1974 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

MONDAY, MARCH 4, 1974

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 735 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

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

Introduction and first reading — 735

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

Introduction and first reading — 735

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

Introduction and first reading — 735

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

Introduction and first reading — 735

An Act for the Restriction of the Use of Spring Traps (Bill

63). Mr. Gardom.

Introduction and first reading — 736

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

Introduction and first reading — 736

Oral Questions

Rail car shortage. Mr. Fraser — 736

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

Negotiations with RNABC. Mrs. Jordan — 736

Income tax discounts. Mr. Curtis — 737

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

Burrard Inlet ferry crossing. Mr. Gibson — 737

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

ICBC carpeting contract. Mr. Bennett — 738

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Bennett — 740

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 747

Mr. Bennett — 758

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 760

Mr. McClelland — 763

Mr. Gardom — 764

Mr. Cummings — 765

Mr. Phillips — 765

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 766

Mr. Phillips — 766

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 767

Mr. McGeer — 768

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 771

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

Introduction and first reading — 772

MONDAY, MARCH 4, 1974

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): I would like to introduce to the

House this afternoon one of British Columbia's youngest and

hardest-working mayors, Mayor Brian Klaver of Port Hardy. I

would ask the House to join me in welcoming him.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, today it's my very

great pleasure to introduce two guests on the floor of the

House. The first one is a young man who has already made a name

for himself in the Canadian political scene and who is faced

with similar problems, although at the other end of this great

nation of Canada — the Premier of Newfoundland, the Hon. Frank

D. Moores.

Accompanying the Hon. Premier is the Hon. John C. Crosby,

the Minister of Finance — they have two people. (Laughter.)

And in the gallery, Mr. Speaker, are two of the Premier's

staff, Mr. Wallace Reid, chairman of the Newfoundland and

Labrador Power Commission; and Mr. Gerry Korbi, press secretary

to the Premier.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker,

I'd like to take this opportunity on behalf of the official

opposition to welcome the first Minister of Newfoundland and

the Hon. Mr. Crosby. As you know well, British Columbia and

Newfoundland have much in common. Their province is comparable

to ours in that it is on the eastern coast; we're often

referred to as the book-ends of Canada. I have recently noticed

that he's come out as a strong advocate of protecting

provincial rights. I agree with the Premier of Newfoundland on

this, and I welcome him on behalf of the official

opposition.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, it's a pleasure

for me to join in welcoming the Premier of Newfoundland. We

worked together in Ottawa as colleagues when we were Members of

Parliament. When the Premier referred to similar problems, I

thought of his leaving Ottawa, coming back and winning the

government of the province that you were referring to. Mr.

Moores is a little ahead of me but I trust I won't be far

behind.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, as the leader of

the British Columbia hordes in the Conservative Party, I take

great pleasure in welcoming Premier Moores. We had a delightful

luncheon and I'd also like to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for

making your office available for a private little conversation

where I worked out a plan whereby we're going to emulate Premier Moores. You're welcome.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): I'm afraid my guest today

is not as distinguished as Premier Moores, but in our family

he's a very fine person. As the House knows, many of us from

the boondocks don't have that much opportunity. My brother is

in the gallery and I'm sure the House will be interested to

know that he is a teacher and that he has been on the

wage-negotiating committee with the teachers. I would ask the

House to give him a warm welcome.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): We have in the House today

for the first time my daughter. I ask the House to join me in

welcoming her.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. Members, on behalf of the Hon. Minister of

Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Lorimer) and myself, I'd like the

House to welcome a group of students from McPherson Park School

in my constituency along with their teachers, Mrs. S. Nelson,

Mr. Charlie Hoo and John Wallis.

Introduction of bills.

UNIFIED FAMILY COURT ACT

Hon. Mr. Hall presents a message from His Honour the

Administrator; a bill intituled Unified Family Court

Act .

Bill 49 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

BRITISH COLUMBIA DAY ACT

Hon. Mr. Macdonald presents a message from His Honour the

Administrator; a bill intituled British Columbia Day

Act .

Bill 61 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

BRITISH COLUMBIA TARTAN ACT

Hon. Mr. Hall presents a message from His Honour the

Administrator; a bill intituled British Columbia Tartan

Act .

Bill 62 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

LEGAL PROFESSIONS

AMENDMENT ACT, 1974

Hon. Mr. Macdonald presents a message from His

[ Page 736 ]

Honour the Administrator; a bill intituled Legal

Professions Amendment Act , 1974.

Bill 33 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

AN ACT FOR THE RESTRICTION OF

THE USE OF SPRING TRAPS

On a motion by Mr. Gardom, Bill 63,

An Act for the

Restriction of the Use of Spring Traps , introduced, read a

first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for

second reading at the next sitting of the House after

today.

FRANCHISE DEALERS PROTECTION ACT,

On a motion by Mr. Bennett, Bill 64, Franchise Dealers

Protection Act, 1974 , introduced, read a first time and

ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at

the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral questions.

RAIL CAR SHORTAGE

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Mr. Speaker, a question to the

Premier (Hon. Mr. Barrett) as president of the B.C. Railway. I

would like to know if the Premier is aware that the rail car

shortage has continued on the British Columbia Railway for 12

months and is now more acute than it has ever been. Where and

when is the British Columbia Railway going to get 6,000 rail

cars that are needed now to move the lumber products that are

waiting for shipment to world markets?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I want to say that the

government has moved with the problem that we inherited from

the former administration. We have leased cars, we are going to

build our own cars, and we are making every effort to get cars

from the other railways. I suggest that during my estimates

later in the day, when the vice-president of the railway is

here, we can go into detailed information.

ROLE OF LABOUR MINISTER

IN VICTORIA PRESS STRIKE

MR. WALLACE: I would like to ask the Minister of Labour, in

the light of an approach from the management of Victoria Press,

whether he can give the House any further information about a

role that he might be playing to bring this three-month strike

to an end.

HON. W.S. KING (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, I have no

statement that I can make to the House at this time relative to

the meeting I had with the press people. I am examining the

representation they made to me but I really don't feet it would

be helpful to comment any further at this particular point in

time.

MR. WALLACE: A supplemental question, Mr. Speaker. Is it the

Minister's intention to remain available and to play a part, or

has he told the management that they must settle the issue with

the employees themselves?

HON. MR. KING: I don't intend to become an alternative to

collective bargaining; but based on consultation with both

parties, if I feel there is a positive role that can be played

by the department beyond the use of the mediation officer who

is involved, why I certainly would consider that.

NEGOTIATIONS WITH RNABC

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address my

question to the Hon. Minister of Health and ask him if, in view

of the fact that negotiations have broken off between the RNABC

and the B.C. Hospital Association — and the nurses have stated

very emphatically that they are tired of getting the short end

of the stick in wage negotiations — will the Minister follow

the precedent he set when he stepped in without the hospital

board's knowledge and negotiated on behalf of the HEU and use

the same precedent to...?

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

speech?

MRS. JORDAN: Yes, I am asking if he will use the same

precedents to step in and assist the RNABC to come to a fair

conclusion in their wage negotiations.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, this is

the most confused question I have ever heard.

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

HON. MR. COCKE: In the first place, I will try to indicate

the aspect of the question that I disagree with wholeheartedly:

at no time have I or my department negotiated on anybody's

behalf. At one time we were asked to mediate a situation and

did so. As far as the question between the RNABC and the

hospital association is concerned, that's precisely where it

is; it is between those two bodies, and at this time I have no

comment.

[ Page

737 ]

MRS. JORDAN: I believe it was the B.C. Hospital Association that was

not aware of this intervention...

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MRS. JORDAN: ...but nonetheless, in view of the fact that

the nurses have stated they would be prepared to strike, are

you not prepared to step in on their behalf?

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I am quite concerned about this

situation, but it is negotiations, after all. This Ministry

can't at this time make any prognostication as to where it is

going to go.

Now I understand this morning that further talks were to

take place, and I don't really think that anything said

in this House is going to assist those talks.

INCOME TAX DISCOUNTERS

MR. H.A. CURTIS (Saanich and the Islands): To the Minister

of Consumer Services: has she or has her department received

any complaints with respect to so-called income tax discounters

within the past few weeks?

HON. P.F. YOUNG (Minister of Consumer Services): I will have to take

that as notice, Hon. Member. I do know of one specific letter I received in

which a case that occurred last year was outlined to me, but I am not personally

aware of any complaints that I have received as yet,

PRODUCERS' SHARE OF

MILK PRICE INCREASE

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): To the Minister of

Agriculture, Mr. Speaker. We see that milk is going up two

cents a quart in the Province of B.C. Has the Hon. Minister

determined what percentage of that increase will pass on to the

producer?

HON. D.D. STUPICH (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Speaker, the

whole amount of the increase is to be passed on to the

producer. I am not sure if you understand that the....

MR. GARDOM: Totally?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Well, it's passed on to the producer every

month as the formula calls for an increase. Then when you build

up to a 38 cent increase, one cent is passed on to the

consumer. So there is a certain amount left on the table the

month before.

The February calculation showed increases of 48 cents going to the producer,

along with what was left on the table from the month before. It added somewhere

up to the neighbourhood of 76 cents, which is two cents to the producer.

BURRARD INLET FERRY CROSSING

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver–Capilano): I have a

question, Mr. Speaker, for the Hon. Minister of Municipal

Affairs to ask if he has any progress to report in the matter

of the long-awaited ferry crossing of the Burrard Inlet.

SALE OF MATERIAL JUNK

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

In regard to the question that was asked a few days back by

the Hon. Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland), I do have a reply

for him. I have the information that I was awaiting. It is in

regard to the sale by the B.C. Hydro of material junk, or

second-hand material, at Jordan River.

I want to thank the Member for the interesting question. It

was something that was brought to our attention that the

practices being carried out by Hydro are the same as were being

carried out by the previous administration in which sale of

this material was carried out without a tender being called. In

fact, the material that he mentioned was sold without going to

tender.

I wish to assure the House that directions have gone to B.C.

Hydro that all future sales in bulk of any value would have to

go through public tender. I want to thank the Member for the

question.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, to the same

Member, a supplementary. I asked a number of questions in

regard to that — at a later date — with regard to the

involvement of an American Company called the Alaska Junk

Company and the involvement of American crews on that job. I

wanted to also ask the Minister whether or not that job has

been halted at this time; also, whether or not it will be

halted so that that job can go to public tender.

HON. MR. LORIMER: As far as the Alaska Junk Company is

concerned, I'm sorry, I do recall that there was a second

question you asked at a later time. I don't have the answer for

that at this stage.

As far as the canceling of the contract goes, we feel we

cannot do that because we believe in the sanctity of

contracts.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. LORIMER: I would suggest that you put your

questions on the order paper and I will be

[ Page 738 ]

sure to answer them all.

