Have you got a spreader going there?

Mrs. Jordan: Will you...?

Interjections.

Mrs. Jordan: Mr. Chairman....

Mr. Chairman: Order, please!

Mrs. Jordan: Will the Minister completely exempt the family farm, whether it's incorporated or otherwise, from gift and estate taxes, and above the $150,000, and the gift tax?

Will he also raise his secretary's salary? Two questions.

Interjections.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Mr. Chairman: The committee reports progress and asks leave to sit again.

Leave granted.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10: 51 p.m.