1977 Legislative Session: 2nd Session, 31st 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, JANUARY 17, 1977

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page

41 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Delays in court proceedings. Mr. Macdonald — 41

B.C. Hydro rate increases. Mr. Gibson — 42

ICBC rates. Mr. Cocke — 43

BCR settlement with M.E.L. Paving. Mr. Lloyd — 43

Throne speech debate

Mr. Barrett — 44

Mr. Gibson — 70

MONDAY, JANUARY 17, 1977

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. E.N. VEITCH (Burnaby-Willingdon): Seated in the members'

gallery this afternoon are Mr. David and Mrs. Frances Moncrieff of

Anchorage, Alaska, and their three children, Shane, Katherine and

Jason. I would like this House to bid them welcome.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, I'd

like the House to welcome a visiting MLA today, Mr. Bev Dyck, the

member for Saskatoon-Biggar, who is enjoying our winters compared to

theirs.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): I would like the House to join me

in welcoming a group of students from the senior secondary school in

Courtenay, Georges P. Vanier School. They are accompanied by their

teachers, Harry Dougan and Pete Sanford.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, just before

introducing my guests I would ask the Hon. Leader of the Opposition

(Mr. Barrett) if that's the community that has the slogan: "New York is

big but Biggar is bigger."

Interjections.

MRS. JORDAN: This is Biggar. It's a well-known little spot.

MR. BARRETT: This is bigger.

MRS. JORDAN: I am very pleased to draw to your attention, Mr.

Speaker, that in the gallery today we have 20 sea cadets from the Royal

Canadian Sea Cadets, Kalamalka of Vernon, with Lieutenant David Young

from Penticton who is standing in for their Commanding Officer, Captain

Gary Smith from Vernon. This is the first time that I have had the

privilege as MLA for this area in welcoming a young group of sea

cadets, a group that we highly respect in our community. I would ask

you to give them a warm welcome.

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Visiting from Ladysmith today

— the great metropolis of Ladysmith — are two couples, four people from Ladysmith,

Mr. and Mrs. Madryga and Mr. and Mrs. Dyson. Also visiting me today in the gallery

is a man who has spent a great deal of his life in devoting time and effort

to the farm movement and to the cooperative movement in the sunny province

of Alberta. It gives me a great deal of pleasure to welcome into the gallery

today my uncle, Mr. Lester Wages, and his wife, Myrtle. I would ask the House

to join me in welcoming them.

MR. C.M. SHELFORD (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, I would like to

introduce six guests today: Mr. and Mrs. Lawrence Dubnick from

Hazelton; my cousin, Mary Sutton from England; also, her son, Dr. Roger

Sutton, now from Vancouver. I would also like to introduce my uncle and

aunt, Arthur Shelford. I would just like to point out to the members

that my uncle recently wrote a book on pioneering in British Columbia

in the early 1900s. Unfortunately, he stayed a little too close to the

truth and it wasn't too attractive for the writers.

Oral questions.

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. second member for Vancouver-Burrard. Pardon me, the first member for Vancouver East. (Laughter.)

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): That's where I live. I keep my clothes in Burrard.

MR. SPEAKER: I knew I had part of it right.

DELAYS IN COURT PROCEEDINGS

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the

Attorney-General. In view of the fact that the Attorney-General has

computerized review records of the provincial courts of the province of

British Columbia, which will include things such as judges' time spent

in court, the efficiency in delays caused in terms of either court

stenographers, prosecutors, defence counsel, witness attendants, police

attendants, will the Attorney-General undertake to table that

information with this Legislature without delay before proceeding with

a plan of unequal justice whereby some defendants do not come to trial?

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): First of all, I would

like to answer your question in the affirmative, Mr. Member, but I

would like to give it a slightly more expanded answer than that. I

would also, with leave of the House file a copy of the letter of

December 6th, 1976, from Mr. D.H. Vickers, Deputy Attorney-General to

Crown Counsel. You will see that it set forth the matter in specifics.

The problem is far from a new phenomena; it is a carry over from 1975

and probably well behind that. Difficulties were experienced at all

levels — increased caseloads, offence trends, some long overburdening

hearings, the modus operandi of the courts, prosecutors, defence, Bar,

Legal Aid, witness management and the police.

The cases were building up for a variety of reasons,

[ Page 42 ]

and we have been attempting to get to the source of

those particular reasons and do something with it. There seem to have

been rays of progress develop over the last few months because in

December of last year, I believe, in the situation in Vancouver, if

memory serves me, there was a backlog of around 5,000 cases, and that

was reduced to about 3,200 six months later. But the department was

still concerned, and the Associate Deputy Attorney-General, Mr. Dennis

Sheppard, was put in charge of court administration some months back;

senior prosecutor, Mr. Al Filmer, has been asked to consider the

prosecutorial aspects; and then the department recommended this 180-day

measure.