ICBC CARPETING CONTRACT

MR. BENNETT: To the Minister of Transport and

Communications. The other day I asked the Minister a question

regarding the granting of contracts for ICBC and the policy

regarding B.C. Industries as it was a matter of some urgency to

an industry in my constituency. Because this is of such urgency

to them and involves the jobs of B.C. workers, I wonder if he

could enlighten us as to the policy and as to that specific

contract dealing with carpeting and floor coverings for the

ICBC offices in B.C.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): No. I'll

file the answer. I'm asking for more information, as a matter of fact....

Interjections.

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

right.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Yes, that's right. I inquired and I got

part of the answer. I am looking for the names of the three

British Columbia companies who tendered. They evidently didn't

go to the factories.

A call for tender went out. There were three B.C. companies

who tendered. So when they came in, they were from three B.C.

companies. Now, as I say, I am looking for more information,

more background, to that.

MR. BENNETT: What I am concerned about is although the

tenders were by B.C. applicators, I am talking about the use of

B.C. products against the use of a product, a floor covering,

manufactured in Quebec. The fact is that between the use of

these two materials on the contract of $129,000 there is only

$611 different in the use of B.C. materials. Specifically, I

wasn't concerned with the B.C. applicators but the use of a

product manufactured in B.C.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: That's why I am asking for! more

information as to the exact wording.

PREMIER'S KNOWLEDGE OF

B.C. EGG BOARD CONTROVERSY

MR. GARDOM: A question to the Hon. Premier. I would ask the

Premier if he has read the material that was tabled in the House last week and specifically the

affidavits of Mr. Brunsdon, Unger, McAninch and Stafford?

HON. MR. BARRETT: (Mike not on) ...affidavits where

statements are made and then following the statements the words

"or words to that effect." Or "similar words" or whatever it is....

MR. GARDOM: The question to the Hon. Premier is: has he read

the material that was tabled in the House last week? Yes or

no.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, I have read the material and I know

of its contents, which I disagree with.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! This matter would not be

normally in question period but during the estimates of the

Minister.

LOUSY POLITICAL DECISIONS

BY ALCOHOLIC EXECUTIVES

MR. P.L. McGEER (Vancouver–Point Grey): Question to the

Minister of Human Resources: with respect to the Stein report,

where it said that alcoholic executives in the parliament

buildings were making lousy political decisions, does he know

of any such executives.

HON. N. LEVI (Minister of Human Resources): That will be

taken under advisement. (Laughter.)

LOCATION OF WARRANT

FOR SKAGIT RENTAL

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister

of Lands, Forests and Water Resources: I'd like to ask him

whether he's had the time since I questioned him on Tuesday

last to determine whether the warrant from Seattle City Light

for the rental on Skagit has been returned or whether it still

is in British Columbia.

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

The question of a suitable reply . Is being considered by officials of our department

and the Attorney-General's department. However, the cheque has not been cashed;

it's in the vault.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: May I ask, Mr. Speaker, how long this

cheque or warrant has been in British Columbia?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I'm sure that your sources in Seattle might provide

you with the information,

[ Page

739 ]

but I take it as notice.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MINES MINISTER'S TALKS WITH

MINING ASSOCIATION RE BILL 31

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): The question is to the

Hon. Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources: since

introducing Bill 31 to this House, have you or any of your

department members met with the mining association in the

Province of British Columbia to discuss the ramifications of

the intended Mineral Royalties Act on their business in

this province?

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

MR. SMITH: No, I'm not. Have you met with the B.C. and Yukon

Mining Association, or any mining association, since this bill

was introduced to discuss the ramifications of the bill?

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): I've

met with individual companies that have asked me for conferences, and I've discussed

the bill with some of them. But it's not for publication; it's just for information.

They're asking me for information as to what the bill announced. The Yukon Chamber

of Mines I have not met with, and officially I haven't met with the mining association.

MR. SPEAKER: May I point out to Members that we must not

anticipate any order of the day or other matters before the

House on the order paper.

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

MR. SPEAKER: I realize that at the moment.

MR. SMITH: I have a supplemental question to the Minister.

After the bill was introduced there was a statement by members

of your department concerning the amount of revenue that would

be realized from this source. As a matter of fact, you made a

statement yourself. Now, the statement you have made concerning

revenue in the amount of around $25 million and the statement

that has been made by members of the mining association and

profession in British Columbia, where they say the amount of

revenue is closer to $150 million, are miles apart. Do you

agree with their

interpretation of the Act?

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

Orders of

the day.

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

ESTIMATES: PREMIER'S OFFICE

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

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Chairman, on Friday last as

Premier of the province I had the opportunity for the first

time to tour the offices of the ICBC. I had been there once for

a meeting but not had an opportunity to tour the operation.

I just want to express a few impressions to the House as

Premier of this province about the ICBC and about my feelings

and attitudes towards the government that I am responsible to

head in terms of the ICBC.

During the election campaign we had promised that we would

bring in government-owned car insurance.

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

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, we laid out our policy, we

went into the campaign and we then were elected to office and

announced that we were going to carry through on our campaign

promise.

At no time did we receive the co-operation of the large

insurance corporations which had, in fact, stated that they had

been losing money for years. As a charitable act we decided to

save them from themselves and go ahead with our own plans.

Over the months that the insurance corporation came into

being, after I'd asked the former Leader of the Opposition and

now the Minister of Transport (Hon. Mr. Strachan) in this House

to administer that programme, the programme came under severe

attack from opposition Members and from many people in this

province who, for political purposes, did not wish to see the

programme get launched or even become successful.

There must then, Mr. Chairman, be a great deal of

apprehension in the community, and were times during the last

few months, when I heard the comments and the criticisms, that

I felt the Minister must have been under severe pressure and

that the community was facing, if we describe it in the

opposition's terms, a disaster.

There were believers in this province of the idea, Mr.

Chairman, that this province did not have the ability, the

nerve, the drive, or frankly the guts to put together an

insurance corporation that could possibly work, or even do

better than the private companies.

Over the past few months we have heard nothing more than a

barrage of attacks about the pitfalls, the

[ Page 740 ]

dangers, and most of all about the chaos and the line-ups.

Yes,"chaos" was actually used in a headline in an unnamed

Vancouver paper.

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

afternoon?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Afternoon, and it wasn't The Highland

Echo . (Laughter.)

Mr. Chairman, there was an atmosphere created that this

insurance company wouldn't really benefit British Columbians,

and yet I met young people under the age of 25 who came to me

and said that they were paying half of what they paid last

year.

We became the subject of personal attacks in the House, Mr.

Chairman. I remember and recall the Member for North Peace

River (Mr. Smith) coming into the House and announcing that my

brother-in-law was an insurance agent and had been, I informed

him, for 20 years. And now my brother-in-law informs me, Mr.

Chairman, that he's also had on his staff the brother of the

Member for Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder). (Laughter.)

Oh, Mr. Chairman, I didn't want to bring this up because I'm

not the kind to play politics with this kind of a shoe

(Laughter) — just like the Member for North Peace River said he

didn't want to play politics with the fact that my

brother-in-law had been an agent for 20 years. My

brother-in-law had also been, sin of all sins, a Social Credit

voter. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BARRETT: But that's all changed, Mr. Chairman.

After the attack by the Member for North Peace River, he's now

going to vote Liberal. (Laughter.) So you can't win 'em

all.

I'm not responsible for my brother-in-law's bad political

judgment, but he tells me that the government insurance plan is

first class and he's proud as an agent to represent it.

I went to the ICBC office and I expected chaos. I expected

all of the terrible things that the doom-and-gloom — the D and

G gang over there....

Interjection.

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

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

HON. MR. BARRETT: Up until last week, every single day the Minister

of commercial transport (Hon. Mr. Strachan) was barraged with questions about

the ICBC. What was the only question asked today? "How come my constituents

aren't getting a hunk of the business?"

Now, I also want to talk about the politics of the ICBC, but

before I get onto that I want to say that, despite all the

doubters, despite all the fears, a miracle has been performed

in terms of straight business administration, because within a

matter of months that Minister pulled together and created the

largest insurance company in all of Canada — 1,500 employees

working very, very hard and smoothly producing a first-class

insurance programme.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

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

happened....

AN HON. MEMBER: A new Crown jewel.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, it's not a new Crown jewel — that's an

old line. Now that it's all happened, and now that it's here, I

want to publicly thank that Minister and the staff that he

brought together for creating the ICBC.

Then I want to say one further thing...

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

Onwards and upwards to London.

HON. MR. BARRETT: ...to all the voters in British Columbia

who must witness where decisions are made, let it be clearly

understood...

MR. CHABOT: Bye-bye, Bob.

HON. MR. BARRETT: ...that we are in favour of the people

owning their own car insurance programme. And I challenge any

Member of this House to go into the next election representing

a party that is opposed to this plan and say,"Vote for me, and

we'll do away with ICBC." That will be the choice: those are

the wreckers, and here are the builders of British Columbia.

That will be their choice. There will be a choice. Those who

had the vision, those who had the faith — they supported the

policies and they brought this great corporation into being. I

say to you and to every voter in this province, remember who

was against it and, come next election, decide whether or not

they'd be out to wreck the people's corporation that has done

so well. What line-ups? What chaos? The people know better, and

they will remember. And just in case they forget, we will

remind them.

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

Interjections.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, through you to

[ Page

741 ]

the Premier, in discussing his estimates, I really didn't

expect the Premier to get up and cry and whimper

to protect the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon.

Mr. Strachan).

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, no!

MR. BENNETT: I don't think there's anything wrong with the

opposition asking legitimate questions about the setting up of

ICBC.

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

against it?

MR. BENNETT: I will tell the Premier, I will tell the

Minister of Finance, the president of the railway and the

interferer in marketing boards exactly what we do believe. But

right now I would like to discuss the estimates.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BENNETT: It is nice to know that the Highways Minister

has served some function in this government; it certainly isn't

in repairing the roads of the province.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. BENNETT: Now, in discussing the financial conditions

that our province operated in last year and this year, I think

we should reflect on the economy of the world and the economics

that have created the prosperity in B.C.

Certainly the world market in 1974 was one of boom and

prosperity, but also inflation. That boom and prosperity

brought to British Columbia a great deal of money. It was a

year in which natural resources on the world market moved up

from being low priced to their true perspective in world

economics. British Columbia, with a prepared economic base for

manufacture of its resources, for the control of its mineral

resources, was able to take advantage of the world economy, and

British Columbia revenues boomed as never before.

Mr. Chairman, we received record prices last year for our

mineral ores, and we watched the price of gold and the price of

silver on world markets skyrocket and, of course, of more

interest to British Columbia, the price of copper. This

reflected in more money to the companies of B.C., more money to

the workers of B.C. and more money for the government of

British Columbia in their participation in the share of our

resources.

This share wouldn't have come to British Columbia if there had been no mines.

This share wouldn't have come to British Columbia if there had been no secondary

manufacturing in the forest industry, any process of dimension lumber, any pulp

mills. It was just a few years ago that we heard the cries in B.C. that we were

over-establishing our penetration in pulp facilities. Now we are paying the

benefits of the attempt to set up in advance of world markets the harvesting

of our resources in lumber, timber and pulp.