I must say it has had, indeed, some desired result because a great

deal of concerns are being expressed and there is obviously now a

greater opportunity, I think, for the matter to be dealt with. The time

frame that was earlier suggested, as a matter of fact, was an earlier

one than this, and I wish to inform the House that this date of March

1, at this time, is considered to be a firm date, but I also wish to

inform all hon. members that we're continuing to review and, if

necessary, to amend that directive. This morning I was in communication

with the Deputy Attorney-General and I've asked him to....

Interjection.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Beg your pardon?

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): Maybe yes, maybe no.

HON. MR. GARDOM: No, it's not maybe yes, maybe no; it's a

question of obtaining the necessary material, Mr. Member. This morning

I asked the Deputy Attorney-General if he would seek top level

consultation with Chief Judge Brahan of the provincial court; with the

chief prosecutor; with Chief Keary, who's head of the B.C. police

chiefs; with Mr. Tony Pantages of the Canadian Bar Association, and

representatives also from defence bar and from legal aid, and I indeed

look forward to receiving their recommendations and I am indeed happy

to share their recommendations with this assembly.

MR. MACDONALD: On a supplementary. Mr. Speaker, since this is the Attorney-General's

responsibility and not those who are associated with the department, I'd

like to ask him whether or not he can't make additional resources available

to his department to clear up the delay so we're not in the situation of

playing Russian roulette with people charged with offences coming before the

provincial courts and thereby undermining the morale of people who work — including

police officers — in the justice system. Now will the Attorney-General undertake

himself to rescind that edict?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Well, I think I've just responded to your

question, Mr. Member. You're asking me the same question a second time

around. I've informed you that the edict as it now stands will stand

but it's subject to review, and if there's necessity for it to stand,

Mr. Member, it will stand. If the review shows that the matter can be

otherwise attended to, and more appropriately attended to, it will be

addressed in that manner. I don't think we can do more than that.

MR. MACDONALD: Just a final short supplementary: when will the computerized review information be tabled with the House?

HON. MR. GARDOM: When it's available to me.

MR. MACDONALD: Just a print-out.

HON. MR. GARDOM: When it's available to me.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, in light of the

throne speech's stress on an aggressive attack on the impaired drivers

of this province, could the Attorney-General tell the House of the

number of cases that will be dropped, the charges that will be dropped?

Does he know how many that are pending in that category will involve

impaired charges?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I can't give you that specific at this

point, Mr. Member, but I shall certainly seek that information and

deliver it. But, you know, as the correspondence says, it does not

include trials already commenced nor in any case where a guilty plea

has been entered. What we are trying to do, Mr. Member, is bring some

shock waves into the system and to get some solutions. What has been

happening in the past has just not worked and we inherited a 5,000-case

delay in one situation.

I want to make this point abundantly clear: I am not blaming the

former Attorney-General for that fact; it's become a fact of life, and

for a variety of reasons we have long trials. We have had situations of

preliminary hearings taking close to a year.

B.C.HYDRO RATE INCREASES

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): A question to the

Minister of Energy, Mr. Speaker: in view of the Premier's well-founded

pre-Christmas musings about the accountability of B.C. Hydro, which is

a law unto itself in this province, will the minister ask Hydro to roll

back its recent rate increases, pending a submission and justification

of those increases to the Energy Commission?

[ Page 43 ]

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications):

There is no mechanism whereby that could readily be done. I do wish to

point out, however, that all members will have an opportunity to

question B.C. Hydro before the standing committee of public accounts,

and we expect also that the B.C. Energy Commission will be joking into

the plans of B.C. Hydro and the cost procedures of B.C. Hydro during

the coming year.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. The

minister being a director of B.C. Hydro, may I ask him squarely: does

he support these increases?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I believe that the rate

increases, the price increases of B.C. Hydro, were fully justified

because of the mounting costs which they have faced. In the future,

with better planning and more careful attention to cost increases, I

hope the rate adjustments will be kept to a minimum.

MR. GIBSON: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I would hope

and assume that this was done on the basis of detailed cost data. I

wonder if I could ask the minister: would he file this detailed cost

data with the House so that we might better judge the propriety of the

increases?

HON. MR. DAVIS: The answer to the question — were the rate

increases related to cost 'demonstrated in detail? — is yes. Certainly,

considerable detail of the nature of justification will be available to

the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts and Economic Affairs.

MR. GIBSON: But will you file them with the House?

ICBC RATES

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, I'd like to

direct a question to the Minister of Education in charge of ICBC. Mr.

Speaker, can he tell the House the reason ICBC raised rates for the

time payment plan — that's interest rates — to 15 per cent for ordinary

policy holders, yet at the same time held the rates for fleet plans —

held it to the original rate for fleet plans?

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, in

answer to the question, it was a decision of the board of directors

designed to bring the interest rates more in line with the standard

rates being charged people in British Columbia and elsewhere for retail

purchases. The ordinary finance companies charge 24 per cent, most

department stores charge between 20 and 21 per cent, the banks through

Chargex and Mastercharge charge 18 per cent, and ICBC is still very

highly competitive in this field.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, the minister chose not to answer the

question. The question was: why did he not do the same for fleet plans?

But I'll ask a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is it not true, Mr.

Minister, that the experience with fleet plans leaves something to be

desired, and is probably somewhat less positive than the experience

with the ordinary policy holder?

HON. MR. McGEER: No, Mr. Speaker, the estimate for bad debts

on the ICBC finance plan is somewhere between $4 million and $5

million. We're hoping to do better than that, but at the present time

the experience has not been terribly good.

MR. COCKE: Didn't answer the question, as usual.

BCR SETTLEMENT WITH M.E.L. PAVING

MR. H.J. LLOYD (Fort George): Hon. Premier, has the

government received an explanation from the directors of the British

Columbia Railway as to the reasons for the settlement between M.E.L.

Paving and the British Columbia Railway?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, with all of the

innuendo and screams in the newspapers and to the media by some of the

opposition, I would have thought that in this responsible chamber they

would have availed themselves of the opportunity to ask for

information. However, I'm sure that in this session we've got to go

through their usual period of muckraking and smear before we get down

to business.

Now, Mr. Speaker, yes, today the Minister of Economic Development,

the director of the British Columbia Railway, received from the

chairman of the board, Mr. Jack Fraine, a letter outlining to the

government (representing the shareholders) the reason for their

settlement of the M.E.L. Paving case, and I will wish to table that

with the House. I would point out that the board of directors of B.C.

Rail has significantly changed this year. This would be the first time

that the Premier is not the president of the railway. The Leader of the

Opposition and former Premier was the president of the railway right

through 1975 from 1972, when most of the action outlined in this letter

took place.

The directors of the railway now are independent; they're able to

make decisions on a sound business basis for the good of the railway

and the province.

[ Page 44 ]

Those directors are: Mr. Robert Swanson, who was appointed by the

previous administration; the Hon. Don Phillips, who reports to the

government and to this Legislature; Mr. Jack Fraine, who is the

chairman and was appointed April 6,1976; the vice-chairman is Mr. Glen

McPherson, who was appointed September 30,1976; along with the other

outstanding British Columbians, Stanley Horner, Norman Hyland, Edwin

Cecil Hurd, Donald Watson and Kenneth Bruce Rome. I commend these

directors for not only dealing with issues like this but in trying to

make that railway run. As you know, for the first time in the last

three years the railway is running continuously and efficiently and to

the benefit of the people in those central and northern communities.

Mr. Speaker, I give these directors full credit and I want to advise

this House they have the full confidence of the Premier and this

government and I think all British Columbia should thank them for their

efforts.

I ask leave to table the correspondence.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. BARRETT: Did the bell ring?

HON. MR. BENNETT: You're still punch-drunk from losing the last election.

MR. SPEAKER: I'm sorry, Hon. Leader of the Opposition. I

believe that the question was cut off by the bell, but I observe that

you have the floor this afternoon.

SPEECH FROM THE THRONE

(continued debate)

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, no matter what accusation the

Premier makes about me in terms of the last election, whether it is

anything in jest or seriously, if it ever comes to court I'm sure it

can be settled out of court or will never be called. In terms of the

BCR case that was discussed, or as the former Attorney-General (Mr.

Macdonald) pointed out, if you wait six months everything will be

forgotten anyway. Now I will be raising the BCR so there's not much

point in going through the question period.

I appreciate the new interest of the backbenchers in the BCR, and

I'm pleased that the backbenchers are operating independently, Mr.

Speaker, and that the Premier had no knowledge of that question being

asked whatsoever. Anyone in this House who thinks that that question

was staged is just being political...(laughter)

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: ...because the idea that a backbencher would play politics in this chamber is going too far, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: A puppet.