The returns to the people of B.C. In the way of their

government gave us tremendous surpluses. Those tremendous

surpluses were far and above the estimates that this government

and this Premier and this Minister of Finance estimated last

year. We feel that in a situation like this, particularly where

the government is committed to two sessions a year, that in a

situation where the Minister of Finance has access daily to the

income of the Province of British Columbia by way of taxation,

these moneys, these surplus moneys should have been allocated

to the benefit of programmes of urgency in the Province of

British Columbia. We've already discussed in this House and are

well aware of what those programmes are and where that urgency

is.

We know that we have a housing crisis. We know that housing

is a problem in all of Canada. But with the tremendous surplus

from our resources.... And we know that last year from timber

they estimated we would get $90 million, and we know that when

the fiscal year has ended it will be somewhere over $200

million. These resource profits, these resource moneys, should

have been allocated to solving some of those problems instead

of waiting for spring. The "Why wait for spring? Do it now"

attitude should apply to government. We should have had the use

of those tax moneys. Rather than them being built up to report

record surpluses in the spring, we should have had them

allocated to solving the loss of income through inflation to

people on fixed incomes. New directions in education and health

could have been taken at that time, because if there's a reason

for two sessions for legislative programmes, surely there is a

reason for bringing in two budgets in a time of major change in

our economy, a time of major change in the moneys that are

coming to finance our province, our government, for the benefit

of our people.

But not only should these surpluses have been used, Mr.

Chairman, through to the Minister of Finance, not only should

they have been used to provide services, but perhaps some of

the benefits could have been passed on to our people by way of

tax cuts. Now, we know that part of the increased

revenue to the province was because of the change in

energy prices in the world. Now, those price changes weren't

caused by British Columbia. They weren't caused by British

Columbia.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

[ Page 742 ]

MR. BENNETT: Energy prices in the world were raised by the

action of the Arabian countries in raising the price of oil,

and all other energy requirements reflecting that price

increase became more valuable.

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Would you say the 32

cents was justified in the last 5 years?

MR. BENNETT: I'll deal with that, Mr. Attorney-General, I

realize, just as you did during the Agriculture estimates, that

you wish to cloud what we're trying to say.

But I would like to continue, if I may, and talk about the

world energy prices increased by the action of the Arabian oil

countries. All other energy forms rose or were worth more money

in relation to this. They didn't have competition from the

cheap fuel.

Now, I must commend the British Columbia government for, in

the absence of the National Energy Board, taking action to get

more money for B.C. gas in relation to the new higher prices in

the world. But I also would like to....

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BENNETT: Because, Mr. Premier and Minister of Finance,

through the Chairman, there were provisions in that bill which

were unacceptable.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

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

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You missed your chance.

MR. BENNETT: There were sections in that bill that were

unacceptable, and we've seen this government's action...

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. BENNETT: ...because where we've supported a bill but

opposed it in committee, they take one action and the Premier

puts on a circus performance and he goes: "And here we are,

they voted for the bill...." And when we take another tack,

they talk the other way. But that's in keeping with the

attitude of the Premier and Minister of Finance, and it is in

keeping with the way he talks out of both sides of his face at

the same time.

MR. CHABOT: Hear, hear!

MR. BENNETT: And I can agree that he's under some pressure lately. He's

under question as to certain affidavits and other sources, and it must be very

upsetting to him that his word may be doubted in this province. But back to

the national energy prices.

When the government, through its action, put up the prices

for the citizens of British Columbia for gas in an attempt to

get more money from the export market, they had an obligation

to the citizens of B.C. to pass on a resource dividend to the

citizens. But what did they do? No resource dividend, but an

increase in gas prices all over the Province of British

Columbia.

MR. CHABOT: Shocking!

MR. BENNETT: Thirty per cent, 13 per cent, 70 per cent. If

the government wasn't going to pass along a resource dividend,

as they are so fond of talking about, why could they not — why

could you not, Mr. Chairman, through to the Minister of Finance — have passed along an equivalent amount of money to the users

of natural gas in this province so they didn't have to pay

these exorbitant rate increases?

Why should the money come out of the pockets of the citizens

of British Columbia in an attempt to get more money on the

export market? You've got these extra surpluses, why not pass

them along to British Columbians? Why not pay payments back

directly to the utilities that could be passed along with the

condition that they are passed along to the users so that they

don't have this major increase in their gas bills in this

province?

I ask you why not.

We've got tremendous surpluses. Why continue to pad the

surpluses? Why penalize the gas users of this province? Why

not, indeed, when we've got record revenues from resources,

record revenues in British Columbia — we see the price of

gasoline and diesel fuel going up — why not take this

opportunity to use some of the surpluses and reduce British

Columbia's tax on gasoline and diesel fuel to prevent the

staggering increases that they're going to see in their motor

fuel'?

Why sit on those surpluses? Why not reduce some of these

taxes? You have the opportunity. You have the money and you

have the obligation.

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

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

Instead, where does the Premier and Minister of Finance, Mr. Chairman, choose

to use B.C. surpluses? For the people, in benefits? For the people, in reducing

taxes? No, for financial adventuring into the stock market and into buying companies

out of the

[ Page

743 ]

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

MR. R.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources):

It used to be lumps under the mattress.

MR. BENNETT: Well, I don't know, but apparently the Minister

of Lands, Forests and Water Resources knows something about it,

so he must have slept on that mattress, or maybe he was under

the bed.

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

from him.

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

Chair?

MR. BENNETT: Which one, Mr. Chairman?

Instead of using these surpluses for financial adventuring,

here's the government now in a whole new area of financial

involvement not known to provincial government. Knowing that

this government has as its policy this philosophy, I won't

continue my opposition to that philosophy on the floor of this

House, because it is known. There we disagree, but I do feel

that I should discuss the way our public business is conducted,

the way that those acquisitions are made and the rules and

conditions that guide the financial activities of this

government, because they are much in discussion in this

province today, as the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Nimsick)

knows.

We have the government now buying on the stock market in

small amounts, or in equal amounts, or taking over, wholly,

stock companies. We have this activity authorized by new

legislation through amendments to the Revenue Act but

they have a responsibility to conduct this business and to

conduct the activities of the province so that there is no

suspicion on themselves, their advisers, or the people with

whom they choose to do business, who may or may not be

unwilling vendors of companies or stock.

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

MR. BENNETT: Now, there's much public discussion and

questioning about the financial activities of the

government.

Interjection.

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

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, major newspapers in this province — the two

major newspapers in Vancouver — have had editorials and articles questioning

and dealing with the activities of this government and the Minister of Finance,

in the way they acquire companies and the way they acquire stocks. They've questioned

the fact that there may be cabinet leaks. A major New Westminster radio station

has questioned these facts.

Now, I don't believe that speculation should continue that

puts into disrepute those people who may have sold stocks,

those people who have advised the government, the government

itself, or any citizen of British Columbia. What I'm saying is

that we must question them because of the discussion that has

been going on, and is going on now, among the citizenry of this

province that we perhaps don't have the correct procedure for

conducting the business of the province in this new financial

adventurism.

There are several areas of problems. First of all, this

government, the Minister of Finance and the Premier have said

they're going to use, outside of government service, financial

advisers, negotiators and consultants to advise them on stock

purchases or company acquisitions. That's fine if we have a set

of conditions to cover their activities in this field. We know

that the cabinet's covered by an oath of secrecy; we know the

civil service is covered by an oath of secrecy.

When the government is doing business, they have an

obligation to set the rules and conditions for this new

category of super-advisers making major financial discussions

in this province, to protect them and the public from any doubt

in their capacity in this regard. I feel that the government

should be taking steps to provide the mechanics of conducting

government business, to protect us against just that.

We've talked about leaks from cabinet. I don't know, but

some time ago in January I became concerned, Mr. Chairman, that

there may have been a leak in the mining legislation. Leaky Leo

(Hon. Mr. Nimsick) knows what I'm talking about; I'm talking of

the Bache & Company report. Now, I can't tell if there was

a major leak, but I'm concerned about the specifics of the

amounts involved and the manner in which this newsletter was

presented, and the fact that I couldn't get a direct denial

from any responsible Member of this government about this

alleged leak. I'm concerned and many British Columbians are

concerned.

Let's go back to this Bache & Company report, because

they talk about things like this:

"We have recently conducted an in-depth, two-week,

fact-finding mission in British Columbia and can confidently

report that the new legislation will be passed in the current

legislative session."

Well, I can remember when predictions were being made last

year among the public, or the government was saying that it was

going to pass legislation, but it never came in in the fall. So

these people must have had extra information not available to

the rest of the

[ Page 744 ]

public.

What upsets me is that further on they talk about those

royalties. They talk about those amounts — amounts like 2.5 per

cent and 5 per cent — and then they go along to recommend to

their selected list of investors that they do certain things in

the stock market and they can make a profit because of this

information.

If there was a leak inadvertently, if there was a leak

intentionally, if there was a leak by some other means, that's

not for me to say, but it's up to the government to take action

to make sure that leaks such as that one, which seems to be so

blatant, and other leaks which are rumoured, cannot happen and

do not happen again. That's the obligation; that's why we have

an oath of secrecy in the cabinet; that's why it's so important

that the cabinet be careful in both deed and word so that they

will not be suspect among the citizens of British Columbia that

someone is making money in the marketplace.

There again, I'm not concerned about the individuals

involved. I'm concerned that perhaps, Mr. Chairman, they're not

aware of the power they have as a government, and over their

obligation to set strict rules for the conduct of public

business now that we're in this new area of public financial

involvement.

Interjection.

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

I'd like to go on, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Premier

and Minister of Finance, because we're concerned too that when

the government.... Obviously there are some recommendations as

to how they should conduct their business, and some

recommendations for the future. But I think that to clear the

air on these conditions, as they've been discussed in the past

and as they're being discussed now, the public wants a full

explanation.

They want to know why there was an unusual trading pattern

with Columbia Cellulose and why there were unusual trading

patterns in other stocks. They want to be concerned, and I

think it's the obligation of the government, the Minister of

Finance, to have an independent public inquiry to clear the

air, to protect the public at large, to protect those vendors

to the government who may have willingly or unwillingly sold,

to protect this new group of advisers outside the scope of

government, who don't have the oath of secrecy, and if all that

fails and they're not concerned about them, to protect the

government itself and its reputation for conducting public

business.

From this independent public inquiry, we can establish new

rules of conduct for business adventures of this kind in

British Columbia.

I think there's an obvious area the government should move quickly and an obvious

recommendation of this commission: that immediately the government will ask

to have the stock suspended from trading. I don't mean when the government first

starts to talk to them, or when they reach the meeting of the minds, or when

they have finally agreed on a formula and they're ready to make the announcement

that they suspend the stock from trading. I say suspend it when you first get

the idea, when you make the first approach. That would alleviate the chance

of anybody committing any untoward act, whether they get the information by

accident or whether they got the information through some other means.