MR. BARRETT: I'm sure that it was a spontaneous request for information.

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): He's pinko.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I want to first of all thank you

for the opportunity of allowing me to speak in my place. I was trying

to estimate how many throne speeches I've participated in since I was

too young to know any better and got involved in politics, and have

been burdened with the pleasure of....

MR. WALLACE: A lot of us could say that. (Laughter.)

MR. BARRETT: A lot of us could say that...being a member of

this august body — not that we have to worry too much about this august

chamber being responsible for anything any more, Mr. Speaker. The B.C.

Rail settles fraud cases out of court and we wash our hands and say:

"we're not responsible for that." Says the government: "We're not

responsible for this board or that board, or Hydro, or anything else."

They're all on their own, Mr. Speaker. The people in a democratic

society don't have to worry about these things any more. This chamber

needn't bother its head about those responsibilities. The Crown

corporations don't belong to the people any more, don't have to report

to this chamber any more, why, not at all. It's all done with a shake

of the hat.

Who was that famous author in New York — was it Ring Lardner? — who

described that dice game by putting the dice in a hat and having a

7-ft. man shake the dice up in the air while everybody was bent over

waiting for the results? Then he'd look in the hat and say: "Seven. You

lose." The game is fixed, and the attempt to move away from

responsibility by the Crown corporations is nothing but a sham and a

mockery and a dodge by a government, Mr. Speaker, which is admitting

tacit guilt in fraud and conspiracy on that railroad.

That's a fact. "We needn't worry ourselves about that. What is a

little bit of fraud? Ha, ha, ha, ha! Nothing like that to worry about,

folks. It's got nothing to do with the politicians, just done on the

side, behind the scenes, by this new board which is going to clean it

up, "

Who caused the fraud? Was it the former Premier? Was it Mr.

Broadbent? Who know? Who cares? It's only the taxpayers' money. "Don't

discuss in this

[ Page

45 ]

chamber why we've got those citizens on the board taking care of those things."

In all my years in this House, Mr. Speaker, this is the first time

I've ever seen a government run for cover on its basic responsibility

by saying: "We're not responsible anymore." If you're not responsible,

what did you run for office for? If you're not responsible, what are

you making decisions in cabinet for? If you're not responsible, what

are you preparing a budget for? Let the Crown agencies prepare their

own budgets and don't give them a dime. But that's not the case, Mr.

Speaker. As a matter of fact, later on in my speech I'll prove to you

that the government is directly responsible for those agencies.

I want to thank, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity for me to speak

here today, a very good colleague of mine, Mr. Robert Williams. Mr.

Williams was the one who made it possible for me to return to this

Legislative Assembly by resigning his seat. I want to publicly

acknowledge that fact.

I want to regret that Mrs. Johnson is not with us today. Mrs.

Johnson is ill today. I want to extend to her our very best wishes for

a speedy recovery. She has been an observer of this chamber for a large

number of years and she will hopefully recover and be back in the

gallery keeping her eye on all of us, as she has done for many years.

I want to thank the voters of Vancouver East, where you can't plan a

super-highway, you can't have any huge, large government industrial

development. I don't think there's too much any of the departments can

look for in terms of favour from the government. I'm sure the Minister

of Public Works (Hon. Mr. Fraser) will do everything he can to assist

me in my job in that constituency. As I appeal to other ministers, they

too will respond with their positive interest in that great

constituency.

Mr. Speaker, it's made up of a number of very interesting ethnic

groups who are really the backbone of this province in many, many ways:

the Chinese community; the Italian community; the East Indian

community; and actually a microcosm of the great ethnic, racial and

religious mix that makes up this country.

They speak many languages, Mr. Speaker, and have no shame or

embarrassment about speaking any one of those languages. As a matter of

fact, they are proud of their individual heritage and culture that they

bring with them to this country to enrich not only that particular area

of Vancouver, but this whole province. Above all, Mr. Speaker, they are

tremendous family people. They have a sense of family life and a sense

of family participation that in most areas of this province could be

well emulated.

I heard the member for Esquimalt (Mr. Kahl) speak the other day about the need

of preserving family life. His request touches some of the hypocrisy, Mr. Speaker,

that this government has evidenced in the last 12 months. While speaking out

of one side of its mouth, the other side acts to cut off what it is asking for.

There is the British Columbia Conference on the Family, initiated by

the former administration to bring religious groups — religious

communities — together in this province to deal with the problems of

the family, Mr. Speaker. That work has been going on for some two

years, with representatives from all religious bodies in this province

on a non-sectarian basis brought together to discuss what its role can

and should be in the area of preserving family life in this province.

It was an historic conference, brought together on a non-partisan

basis, represented ably by the Social Credit Party with the member for

Chilliwack (Mr. Schroeder), by the Conservative Party by the member for

Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), the member from the Liberal Party (Mr. Gibson)

and also the member of the New Democratic Party, the second member for

Vancouver-Burrard (Ms. Brown) — a serious attempt to bring church and

state together to deal with family problems.

As a consequence of their activities they recommended after their

second conference a number of specific proposals to be followed by the

government. The reward for their efforts was an insult from the

Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), who has cut off

their funds and cut this project off at a time when it was just

beginning to get off the ground and become of some merit to all the

people of British Columbia.

It received recognition as an example of government-church

cooperation, religious bodies' cooperation throughout the western

world. There had been interest expressed in this project all over the

British Commonwealth, and now the whole conference has been ruthlessly

cut off by the Minister of Human Resources, who just frankly does not

understand the need to do preventative work in family care. Divorce is

one thing, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, but preventative

work is far more important.

AN. HON MEMBER: Cheaper, too.

MR. BARRETT: A lot cheaper. Yes, it is. It's a lot cheaper,

but the government has not seen fit to carry on funds to this project,

and I think that's a serious mistake.

Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments to make about the current

political situation in Canada. I'd like to extend to all people in this

country, who are working to keep this country together, the kind of

support and hope that most Canadians have of keeping this diverse,

complex, different-structured country together for a long time.

I find it regrettable that I was asked to comment

[ Page 46 ]

on an unfortunate statement by the Minister of

Human Resources — something to do with cornflakes boxes, Mr. Speaker.

There is a certain level of political activity that has always

presented itself in North America, that has always focused on the

lowest common denominator of bigotry — the lowest common denominator of

saying the catchword or the catchphrase that is used glibly and quickly

to appeal basically to ignorance or emotions around relationships

between people. This country has not been spared of its bigotry and its

prejudice over the years. When tempers are inflamed by politicians, and

emotions are aroused, there has been a history in this country of

government racial or religious prejudice, as official policy in our

history.

One need not go too far in history to remember that at one time

native Indian peoples and Oriental people were not allowed to vote in

this country. As a matter of fact, a couple of generations ago there

were actually politicians who took out ads in the newspaper saying:

"Don't vote CCF. Stop the Yellow Peril. They're going to allow the

Chinese and the Japanese to vote." That was the great Liberal Party,

Mr. Speaker, in British Columbia that actually took out ads in the

newspaper endorsing that policy because it reflected the public mood at

that time.

But there always have been politicians of every political party that

have been above pandering to the current prejudice, pandering to the

current bigotry, and have led in terms of being calm and responsible

and standing on principle away from that kind of politics.

I regret that the Minister of Human Resources said what he said. But

I regret even more that all the Premier could say about the minister

was that he's a very colourful person.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shocking!

MR. BARRETT: There's a difference between colour, Mr.

Speaker, and a stand on principle. I don't find it colourful for any

politician to respond on a basis of common-denominator bigotry to a

very serious problem in this country. I don't profess to know any of

the answers related to keeping this country together, but I know some

of the problems, and one of the problems is exemplified by that

minister with a fast lip.

There are serious problems in this country today. Every citizen is concerned

about its destiny and the ability of this country to stay together as a nation.

Many people spend a great deal of time saying: "What is Canada?" A

lot of people aren't able to give any definition, but most of us know what

we don't want it to become, and the thing we don't want it to become

is a balkanized, fractured series of independent countries with no hope of surviving

on that basis.

Mr. Speaker, I urge that this government not fall into the political

trap that I think the federal Prime Minister has waged in the past

about putting pressure on to resolve the constitutional crisis. I

believe the British North America Act has served the people of this

country very well for 100 years. It's doing nothing in London other

than getting mouldy on the edges, and quite frankly, I think another

100 years of mould wouldn't hurt it one bit. I think there is

tremendous flexibility in the BNA Act now and I do not think there's

any need for a crisis conference on the constitution.

I think there's a need for all politicians, oppositions, governments

and independents, whatever party, to say nothing unless they have

something positive to contribute. I think that the problems of Quebec

and the problems of the rest of Canada are best served by a spirit of

cooperation and understanding — standing firm on the principle that

this is one nation, but on the basis of that principle understanding

where provinces can cooperate and work together to keep this country

together.