I think it's just good business to conduct the public's

business in an open and fair manner. The suspension of the

stock would alleviate the concern of a lot of citizens of

British Columbia and we wouldn't have the discussions that are

going on now in the Province of British Columbia.

Again, I suggest that another recommendation might be the

establishment of some sort of oath of secrecy for these new

advisers and new special consultants that the government's

going to use. I've got nothing against special consultants. I

think that from time to time all governments have to use them.

But where they involve large amounts of money and where large

amounts of profits can be made, then new rules and new sets of

conditions for their activities must prevail.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to say a few things about the

B.C. Railway, because it was discussed earlier by the Premier

and president of the railway. He mentioned that it could come

up later in his estimates. I want to be brief because we will

be bringing these questions up on a more detailed basis later.

I want the other Members of the House to have an opportunity

for statements.

But I'd like to clear the air as to the government's

position — the Premier's position, the president of the

railway's position — as to the financial arrangements with

Ottawa in relation to the railway development. In this context

there seems to be a severe change of direction from the

president of the railway and the Premier of the province.

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

Now back to the economics of the railway. It is a fact that

since coming to office, we have discovered quite a great deal

of correspondence between the previous administration and the

federal government, asking that the people of British Columbia

have the same benefits that other provinces have had and other

jurisdictions have had when they've built railroads.

As a matter of fact, the former Premier totaled an estimate re the government

that the federal government owed British Columbia, on the basis of equal treatment

to British Columbia in terms of its railroad construction, a total of $19 million

in the

[ Page

745 ]

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

Now I say this as a British Columbian, along with political

philosophy, that I agree completely with the position of the

former government. The federal government does have a

responsibility to pay its fair share of what we're doing here

and what was done here in British Columbia. I have made this a

condition, and I'll say this publicly now that before we

complete any arrangements with the federal government on

integrated use of the railway in the north and the northwestern

section of British Columbia, there must be a lump sum payment

to the people of British Columbia to make up the money in the

past that they owe the people of British Columbia from the

That's my position. It was the position of my predecessor

and I agree with him completely.

Now then we have the filing of the agreement in principle,

the Joint Transportation Development Programme, Northern

Government of British Columbia. Specifically, in No. 6 on page

8 it says this:

"British Columbia waives its prior claim for federal construction grants towards former Pacific Great

Eastern Lines in recognition of the funding arrangements and

considerations which are effective for the northern railway

development programme."

Now this is a major reversal of policy...

MR. CHABOT: Sucked in.

MR. BENNETT: ...from the statement of the Premier to this

Legislature last spring which I've just quoted to this

agreement, and it says it quite clearly here.

If there is an explanation, that's why I'm posing it to the

Premier and president of the railway now, because to me it's

clearly opposite. It says that British Columbia waives its

prior claim.

Now I think those two positions are not consistent with one

another. I have the copy of the claim that British Columbia has

made from time to time to maintain nothing special from the

other provinces and other resource railways have received.

There are many other points dealing with this financial

arrangement the Government of British Columbia has signed with

the federal government that I'll be going into detail on later,

but it's this position of inconsistency that concerns me

now.

I'm also concerned because last fall I was here and heard the Premier and president

of the railway speaking about the way the finances of the railway were run in

the past and the fact that they'd had an inquiry on the financing and some recommendations

from auditing. Yet here we have the annual report for 1973 from the president

of the railway — and I'll read the auditors' report. It says:

"In our opinion and according to the best of our information, the explanations given to use and as shown

by the books of the company, the accompanying balance sheet and

statement of consolidated income present fairly the financial

position of the company as at December 31, 1973, and the

results of its operations for the year ended on that date in

accordance with the generally accepted accounting principles

applied on a basis consistent with that of the preceding

year."

Now here we have the same accounting methods that have

always been used presented in the same way by the same

accountants. After all the discussions and all the politicking

and all the presentation to the press that there may have been

something wrong with the financing of the railway, here it's

conducted and presented in exactly the same way.

The only difference is that after years of the same

accounting method, that the government's using now, and knowing

that we had the most prosperous year that British Columbia ever

had — the most car loadings out of the Interior, the most

railway activity ever, and with the same accounting methods —

we go from a profit of $992,000 in 1972 to a loss of $3,302,344

in 1973. No change in accounting method — and in a year that

was the most prosperous in B.C.'s history.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

Interjection.

MR. BENNETT: I would like to question that inconsistency in

regard to the British Columbia Railway.

Now I'd like also, before I sit down, to just question —

because we're discussing the Premier's office — to discuss the

Premier's authority and how he conducts that office, because it

was much in discussion last week.

We knew very well that the Premier had to be absent from

this chamber during the agricultural discussion because of a

commitment in the east. His conduct with regard to the Egg

Marketing Board and the whole chicken-and-egg business was well

discussed in this chamber.

But I felt that in the agricultural estimates the issue

would be confused — as was attempted — by correlating or

relating it to the marketing programme, to the quota system, to

the permit system and to marketing of poultry products in the

province. That wasn't the question that was under discussion at

all. The question that was under discussion was the

[ Page 746 ]

Premier's activity in dealing with those areas, his activity

in dealing with members of those boards.

I refrained from comment until the Premier was here to give

us his comments, because from the time he left British Columbia

until he got back, more affidavits were published in public and

made public — signed by responsible citizens. Motions were

passed by producers in this province and sent in resolution

form to this Legislature supporting that stand.

I feel that the time has come now with the Premier here,

during his estimates, that this question should be discussed in

this chamber. It is not a question of reduced levies; it wasn't

a question of expansion of the industry; it wasn't a question

of marketing boards. It's a question of the Premier's use or

misuse or abuse of his authority in dealing with responsible

officials and citizens of this province — in the fact that he

may not have advised but threatened.

The question is that they've questioned his version and now

the public needs to know who is telling the truth. It's a

question of the Premier's credibility; it's a question of the

acceptance of his word from the public. And I think that it has

to be asked today.

I think also we have under discussion the question from the

Premier of perhaps civil suits that were threatened in the

paper to a New Westminster radio station and to employees of

that station. Now when things are said outside this House, I

don't think discussion should be thwarted by the frivolous use

of law suits or threatened if they're not going to be used.

We've seen in the past in this province public discussion

thwarted by law suits that were started and then dropped. I

would hate to think....

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

same way.

MR. BENNETT: I don't know what the Senator Lawson — Ed

Lawson is Senator Lawson? I don't know what Senator Lawson has

to do with this discussion, but what....

Interjections.

MR. BENNETT: I wasn't going to talk about law suits, but I

think that law suits are not something that should be

frivolously threatened or used to prevent public discussion. I

think that there should be some clarification of this point in

the Legislature as to these remarks outside this House and as

to the continuing discussion between the Premier and this

station and the people, because this has gone on for some time.

Then we have the further proceeding in this House of a censure motion brought

against one of my colleagues (Mr. Phillips). I feel it would be unfortunate

if the current discussion about questioning the methods of the government's

financial adventures should be reduced to squabbling and then threatened censure

motions against a Member of the House rather than meeting issues squarely on

in an independent inquiry.

If you are going to bring a censure motion against a Member,

don't put it on the order paper and leave it as a threat; don't

use the authority of the government to hold it over a Member's

head. If the government chooses to use a weighted committee —

weighted in favour of government Members such as was the

inquiry committee last year with its seven-to-four vote

registered on strict party lines — if it chooses to use that to

clear the air, then let it. If it feels the public will be

satisfied that it has used its authority to discuss public

business and that the people of the province would believe the

government is clearly trying to get at the truth....

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: State your point of order.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: The point of order is this, Mr. Chairman:

the Liberal member of the committee to whom the Hon. Member for

South Okanagan referred was acting entirely according to

conscience. He had no direction from me or any other Member of

this party when he sat on that committee. I believe the same is

true, although he is not present, for the Leader of the

Conservative Party (Mr. Wallace). I would dislike the thought

to be left in the minds of the public or the people in this

chamber that somehow or another our man was acting on strict

party lines. He voted against the Minister entirely in

accordance with the evidence presented and in accordance with

his conscience.

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

with your speech.

MR. BENNETT: I agree exactly; that was my opinion of the

Member's participation in the committee. I think he made

himself clear and I am sure he acted independently.

Can there be justice on a political issue when the committee

is struck by the government and weighted in favour of the

government? I would say it is to the benefit of the government

to appoint an independent public inquiry. If they wish to

question the conduct of a Member of this House, make that a

part of the inquiry and then have the House discipline him

later. Why confine the general discussion of public business to

a House inquiry which may or may not have the confidence of the

citizens of British Columbia that the whole area of their

discontent and concerns are being covered?

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

[ Page

747 ]

these should be broad areas under which questioning will

come from myself and others as to the budget and as to the use

of the Premier's office.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I think that it is

appropriate to answer a number of the comments raised by the

Leader of the Opposition.

First of all, it does not sit easy with me to hear the

official opposition's position on the increased revenues from

natural gas. Although I don't wish to violate the rules of

reflecting on the votes of Members of this House, it is a

matter of record that the official opposition did vote against

the British Columbia Petroleum Corporation. It was only through

that vehicle that we would have been able to raise the prices

of gas to our American customers.

We are still bound by the federal regulation of 105 per

cent. We did not act like the Columbia gas company, which is a

private company, and pass on that major increase; we passed it

not to the consumers but to the industrial users. They were

paying a low price for their energy and had been sheltered by

that low price by the policies of the former

administration.

That is our policy; I defend that policy. Industry must pay

its fair share in this province. We have removed all the tax

concessions given to industry by the former government. We did

that too because industry should not be given tax concessions

or energy price concessions by any government.

We welcome the division on this point and we are pleased the

Member puts himself foursquare on the side of big business.

Interjection.

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

corporation.

The next matter raised by the Member is the purchase of

shares. It was the former Social Credit administration that

purchased shares of the Bank of B.C. under the amendment to the

superannuation Act brought in by the Social Credit

administration. The Social Credit administration also amended

the Revenue Act to allow the purchase of bank shares

under that Act.

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

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, they did, and it is a matter of

record. It is a little bit less than hypocritical (the Member

refuses to examine history as a record for the basis of his

speech) because the former administration had made the moves in

this area.

Now, the Member wants to talk about political interference

in the matter of purchase of shares and the stopping of the

stock market. We have only had one previous experience prior to

this administration

in terms of using the amendments passed by Social Credit

under the superannuation Act. I and this government used, to

purchase B.C. bank shares and B.C. Telephone Company shares,

the amendment to the, superannuation Act passed by Social

Credit — the same Act passed by the former government. So if he

is attacking that, he is attacking the former government.

Let's take a look at the record of the share purchase by the

former government. I want to refer you to, first of all, the

directors names. Surely to goodness no one would suspect

politics on the names of the directors of the Bank of B.C. as

there were in May, 1967. Politics? Why, of course not. These

names appeared by coincidence: Einar Gunderson...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh! Russell James Bennett

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BARRETT: ...brother of the present Leader of the

Opposition and son of the former Premier; William C. Mearns (do

you remember him at the time of the B.C. Electric takeover?);

John A. McMahan, one of the brothers; and so on, down the

list.