I oppose the Parti Quebecois' position on separation. That's a

well-known fact. But that position is not helped by frankly

lame-brained statements of ignorance from a cabinet minister from this

province.

Mr. Speaker, I want to take a few moments to just gently remind the

government of some of its promises. I don't want to upset the cabinet

benches too much, Mr. Speaker. I notice they're all diligently doing

their work, getting together, answering their correspondence, signing

all their letters and being nice little boys and girls. They hope that

the memory of this last year under Social Credit will gently drift away

and the opposition won't raise anything. Why, the Premier even says:

"If they question anything it's muck! Why, it's muck or it's...." What

was the other word he used?

AN HON. MEMBER: Smear.

MR. BARRETT: Smear! Before we even said a word, Mr. Speaker, he's talking about muck and smearing.

MR. KING: And innuendo.

MR. BARRETT: And innuendo. He had a little tough time

pronouncing that word, but he got all three of them together, Mr.

Speaker — put it together in a little package that said: "Muck,

smearing and innuendo by the NDP!" We haven't even said anything yet!

The poor Liberals down there trying to make love to you, and you cut

them out before you even had a chance to talk. And the Tory, who was

going to ask for nothing more than chronic-care services, hasn't even

had a chance to get into that

[ Page

47 ]

muck and he's already been labelled. Anybody who

criticizes this government, Mr. Speaker, is muck, smear and innuendo —

MSI! (Laughter.) A new government policy: little bit of muck, a little

bit of smear and a little bit of innuendo.

Mr. Speaker, I promise that I will not be involved in muck, smear

and innuendo by reading one single charge that Social Credit made while

they were in opposition not based on fact, based on fancy! Oh, the

little cheque-writing on the back by what's-his-name. I forget his name

now. Oh, that was weeks ago that happened. (Laughter.) The little bit

of Can-Cel stocks — little bit of muck there, Mr. Attorney-General? The

wild speeches by the member for South Peace River (Hon. Mr.

Phillips)....

MR. COCKE: We were selling pulp on the black market.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, do you remember the story by the Minister of

Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland), who doesn't get to announce anything

without checking with the ICBC director? Do you remember the story he

told about welfare people staying at the Empress Hotel? What a little

MSI that was, Mr. Speaker.

Why, Hansard is full of MSI

from Social Credit — unproven, not based on fact — but just a little

bit of smear, a little bit of innuendo, a little bit of muck to keep

things alive because we were socialists! And you know very well that

the colour of the suit of my friend from Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) is

really the colour of our underwear! (Laughter.)

So we have a dangerous menace and you can say anything, do anything, or accuse

them of anything because they're socialists. Then, once having obtained

power, Mr. Speaker, by saying anything, doing anything, promising anything,

say you can't do it because it was the socialists' fault — 13 months

of hand-wringing; weeping, blaming the former government for everything. Everything

has been blamed on the NDP! Had a miscarriage? NDP's fault! Flat tire? NDP's

fault! Double ferry rates? NDP's fault! No jobs? NDP's fault. I never

knew, Mr. Speaker, that we had that much power! On the basis of that argument

alone, the people of this province should put us back in to office. We cap run

everything, according to them! It's been a great ploy for a year, but it's

wearing kind of thin. That was the matrix, Mr. Speaker, that brought that group

together. I remember the speeches of those former Liberals. Oh, how sweet they

are — the speeches of the man, the head of ICBC, who said those terrible things

about the B.C. Rail. Ooh, Mr. Speaker, what reading they make! I want someone

to put in a sealed envelope, so the public will never find out, a copy of the

speech made by the now Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) about B.C. Rail,

about charging fraud and overruns and government responsibility. I'm

sure the professor would love to read his old speeches, Mr. Speaker —

little MSI there; a little MSI of his own making. Now he's part of a

government that settled out of court. "Oh, well, that's all past

history. Now I'm a Socred."

Then there's the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom). Oh, those

senatorial speeches we used to get with the little affectation of a

nice accent, a more cultured accent, a more educated accent, a little

bit of a sort of a West End kind of accent that would say: "Of course,

we would never do anything like that. Of course not."

MR. LEA: He belonged to a different party.

MR. BARRETT: A different party at that time. (Laughter.)

That's right, yes — a little bit of MSI. "Certainly after we joined the

new party we forgot all about what we used to say when we were in the

old party. As a reward, we are now in the cabinet." What's that Gilbert

and Sullivan song about the captain of the Queen's Navy?

I polish up the rail

And I polish up the brass,

And now they made me captain

Of the Queen's Navy.

There he is, the Attorney-General of this province, who polished up

the shoes, and polished up the apple, and look where he's sitting now.