We continue to buy B.C. bank shares, but we never phoned

anybody and said,"Get in on the good deal." At no time is

there any record of the Premier or the cabinet attempting to

influence the market in any way in the purchase of shares.

What is the record of the former government? It should be

known publicly. I report from the Vancouver Sun of

August 15, 1967. The Member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Mr.

McGeer) remembers this; both Members from Point Grey raised

this in the House. So those with messy hands had better wash

their hands in the light of history rather than in the dark in

terms of how they interpret the present and the future.

On Friday, June 30, Bennett phoned the chief executives of

major Vancouver corporations and suggested the company purchase

$1,000,000 in stock in the Bank of B.C. That was political

interference the like of which we have never seen before or

since. The former Premier picked up the phone and called

businessmen in Vancouver and said it was a good idea to buy

into the Bank of B.C. when he was trying to buy the Bank of

B.C. How is that for a low in government influence?

He also phoned Mr. Richardson, president of the B.C.

Telephone Company, and suggested that B.C. Telephone's

announced decision to invest $100,000 wasn't good enough! He

telephoned the B.C. Telephone president and said his investment

[ Page 748 ]

$100,000 wasn't good enough. A figure of $1,000,000 was

suggested. The call was made from the Premier's office.

Influencing the stock market directly from the Premier's

office; suggesting to people they buy shares in the Bank of

B.C. While at the same time he was considering investing the

public's funds, he was on the phone in a broiler-room operation

pushing the Bank of B.C. shares. It's a matter of record. He

phoned Mr. R.G. Rogers, president of Crown Zellerbach, and

suggested the bank stock would be a good investment. He phoned

C.B. Delbridge, chairman of the board of the Vancouver

Sun at the time, suggesting a $1,000,000 figure and urging

the Sun to print a front-page editorial pushing the

bank. Print a front-page editorial page pushing the bank while

he was in the marketplace with B.C. funds.

At no time has any cabinet Minister or myself talked to

anybody about purchasing shares while we were in the process of

purchasing shares for the people of British Columbia.

The former Premier is also on record as having phoned Alex

Hamilton, president of the B.C. Forest Products, and offering

another suggestion. It sounds to me like a movie we used to

hear about called "The Godfather." Make them an offer they

can't afford to refuse.

MR. GARDOM: Buy-line.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, it's a good line, Mr. Member,

because you were here and you remember the history. It's a

little bit pious and a little bit much to forget that

history.

"The repercussions of this attempt at coercion" — and I am still quoting the Vancouver Sun —

"are still reverberating in business circles. The fact that

the bank is in the $12 million range rather than the hastily

revised $25 million target, the original $75 million target or

the Premier's personal goal for a private bank of $250 million

is due in large part to the refusal of Premier W.A.C. Bennett

to lift the political taint from the bank.

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

came personally."

It was a very clumsy move. It was brazen political

interference and the only time of the use of this authority

under the superannuation Act in the history of this province,

except in the purchase of B.C. Telephone shares which we've

used the same authority for — the same authority which this

Member misquotes in this House leaving the impression that we

have purchased B.C. Telephone shares out of surplus funds,

which is simply not true. We've used the authority that we

received from the former administration itself.

Now, Mr. Chairman, the record also proves that the former

Premier when he used this authority was on the phone shilling

for the Bank of B.C.

MR. LEWIS: That's pressure.

HON. MR. BARRETT: It was more than that; it was a suggestion

from the head office itself.

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

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, I tell you this: I deny that I have

ever phoned anyone suggesting them that they buy shares in any

corporation that was dealing with this government. Whether he

admitted it or not, based on the standards that you are

espousing today, he should have resigned and you shouldn't even

belong to that party!

Interjection.

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

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

HON. MR. BARRETT : Certainly I'm going to answer your

question. There was no political interference in the purchase

of the B.C. Telephone shares. I have not suggested that these

shares were bought with anything other than the authority left

to us by the former government. Now, let's deal with the

purchase of those shares.

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

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, don't be nervous — I won't

phone Daddy and tell him. (Laughter.)

Mr. Chairman, I want to deal with this by going on to the

records of those shares. Since the Member raised the share

purchase, let's deal with their business acumen.

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

HON. MR. BARRETT: Up to September 15, 1972, 38,100 shares of

the Bank of B.C. were bought. I think the purchase was made in

1968...

AN HON. MEMBER: What date in '68?

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

date.

...months after the former Premier had been on

[ Page

749 ]

the phone calling people telling them to buy shares. Not

days, not weeks — months after.

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

HON. MR. BARRETT: The director? I read the directors of the

bank, Mr. Member.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the interruption here of calling a

Member a name across the floor is wrong. I wish the Member....

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I'm on my feet and I would

suggest to the Member who was offended that he just get used to

it — it already cost him $4,000 for the same kind of thing.

(Laughter.)

MR. CHABOT: Carry on, Fat Boy.

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

to September 15, 1972....

Interjections.

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

a court record.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I just want to say that I try to treat both

sides equally and I don't want to be accused of not doing so.

If you feel that I'm doing something wrong, challenge what I'm

doing, but don't accuse me of being partial in this chair.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, the record was up to

September 15, 1972. Under the authority passed by the Social

Credit administration allowing the government to use funds from

superannuation funds to purchase shares, the former government

had bought 38,100 shares in the Bank of British Columbia, at

the total cost of $819,292.37, the average cost per share being

$21.50.

We have moved to go up to our federal limit in the bank,

because we believe in a publicly owned bank, or at the very

least the presence of the public in a bank, and we are on

record of supporting that concept right from the very beginning — as a matter of fact since 1933, the founding of the CCF and

the NDP.

We have never been opposed to a publicly owned bank and it

is a matter of record. We are opposed to the Premier shilling

on the phone, calling people and telling them to buy shares in

the bank.

MR. FRASER: Rubbish!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Now, the number of shares we have

purchased takes us up to our federal maximum limit — 12,955

shares, the total cost being $323,445.51 for an average per

share cost of $24.97. Out of the 51,055 shares we own, the

former government purchased 38,000 of them.

The asking price on March 4, 1974, was $22.25. The value of

the shares on March 4, 1974, at the asking price is

$1,135,973.75. The total of cash dividends received to date is

$30,000. If you deduct the share cost replacement of $6,700 we

would have made on that money invested by the former government

and by this administration, there is a total of $24,000 return

for a $1,142,000 investment.

That Member is attacking us for business acumen. The purpose

announced by the former administration to buy bank shares was

to have a presence in the banking place on a non-political

basis. That has not been the record when you see the list of

the board of directors. Nonetheless, we agreed with that and we

agree that we should be in the bank, but, Mr. Chairman, the

Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett) shouldn't talk to me in

this House about the idea of losing money on bank shares, or on

share purchase. Their share purchase was not a smart business

move; it was a matter of principle and policy.

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

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

HON. MR. BARRETT: On the same basis, Mr. Chairman, we

purchased B.C. Telephone shares on the basis of principle and

policy, as we clearly stated to the people of this province,

and we used the same authority that was invested in the

government as to the laws passed by the former administration.

So let's have that clear on the record: our purchase of the

B.C. Telephone shares was made through existing amendments to

the finance Act by the former government. Let's have that on

the record.

Now, our purchase of the B.C. Telephone shares based on our

principles and our philosophy has come to this. From August 1,

1973, to March 1, 1974, we have purchased 104,830 shares for a

total cost of $5,418,942.54. The average purchase of shares

through the Deputy, as instructed by the Treasury Board, is

$51.96. The market price today of those shares is $55 per

share.

Remember that the purpose is not for profit or loss, but

it's a matter of record that the one deal that was made before

is a pretty lousy business deal. Let's take a look at this one

in terms of a business deal. The value of the shares at market

price today is $5,765,650 — an increase since August 1 of

[ Page 750 ]

$346,000. We have received on top of that, cash dividends of

$49,000. It's been a very good business deal, unlike the Bank

of B.C. purchase which involved attempts at coercion by the

former Premier. There were no phone calls by myself to anyone

suggesting they buy Bank of B.C. shares; we did it under the

existing legislation and we have an increase in terms of the

stock value of $346,000 and cash dividends of $49,000.

Why should we not be owners of shares in B.C. Telephone? It

is a monopoly utility that ultimately should be owned by the

people of British Columbia totally.

It is in the same category as Hydro. It is a monopoly and

the people should have a fair share. We have not done anything

more, nor do we intend to do anything more at this point than

buy shares in the B.C. Telephone Company. It's a matter of

public record that when there's a good buy on B.C. Tel. shares,

we'll buy.

Now we'll deal with the agreement of the B.C. Rail. The

Member is absolutely correct in relating my position on the

moneys owed in the past, but we've signed an agreement in

principle with the federal government on the B.C. Rail. We have

said that B.C. has not received its fair share, but we have

never considered British Columbia to be a separate island from

Ottawa.

It is a matter of fact that the federal government, albeit

Liberal, has been on record as willing to negotiate with the

Province of British Columbia in joint development of that

railroad. We have signed an agreement in principle. I hope that

that agreement in principle leads to a total completion, of

joint co-operation. But if it doesn't, if they don't live up to

the terms of that agreement in principle, then there is no

agreement and we go back to square one, and we will appeal to

the federal government for the $20 million.

Why is that

section in the agreement in principle? Because

instead of asking Ottawa for $20 million, and fighting phony

wars with the federal government, as the former administration

did, we have come up with an agreement in principle which, if

consummated, will have the federal government pay a share in

the extension of that railroad. And what is the share? Not $20

million, but 10 times $20 million — $201 million, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. BENNETT: Grants or loans?

HON. MR. BARRETT: They will not be transfer loans, and I want

to make this very clear. Mr. Chairman, there will be no way that those

will be loans...and I'm choosing my words very carefully. If the

agreement is not consummated in principle and in detail, in terms of

those funds being granted to British Columbia, then the final agreement

will not be signed.

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

then.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, sir! If there's any welching on the

deal it will be on Ottawa's part, because it is clearly

understood that we are accepting $200 million in grants, not

loans. If the deal is not consummated on that basis, then there

will be no deal at all. Let's have that clear.

Now we have abandoned the $20 million for the $200 million.

We will bargain tough, and we will continue to bargain on the

basis of British Columbia being a part of Canada, not something

against the rest of Canada. British Columbia's share, if the

deal is consummated, out of the arrangement at principal, will

be an additional $163 million.

We see no reason why the federal government should not be

involved with us. We do not see the railroad as some great

jewel in the crown of some personal ambition of a politician.

The railroad is an extension of the dreams and hopes of all the

people of British Columbia that wanted it to be a success.