(Laughter.)

Oh, those speeches he used to make about Social Credit! Oh, they

were terrible, wrong, horrible! I remember some of those. He doesn't,

and far be it from me to raise any guilt underneath that lovely veneer

and remind him of those speeches, Mr. Speaker. I wouldn't do a thing

like that. Neither will the newspapers or the editorial pages because,

after all, he sold his soul to stop the scourge of socialism and

anything is justified on that rationalization, Mr. Speaker — even

denying your own beliefs, your own principles and anything else in your

path.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, yes, what was said!

MR. KING: Remember the Mafia money.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, we'll get to the Mafia money. I'm sure he's

investigated all of that. I don't want to remind him too much of those

things. The Mafia men! Remember that one?

One of the promises by this group over here was: "End non-elected

boards and commissions in government." Now does anybody in this chamber

know any old Socred who has been put on any board or commission since

the new government's been elected? If you do, do not raise your hand.

Pass Go, collect $200, and keep on going because we don't

[ Page 48 ]

want to talk about it.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Why, somebody mentioned Bonner!

AN HON. MEMBER: Bonner, Williston....

MR. BARRETT: Now in Japan at a Trilateral Conference meeting. Is that right? Yes, that's right.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on.

MR. BARRETT: Then Mr. Williston, whom Mr. Pearse was not kind

about in his report. Tut, tut, Mr. Pearse, criticizing Mr. Williston.

Why, we all know what a wonderful job he's done. They've even named an

appropriate lake after him. Most appropriate — that is the filthiest

lake in British Columbia. What a mess — polluted.

MR. KING: Full of deadheads!

MR. BARRETT: Full of deadheads! That's right. Appropriate name.

Social Credit said they'd end the non-elected boards and commissions

in governments. There's the Workers' Compensation Board. Why, our other

ex-Liberal who like to stay clean of politics, Mr. Speaker, now that

he's elevated to such a high post as the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr.

Williams), would never indulge in politics. He just fired Mr. Ison and

then says publicly: "Well, I'm having a little trouble getting someone

to take over because it's become political."

AN HON. MEMBER: Prince Charlie.

MR. BARRETT: Who made it political, — Mr. Speaker? Mr.

Speaker, for a lawyer, that is just like going out and murdering your

mother and father and then when you appear in court pleading that

you're an orphan and asking for mercy of the court! (Laughter.) And yet

he's the one who caused the trouble in the Workers' Compensation Board

and he's there quietly awaiting his chance to slip into the Premier's

seat. Oh, yes. Yes, yes, there is a Cassius there, my friends. Yes,

yes, we know who Cassius is; we're riot quite sure who will fill the

role of Brutus, but I'm sure that one of those fellows will clutch the

dagger to his breast and rush in and do the deed when it needs to be

done. There's nothing like unbridled Liberal ambition to be the

motivating factor.

What was that, Mr. Former Attorney-General (Mr. Macdonald), about

ambition that Lady Macbeth said, 'round such a murder? "Glamis thou

art, and Cawdor; and shalt be...."?

MR. MACDONALD: "Thou shalt be what thou art promised."

MR. BARRETT: "Thou shalt be what thou art promised." Is that

the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Hon. Mr. Williams)? "What

thou wouldst highly, that thou wouldst holily." Don't you remember

that? "Art not without ambition but lack the...the means to catch the

nearest way." "What thou wouldst highly, that thou wouldst holily." I

remember that.

MR. LEA: What was the next line?

MR. BARRETT: And what was the line about "catching the

nearest way...and the evilness to do it." It's all been written up

before, both in Macbeth and in Julius Caesar.

AN HON. MEMBER: And Hamlet.

MR. BARRETT: Hamlet is different, my friend. That was that

famous quote when Hamlet told Ophelia to beat it. Do you remember that?

"Get thee to a nunnery." That's what happened to the former chairman of

the caucus. (Laughter.)

Oh, yes, I'm glad I brought that up. I almost neglected to mention

that. Yes, lovely Ophelia who did graciously govern the Socred back

benches, who used to make expansive speeches about the dangers of

socialism in all of her statements. Not saying a word today. Hasn't

said a word at all. Didn't even make it to the cabinet for all her good

work. Is that honourable to leave that lady member out of the cabinet

while the lady member for Vancouver–Little Mountain made it good? One

was working outside and one was working inside. There's a prejudice in

favour of the outside workers. (Laughter.) I suggest you appeal to the

Labour Relations Board, lady member; maybe they will help you.