One of the greatest supporters of the railroad was the

former Leader of the Opposition who consistently fought, as

well as the Member for Vancouver–Point Grey. Although they

disagreed in terms of financing, both Members of this House

have a record of supporting B.C. Rail. As a matter of fact,

they joined me, I think, in opposing the name change. I don't

know if you did or not, but I recall fighting against the name

change because of the history that was involved.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, that's good sentimental value. There

are some people who still think the Socreds could rule, and

that's why they want to split the Cariboo off. (Laughter.)

Mr. Chairman, there are people who must understand that

history conditions the actions of today. So I want to make the

record straight in terms of the shareholdings and the

purchases., The only shares that we have purchased under the

expanded authority, initiated by the former administration

under the Revenue Act , are the Westcoast Transmission

shares.

I want to say this: as a matter of policy and a matter of

principle, those Westcoast Transmission shares do belong in the

hands of the people of this province because it is dealing with

the resources of the people of this province.

That purchase also is a good business purchase. So in terms of three purchases

and in a business sense only, not on the basis of philosophy or government policy

which every government must act on — but the

[ Page

751 ]

Member has complained about the business approach — on a

business approach, on two out of three we've made money; the

two which made money have been made by this side and the one

loser has been made over there.

But, Mr. Member, I ask you not to use that as the criterion

of the purchase, because I believe that the people of British

Columbia should have presence in a bank, and this bank happens

to be the one that we have presence in at this time. I believe

it is the people's right to have a presence in a bank. I said

so at the Western Economic Opportunities Conference, and the

federal Minister of Finance has announced that in agreement

with the policy of the new government of British Columbia,

there will be an option to amend the Bank Act and allow

the provinces to become directly involved.

Now the question raised about the egg-and-chicken war. Mr.

Member, I think it is important to deal with a bit of history

before we come to my involvement.

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

back.

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

should deal with it.

First of all, let me say at the outset that I have not

ordered anyone to do anything in the one meeting related to the

affidavits; and at the other meeting I was not present at

all.

In September of 1972 a report was given to the Government of

British Columbia, which was just changing hands. It was a

report requested by the former Minister of Agriculture, Mr.

Shelford, dealing with the independent Egg Marketing Board.

Mr. Shelford, it seems, and Mr. Richter before him, had some

trouble with these boards. (Laughter.) That is why Mr. Shelford

asked for the independent study, because there had been a

problem with these boards from their very inception. There had

been bitter fights, rivalries, power plays, and other things

that Mr. Garrish writes about in his report, some of which I

will refer to as I go along.

When I became Premier of this province, I had just finished

two years of touring this province. I had found, much to my

surprise and disappointment, that there were many businessmen,

farmer-businessmen, who wanted to get involved in egg

production but they claimed they were fighting a monopoly in

the Fraser Valley in terms of the control of those quotas.

The former Minister of Agriculture said,"I'll find out

whether or not that is true." And he authorized this report. I

heard about this throughout the Interior of this province.

I'm surprised, Mr. Member, that you haven't got up, as Leader of the Opposition

(Mr. Bennett), and fought for the Interior, for the north, for Vancouver Island.

But you have looked upon this diversion as an attempt by the board....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Member, I notice also that while

I was away the Land Commission was debated. Last year I was

called a fascist, a communist and everything in between because

of the land bill, and so was the Minister of Agriculture. This

year the opposition spent one half-hour on the Land Commission — one half-hour.

Now there was a problem, and I'll tell the people that they

were up — the great freedom fighters — for one half-hour on the

Land Commission.

Mr. Chairman, I want to quote extensively from this report

from Mr. Garrish, because the government was asked by Mr.

Garrish, who was ordered by Mr. Shelford to prepare this

report, to act. This is what Mr. Garrish said about the

board:

"While their representations did not appear to come directly

within the terms of reference of this survey, they did point

out that the board has become deeply involved in side

issues"

— perhaps like affidavits —

"deeply involved in side issues which have little direct

bearing on the board's original purpose of controlling the flow

of eggs to markets and stabilizing the price to the

producer."

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

"Regulations issued by the board should be confined to matters

for which it was established and should only use those which are vital to the

discharge of its duties. Some of the regulations affecting the allied trades,

particularly those concerning quotas that apply to hatching eggs, are very confusing

and uneven in their application, and could be construed as being designed to

help maintain a market for quota rather than having anything to do with the

sale of eggs."

Mr. Chairman, that was the charge of the Interior small

businessmen, whom you should be fighting for; for the Peace

River egg producer, for whom you should be fighting; for the

Vancouver egg producer, for whom you should be fighting; and

for the West–Point Grey egg producers that the Liberals are

fighting for. (Laughter.)

There is a list of 12 specified areas that Mr. Garrish was

asked to look into. He had hearings in Abbotsford on June 20

and 2 1. Then they had survey meetings in Dawson Creek, where

they heard complaints; Prince George, where they heard

complaints....

AN HON. MEMBER: What year was this?

[ Page 752 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: It was in 1972.... Vernon, where they

heard complaints; Nelson and Duncan, where they heard

complaints; and they returned to Abbotsford.

Throughout the hearings there was general agreement that the

board had introduced a great degree of stability in the egg

marketing in British Columbia. The continued operation of

orderly marketing was conceded to be of overriding importance

to the egg producers.

Two of the three people who appeared before the survey team

qualified their support by stating that "unless certain changes

were made in the constitution and policies of the board, they

would prefer to return to open marketing...." There was a

near revolt against the use of the Egg Marketing Board just a

little over a year ago. That was the purpose of the study

ordered by the former Minister (Mr. Shelford). There were

statements made by and against board members. Generally

speaking, the board was impressed with the number that it heard

from. I'll table this report.

"Three areas of the board's policies and activities provoked

the most criticisms and discussions and, in my opinion, the

criticisms have a solid basis." This is what Mr. Garrish said

about the Egg Marketing Board. The date is September, 1972. The

former Minister received it and we had to act on it.

"These three areas are as follows:

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

the scheme."

Well, you agree and I agree, and it should have been

stopped. As a matter of fact, Mr. Minister, you had the guts to

order that it be stopped. He interfered with the board. Bring

in the affidavits. The Minister was doing his job; let's find

out about it.

You ordered the board that if they didn't do it, you'd have

to consider dismantling the board, Mr. former Minister of

Agriculture, and that was implied in your order. At no time did

I order anything.

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

HON. MR. BARRETT: "Kick the ‘censored' out of them."

says the Member. Mr. Member, you must clean up your language.

(Laughter.) You've had enough trouble in court.

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

"2. The dumping of quota pool eggs at distressed prices into

the Kootenays and the Peace River."

The Kootenays and the Peace River. Where is the Peace River

now? Are they here fighting for their little small businessmen

egg producers?

"3. The arrangement between the B.C. Egg Marketing Board and

the Fraser Valley Egg & Poultry Co-operative

Association.

"These three points are very largely responsible for the

position in which the board now finds itself in and have done much to blur the

recognition of the solid accomplishments of the board and the degree of stability

it has brought to the industry as a whole."

This is the atmosphere that you must understand when we came

in: tempers were inflamed; names were being called; personal

attacks in terms of name-calling were taking place between egg

producers in the Interior and the north, and name-calling

between producers in the Fraser Valley. That's a matter of

record: a highly-charged atmosphere that the Member for Shuswap

(Mr. Lewis) can attest to as a former member of the board. He

was there and he knew what was going on and so did Mr.

Garrish.

Mr. Garrish said:

"However, I feel the present situation in which the board

actively assists in the transfer of quotas" — actively assists

in the transfer of quotas — "by the sale of 'layers' is

detrimental to the best interests of the producers. The quota

system, after all, is only a marketing tool."

Now, you listen to this carefully, through you Mr. Chairman.

This is the atmosphere we're dealing with. This is the

atmosphere preceding the meeting in my office. Then the

silence. Then the affidavits months after the meeting, claiming

that I said so and so and such and such or "words to that

effect," months after the meeting. But this is the

report:

"The more quotas come to be regarded as personal assets

worth so many thousands of dollars to the individual, the less

real freedom the board has to use the quota system for its true

purpose as the major instrument in its marketing programme....

It has aroused the suspicion that if one basic point of

agreement in the original plan on which the marketing board

concept was sold to the producers can so easily be

circumvented, what is to stop other provisions from being

disregarded in the same manner until nothing is left?"

An independent study of that board's activity was ordered by

the former government. If we didn't act on this report, we

would be in dereliction of our duty to the producers throughout

the province.

"Certainly this situation should be remedied. Either the

scheme should be amended to recognize what is in fact happening, or the board

should be directed to return to the original concept and eliminate the trafficking

in quotas through the sale of so-called 'layers.' "

Interference? It was recommended

to the former government. It already has an admitted record of interfering and

ordering the board to do something. That was the atmosphere. Don't shake your

head, Mr. Member. You already know that you ordered the

[ Page

753 ]

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

today.

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

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

MR. RICHTER: You're wrong.

HON. MR. BARRETT:

"In fact, if the federal. marketing scheme for eggs comes

into operation, it is quite foreseeable that the going price

for weekly quotas could rise in a very few years to the

neighbourhood of $1,000 per case."

You tell me how the small farmer in the Peace River, how the

small farmer in the Interior, how the small farmer on Vancouver

Island, how the small farmer anywhere else is going to get a

break if the board looked upon, as this report says, quotas as

personal things.

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

HON. MR. BARRETT: It makes the Member worth $140,000 almost

overnight. You shouldn't have come into politics, Mr. Member.

(Laughter.) And why was that Member elected, and why were

Members from Prince George and Vancouver Island and the

Interior elected on the NDP? Part of the reason was that the

small businessmen were fed up. The quotas were going up to $

1,000.

"As a result of representations to the then Minister of

Agriculture, the Hon. Frank Richter, he directed the board to

make provision for quota for these producers."

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

make quotas.

MR. LEWIS: That's interference.

HON. MR. BARRETT: He just denied that? He has a short memory

and I'm trying to remember for him. What was the purpose of his

interference and ordering and direction? His purpose was to

make an attempt to see that those small businessmen in the

Interior, in the north, in Peace River and on Vancouver Island

had a fair chance at the market. That's what it was.

It goes on to say that the board marketed this and the board

marketed that. Then the Minister ordered them.... Now, listen

to this. These are the same board members.

"However, the letter of March 26, 1968, sent by the board

to all Interior registered producers soliciting this information never once

mentioned the possibility of quotas being issued on the basis of this information,

although it could be argued that it is implicit in the letter. Once again those

who understood what was going on reaped the benefit and once again the board

will, no doubt, contend that there is nothing 'immoral, unethical or illegal'

in what happened."

Similar to insider trading, Mr. Member. Emotionalism?

Personal interest? Accusations made by Mr. Garrish in this

report. When they came to my office, if you don't think they

were in an emotional state, brother, you better believe they

were.

Why did it take so long for those affidavits? Because these

Members here have been fighting as they fought in the election

campaign so the small businessmen in the north, on the

Interior, in the Kootenays and on Vancouver Island could have a

fair shake, because Mr. Garrish said those board members were

looking upon the quota as personal assets.

I asked the Minister to call them into my office and I asked

the Minister that we should discuss this matter in front of the

board because we were aware that the former Minister of

Agriculture had directed them to do something, ordered them to

do something. I said at that meeting that they were behaving

like children. I remember it very clearly. And I didn't say it

in words to that effect. I remember what I said: I told them

they were acting like children. I did not order them to do

anything; I suggested that this kind of fighting had to

stop.

MR. GARDOM: What else did you say?

HON. MR. BARRETT: What they said I said is their opinion. I

know exactly what I said, and I said that they were acting like

children. I tell you this: I didn't order like the former

Minister of Agriculture.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Yes, Mr. Member, you can interpret it any

way you want. Those board members who waited a whole year can

interpret it any way they want. But let's face the fact: the

evidence was that they were considering their quota as personal

assets, and this report was on the Minister's desk in June of

Mr. Garrish goes on to say:

"...I happen to feel that a marketing board — any

marketing board — has an overriding obligation to make sure

that it informs all of its producers in the simplest and

clearest language what it is doing and what it is intending to

do. Had this letter stated quite clearly that this was an

opportunity for Interior producers to increase their quotas...and that it was the last such opportunity from here on in quota

was

[ Page 754 ]

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

But that was never told to the Interior. That was never told

to the north. That was never told to Vancouver Island. It just

happened.

Mr. Garrish goes on to say:

"The matter of quotas being transferred between areas within

the province has been the subject to change the policy of the

part of the board. The original intention was that the quota

could only be transferred within the area.... The board has

been very reluctant to tackle the question of revocation of

quota....

"Throughout all the hearings in the Interior and also on

Vancouver Island the statement was made by producer after

producer" — and I heard the same things when I travelled around

this province — "producer after producer that they were assured

when the board was being established they would be given an

opportunity to grow with their market, and that, apart from

additional quotas issued to some Interior producers in the

spring of 1968, this had not been honoured."

This is Mr. Garrish accusing the board of not honouring a

promise — Mr. Garrish, in any independent study. We get a

measure of the board and its operation and a history of what we

were coming into as government.

Instead they are now told by the egg board — that is the

small producer out there in the north, and elsewhere — that if

they wish to increase production and meet the market

requirements, they must purchase additional quota at the price

of around $350 per case.

A small farmer was being told by the board that you can't

come in unless you buy quota at $350 a case, an accusation made

by Mr. Garrish. Also Mr. Garrish saying that the board

considered the quotas to be assets, not regulation of the

market place.

MR. GARDOM: He didn't say he was going to deny everything

when he got outside, did he?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I'm going to file the report

for the Member to read for himself and read what Mr. Garrish

has to say about the board and its statement and its history,

and then everybody can judge for themselves. You judge for

yourself. I'll make my statements, you make yours.

"The repeated statement by the producers that they were

given the assurance of being issued additional quotas so that they could grow

with their markets had the ring of truth about them and I believed them. Whether

or not the people who gave these assurances had any real authority to do so

is another matter. People promoting marketing schemes are invariably optimistic

and expect more than any such scheme can produce.... Whatever may be the reasons

for the tremendous concentration of B.C. egg production in the Fraser Valley

area at the present time, long-term thinking must surely concede that a distribution

of production more in line with market requirements would result in better service

to the wholesaler and retailer, and a fresher product to the consumer....

"One thing appears certain" — and I'm quoting from Mr.

Garrish's report — "if the present board policies are unaltered

and in view of the almost total control which the Fraser Valley

producers have over the Egg Marketing Board, they are not

likely to be altered by the board itself. Production will

continue to be concentrated in the Fraser Valley until

questions such as pollution control, zoning and so on, forces a

change in the economic pattern."

The board itself, according to Mr. Garrish and the report we

have and we must act on as a responsible government, said that

they were not prepared to give up their control in the Fraser

Valley to allow the small farmer in the Interior, the north and

Vancouver Island.

Now, I can't tell you that the board members are happy with

me, but why should they be happy with me? Because I asked the

Minister and I asked the MLAs, don't you think that we should

sit down with them and ask them what they're going to do about

this report to ensure that the small farmer in the Interior and

the north and Vancouver Island have a chance? That's what it's

all about.

AN HON. MEMBER: You scared them.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Scared them, Mr. Member? They should have

nightmares of guilt after having read this report.

"Study must be given to a formula arrangement," said

Mr. Garrish,"whereby a producer in a deficit area wishing to

expand production would be able to obtain a permit from the

board, not necessarily free of charge but certainly at a

fraction of the existing quota price of $350 per case."

The second point relates to the Peace River country. Social

Credit area, where the Members should be down here fighting for

those areas. That's the purpose of an MLA. He's to come down

here and fight for the people in his area. It's not a party

obligation first, it is a matter of coming down here and

representing and fighting for the people you represent.

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

the Leader of the

[ Page

755 ]

Opposition (Mr. Bennett) fight for the Interior? Will we

hear the other Members fight? I fought for equity in my office

and outside of my office, and I'm not ashamed for fighting for

that equity.

"The second point that brought the problems of the board to

a head is the dumping of quota pool eggs at distressed prices

in the Peace River and Kootenay area."

Trying to break the local farmers. I told them exactly what

I said, Mr. Member, and the board members can say that it was

"words to that effect" all they want.

I know exactly what I said, I know what this report says

about the board, Mr. Member. They are couching their words in

the statement of "words to that effect." I know exactly what I

said: I called them in and said. "You're acting like children.

We want some equity in this province and we want a chance for

the small farmer to be able to produce right across this

province." And if people want to swear affidavits, if people

want to swear affidavits claiming that I said otherwise, I

demanded otherwise, that's on their head, Mr. Chairman. But let

you know and understand that this report was there, and they

consider these quotas to be their personal assets when in fact

it was keeping the small farmer who you should be fighting for,

from having a chance to go into business in this province.

MR. LEWIS: Trying to break them.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What else does Mr. Garrish say? Before the

meeting about this very same board who obviously had a vested

interest in their own operations and were prepared to say

things in letters and behave in other ways that raised Mr.

Garrish's doubts to a point where I'll read his

recommendations. Mr. Garrish is not an NDPer. He was appointed

by Social Credit and I understand that he's a Tory.

"Quite frankly," said Mr. Garrish, "I find it

incredible that the board did not recognize what a storm would

be stirred up by their action, and did not realize that the

marginal gains to be achieved did not justify jeopardizing the

very existence of the board itself. Such tactics of the board" — he's accusing the board — "such tactics would be roundly

condemned if practised by a private business corporation and

should be even more so in a marketing board operating under a

compulsory scheme under authority derived from the government

of the province."

This board has been decried for its tactics and when it was

confronted with these problems and these issues, 18 months of

silence and then tripping out with little affidavits which end

up by saying,"Oh, I was under the impression of...."

I tell you, it's more then being under the impression of. I

was aware what these quotas meant to that small group of Fraser

Valley farmers and that's why they were called into my office,

because we wanted a way, without ordering, like the former

Minister did, without ordering a solution to those problems so

that the small farmers in the north and the Interior and

Vancouver Island should get a break. After 18 months of trying

to find a solution, what do we get? A phony argument by the

opposition and some affidavits that say,"I seem to recall that

this was said and that was said."

I'll tell you what was said. I said they were acting like

children and I wanted this problem solved and I still want this

problem solved so that the little farmers of this province can

have a break.

"Quite frankly, I find it incredible that the board did not

recognize what a storm it created." That's what Mr. Garrish

said. And it said,"Such tactics would be roundly

condemned."

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

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

HON. MR. BARRETT: Self-defence, Mr. Member? I tell you this,

I agree with this report and I criticize the board and I

criticize them again because I want the small farmer in the

north, the Interior and Vancouver Island to have a break

outside of the Fraser Valley.

"The third point of valid criticism of the board was the

relationship between the board and the Fraser Valley Egg and

Poultry Co-op Association.... In fact the Egg Marketing Board

and the Fraser Valley Egg and Poultry Co-op Association at the

operational level appear to be virtually one and the same....

The Egg and Poultry Co-op is for all practising purposes the

alter ego of the marketing board."

An incestuous relationship. And which came first, the

chicken or the egg? I don't know. But nevertheless, Mr. Garrish

catalogued charge after charge after charge against that board.

Certainly they would be in an emotional atmosphere when they

came into my office. Somebody was going to ask them to do

something about it.

"But again it has caused very much suspicion and distrust in many areas of the province. It is one that

should be clarified and altered without undue delay." And

that's exactly what we were attempting to do.

Mr. Garrish goes on to say this, and I want everybody in the

House to read it:

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

[ Page 756 ]

owning the plant and the equipment was because of limitations

placed on the board in its ability to own property and become involved in long-term

investments of this nature. This should be the subject of a complete review

and whatever amendments are necessary should be made to the board, as such,

to carry out these pooling arrangements and to own whatever facilities are necessary

for the proper conduct of them without the necessity of a separate organization."

Mr. Member of agriculture, you knew all this history too.

You are glad that you don't have the problem any more. The

composition of the board and the only direct order to ever come

out of any government official of this board came from that

Minister of Agriculture.

AN HON. MEMBER: Prove it.

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

AN HON. MEMBER: Show us the documents.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, we certainly will dig out the

documents. If Mr. Garrish is wrong, we'll find out if Mr.

Garrish is wrong. You ordered the report from Mr. Garrish.

Didn't you read it? Shelford did. "He only believes in one week

out of two," says the Member. You think that this kind

of problem is operating in a vacuum. Next in the report was a

public hearing on the composition of the Egg Board itself. What

did Mr. Garrish say about that?

"The composition of the board only became an issue because

of controversy which developed over board policies, and the impossibility for either the Interior or Vancouver Island to

alter board policy under present circumstances."

Mr. Garrish

went on to say:

"At the present time, with three Members representing the

lower mainland, one representing Vancouver Island and one

representing the whole of the Interior, there can be no

question that the board is quite effectively controlled by the

producers in the lower mainland. They, of course, having some

80 per cent of the total production...."

That's the crux of the problem — a virtual monopoly in terms

of the production, so that the small businessman, the small

farmer who wants to go out and cut down some wood and build a

house, the great mythical pioneer that those little free

enterprisers talk about, never had a chance under this

board.

On the other hand, the entire Island and Interior people recognized that when

the chips are down, the control as to board policy and the carrying out of board

policy is completely out of their hands. Oh, how they learned.

Let's consider the motivation of affidavits; let's consider

the motivation of words that say "or words to that effect" 18

months after. I'll tell you that we are trying to bring justice

to the egg marketing in this province, and it is our intention

to bring justice to the egg marketing in this province.

If some people don't like it, then vote for another

government. But I'll tell you that as long as this government's

in office the small guy will get a break, and there will be no

control.

You don't like me calling meetings in my office to attempt

to solve problems. You don't like the fact that you refuse to

refer yourself to the history. You don't like the fact that

those board members were being attacked in this document in

looking upon their quotas as assets.

Are you supporting the fact that the Fraser Valley has 80

per cent of the egg production tied up in their little hands

and this doesn't allow the fellow in the Peace River and

Vancouver Island and the Interior and the north to have a

break? If that is what you are supporting, I'll have no

hesitation in telling the people of this province where you

stand on the Egg Marketing Board.

"On the other hand," says Mr. Garrish — listen to

this — "if the present situation is allowed to remain...."

These words are not said by Barrett, but by Garrish — a Tory,

hired by that former government.

"On the other hand, if the present situation is allowed to remain, inevitably the board policies will

reflect the views and the wishes of the majority of the

producers presently concentrated in the lower mainland. If a

change is to be brought about" —

listen to this; this is what

Mr. Garrish said —

"it will certainly have to be as a result of a policy

decision at some level higher than the Egg Marketing

Board."

He is suggesting interference was ordered before and that

the new Minister should order it again, which was not done. You

didn't order anything, eh, Frank? You'd better check with

Garrish's report.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Okay. Check it out. Start a whole new

caucus. Go back and work over the facts. There is more to come.

Wait till you hear the recommendations from Mr. Garrish. Some

sort of review procedure or some referee.

"Some board of review or some referee on board policy matters

must be established at government level to ensure that minority groups within

the board's jurisdictions have

[ Page

757 ]

available to them a court of appeal from board orders and board

regulations."

Now, who would be against that? The only ones who would be

against that are those who have vested interests in the status

quo that was the Egg Board and those are the people who were

called to my office. They didn't like to hear that I told them

they were acting like children. Apparently they heard other

things or seem to have heard other things in their affidavits.

They can't quite remember themselves — I tell you my statements

were this...

MR. McCLELLAND: Did they, did they?

MR. PHILLIPS: Resign!

HON. MR. BARRETT: ...my statements were: "You are acting

like children and I would suggest that this problem be solved

with the Minister." They were not ordered to solve with my

orders or anything else. The Minister, himself, then carried

the problem from there. "Or else," Mr. Member, is in the

Garrish report, not in my words. That is an interesting thing,

Mr. Member, the Garrish report suggested that the government

not play around and look for conciliation, that it order it be

done. That's what the Garrish report asked for and the

government did not act completely on the Garrish report.

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

HON. MR. BARRETT: I told you exactly what I have said, Mr.

Member, and if you are not prepared to believe it, that's your

opinion.

MR. McCLELLAND: Are you calling them liars?

HON. MR. KING: Their credibility.

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

HON. MR. BARRETT: Those members don't even remember what was

said by their own admission.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

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

the same group.

" It has been a general practice o f government, after

producer-marketing boards have been established, to leave them

to run their own affairs."

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

affairs.

"On the whole, this has worked well. It is not a basic right

of marketing boards; on the contrary, any delegation of power by government

or any board, no matter how elected or constituted, carries with it any obligations

by the government, to make sure that the delegated powers are not being abused."

Mr. Member for Peace River (Mr. Phillips), where were you to

fight for the Peace River farmers who were not getting their

fair share?

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

read this report.

MR. PHILLIPS: Don't threaten me again.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh! Mr. Chairman, every time that Member

says "Don't threaten him" because I keep on telling him the

truth. That is what he is threatened with. He's not fighting

for the small producer. If there is any degree of peace in the

egg industry, some form of scrutiny at the departmental level

is going to be necessary for some time to come and that has not

changed one iota — not one iota....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, it said "the government" and

we are all the government together in this group — not like the

former administration.

MR. McCLELLAND: Tell that to your Minister of Agriculture

(Hon. Mr. Stupich). Surely that's not what they say.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, at least the Members of the

Fraser Valley — listen to this — I'm not passing any judgment

on it, I'm reading what Mr. Garrish said about those board

members:

"Board members, at least some board members in the Fraser

Valley, are more directly involved in administrative matters

than I would have expected and this is reflected in the details

of their per them... expenses which were examined."

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

"All of the accounts appeared in order and salaries paid

were in line with the responsibility carried. In

summary, and

to put things in perspective, it is generally agreed that the

Board has done a creditable job in stabilizing egg marketing...

but some of these matters, and particularly the problems

affecting the allied groups could well be the subject of

further study with a view to bringing about a compromise

between the contending factions."

"A further study to bring

about a compromise" and that is why they were called in my

office to attempt to bring out a compromise which has not been

reached at this point but it has reduced itself to

[ Page 758 ]

board members attacking myself, the Minister of Agriculture

and Members of this Legislature.

And couching the words by saying, "Or words to that effect".

The last words by Mr. Garrish are these, and I want everybody

in this House to ponder:

"It may require some degree of intervention by the

government" — of which I happen to be a Member, Mr. Member,

with your shallow attempt at trying to divert the issue from

where it belongs.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT:

"It may require some degree of intervention by the

government to achieve necessary changes. If this is so, there

should be no hesitation on the government to act for the

continuation of a programme of orderly marketing. The egg

industry justifies it."

I tell you this: I will be involved in attempts to solve

problems with my Ministers and with my backbenchers as long as

we are the government of this province. And I tell you this: we

are determined to bring about, regardless of offshoots in the

opposition, regardless of anything else, we are determined to

bring about equity for that small farmer-businessman in this

province, and there it is right on the record, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before we proceed, I draw to your

attention, a request from the Chief of Hansard , as

follows:

"Could you please invite the co-operation of all Members in

the correct use of their microphones? While the Minister who is

the target of the question may well hear it clearly across the

floor, it is almost impossible for Hansard to hear it on

tape. We are then faced with a clear reply from the Minister to

a question we did not record."

I would request all I would

request all Hon. Members to wait for their time and then use

the microphone.

MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, through to the Premier, I did ask

some questions. While I agree that he put on a great political

show, I'd like to go back and ask the questions again, because

apparently you didn't listen, or you didn't understand. It's

the whole point about the financial dealings of the province

that I meant to ask about.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh!

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

MR. BENNETT: You can sit there and say "Oh!" but I'd like to question

again, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Premier:

(1) I mentioned gas rates to

the consumers of the province.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I answered that.

MR. BENNETT: I asked about the rates being reduced to the

people of the province because they've been unfairly dealt

with. Their rates have been put up by an action of this

government. You have the revenue and you have the power to

return that money to them so they don't have any rate

increase.

Now either you stand up and say "Yes, we're collecting a tax

increase off the people of British Columbia," or you're

going to return the amount of the increase so they don't pay

it. But don't play games with us. And you didn't answer that

question. You started to talk about export markets and

everything else. My question was specifically about the rates

charged to the people of British Columbia, because of the

action of this government — and how you intended to prevent the

rate increases by returning the money to them.

Secondly, I talked about purchases in the stock market,

dealing with companies and whole companies through the

Revenue Act .

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

that's out of order.

MR. BENNETT: What's out of order?

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh!

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

MR. BENNETT: I'm talking to the Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I'm

referring in the broad context of Columbia Cellulose. I'm

referring to Kootenay Forest Products. These are shares on the

stock market....

HON. MR. BARRETT: Withdraw your motion.

MR. BENNETT: ...that weren't under the authority of the

other government. All I was suggesting is whether we would have

procedures to protect this. I didn't talk about the investment

of the pension plan funds that may have been used before; I

talked about the new regulations...

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, yes.

MR. BENNETT: ...and I mentioned it specifically. I'll

mention some inconsistencies in the Premier's general speech in

just a moment.

I would hate to have to have him come to this House and correct statements

to do with financial purchases as I watched him do last fall. With all of the

extra staff, finance associates and new administrators,

[ Page

759 ]

he couldn't give a correct answer on the order paper about

who bought what shares. We had to witness him coming into this

House and make a correction. Now I don't want him to do that

again today so I'd like to ask him again, and point out to him

the danger of the methods of procedure where you're taking over

whole companies that are trading on the public stock market.

That question wasn't answered in your hour-and-a-half-long

speech.

The public is concerned about it. They're discussing it. All

we're asking for is procedures. We're not on a witch hunt. Just

develop procedures. There are many companies in this province

that you may be planning on taking over right now, and many

that you haven't dreamed up yet. But those people who own

shares in those companies deserve to be protected.

Then you mentioned the — and I'm not here as a defender of

the former government — but you mentioned that they were

affecting the market play. I would point out to you that you

specifically stated that they affected the market. The only

time that you quoted the former premier about recommending

shares was when they were in primary issue, and not active on

the stock market. You specifically told this House, and it'll

be in Hansard tomorrow, that they affected the market

play of stocks by recommendation.

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

MR. BENNETT: I would suggest, Mr. Premier, that it's your

very lack of understanding of the difference of day-to-day

market trading and primary issues that creates some of the

concern in this province. During your speech you specifically

stated the dates on which these shares were bought, and you

stated specifically later that they were bought after the

primary issue.

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

HON. MR. BARRETT: You say it wouldn't affect the sales of

those? He was on the phone asking....

MR. BENNETT: I am responding to your statement that they

affected the market, the day-to-day market.

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

MR. BENNETT: A primary issue is far different from the

day-to-day market because the price, Mr. Chairman, through you

to the Premier, doesn't change on a primary issue.

It doesn't change on a primary issue, but I'm not here to

discuss that. I'm here to discuss the procedures of today.

You're the government of today and you're going to be doing

more takeovers in the future; it's your avowed policy. We want

them done in a responsible manner. It's all right for you to get up

and give one of your harangues against the old government — one

of your campaign speeches – but this Legislature here, as

the people's representatives, wants some answers.

Now I specifically mentioned — and you took 45 minutes

discussing the chicken-and-egg war — that I didn't bring it up

during the agricultural estimates because the only question was

one of the Premier's action in this and not one of marketing

boards, and not one of the way they were operating, and not of

reports that were commissioned by the former government and

this government to put into effect.

What are under question are the actions of the Premier in

this office in the treatment he gave to people in British

Columbia, and the subsequent denials and affidavits that have

been filed. I merely asked for a comment on that to clear up

the public air — not a question of marketing boards.

The Premier — although we knew you were in Saskatchewan for

a premier's conference — if he wanted to participate in the

agricultural debate, didn't have to take his little extended

tour over to visit ICBC last Friday. You could have been here.

ICBC is there today and there tomorrow, and I presume it will

be there next week. You could have gone then if you wanted to

participate in the agricultural debate. That was your choice

and you weren't here. There were other questions I asked — questions in the public mind about threatened lawsuits and

whether they'll be used to prevent public discussion. I also

questioned the use of a motion to call a public inquiry, and

then not be called, to hang over a Member's head — one of my

colleagues — and I think it deserves comment.

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

Interjections.

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

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The Hon. Member for South

Okanagan has the floor.

MR. BENNETT: So, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Premier, I

think these questions I asked that haven't been answered,

should be answered. And all I ask is that we get some

clarification. I'm not making