Then there's the Land Commission. Do you remember that? Oh, horror

of horrors! A government in British Columbia had the guts to say that

we're not going to develop land any more. We're going to save

agriculture land for agriculture purposes. Oh, that was a Moscow plot,

Mr. Speaker, if there ever was one! That was when the government was

accused of trying to pack up all the land in a box and send it to

Moscow. SMI — smear, muckraking and innuendo I'll never forget, hour

after hour after hour of screaming hysteria from Social Credit saying

what a terrible thing the land bill was. Oh, oh! The pathetic

performance of speaker after speaker.

"Why, " they said, "we're going to keep it non-political."

That's what they said. I want to tell you that it hasn't been non-political

since they've taken over. Why, they've named some people to the board.

One of them is Mr. Singh, and he did exactly

[ Page

49 ]

that — he sung. This is what Mr. Singh sung. He

said: "I am a Social Credit member. I am satisfied with the work of the

commission members fired by the government." He was not the only one

satisfied — the public was satisfied. But he went on the board and he

said: "There's room for everything if we plan properly."

Then there were other changes on that board. Member after member

were taken off. There's no need to go through the list of all of them.

One of them was Allan Claridge. He made some fantastically terrible

remarks about the Land Commission. Oh, what he had to say about the

former Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Stupich) would be enough to turn

that suit blue!

But then let's listen to what the Minister of the Environment (Hon.

Mr. Nielsen) said before the changes. This was what he said. On January

8, 1976, our new Minister of the Environment said the following words:

frankly, he has no idea why he's been chosen for the portfolio. Well,

he's not alone. We had no idea either, because he has no background or

any particular interest in the field.

MR. LEA: Leave Fonzie alone! (Laughter.)

MR. BARRETT: He's gone to change his suit.

That's what he said, Mr. Speaker. His executive assistant.... Oh,

Mr. Speaker, that is an executive assistant. Four years ago that was

known as a political hack. Yes, SMI labelled all executive assistants

"hacks," but now they're "executive assistants." So it's changed now,

gang. Get it straight. He's not a political hack, he's an executive

assistant.

He was asked what experience he has in the environmental matters. He

said: "Nothing, but who has? It's quite new." Even Cyril Shelford has

got more experience than that. He at least knows how to spread manure

all over the place, not in just one locale. A wonderful team: no

background, no interest, no knowledge. What a group!

This is what that same minister said when he was a failure as a

candidate for office. I hate to do this, to quote the former minister,

but it's important to carry the thrust of this particular minister and

a description of his duties. He said, in The Vancouver Sun ,

December 23, 1975: "Neilsen said" — and you have to lower your tones

because after all, it is a radio hotline background that brings the

expertise necessary — "he still believes that politicians should not

always be honest and candid with the public. 'You can't afford to be

completely honest with the people,' said Nielsen. 'There are a large

number of people out there who want to be bribed and conned."' That's

what a minister of the Crown said.

AN HON. MEMBER: And he still believes them.

MR. BARRETT: He has no qualifications on the environment, but

we sure know his political qualifications. He knows how to be a cabinet

minister: bribe and con the people, don't tell them the truth. Look who

he's sitting next to: none other than that sanctimonious ex-Liberal who

likes to keep everything clean and above board. There he is saying,

"The public like to be bribed and conned." Here's an excerpt from the

Prince George Citizen . I don't like to bring these things up,

Mr. Speaker, because other newspapers might follow and copy some of

these things, and the impression might get out that the minister is a

little bit of a superficial character. Why, it says here in the Prince

George Citizen :

"The following is a near-verbatim exchange between a reporter from The Citizen

and Environment minister Jim Nielsen. This exchange took place in the

lobby and the elevator of the Inn of the North. As an opener the

reporter introduced himself.

'Mr. Nielsen, we have received word from Victoria that the Land Commission, all but the chairman, have been sacked.'

'Who wants to know?'

That's what he said: "Who wants to know?'

'The wire service.'

'The wire service can go to hell.'

'Did you sack the commission?'

'Who says I did?'

'Two members say they got letters and your man, press officer John Arnett, did not deny it.'

'That's perfectly correct. He doesn't have any right to comment on anything like that.'

'But you have. You are the minister involved. Is it a fact that you fired these men?'

'What men?'

'The Land Commission.'

'No comment.'

'Then it's true?'

'No comment.'

'Why did they get sacked?'

'The first answer answers that. Don't you know what

"no comment" means?'

'Come on, Mr. Nielsen, you were a radio man. You know what "no comment" means. Did you fire those men?'

'No comment.'

'Thank you, sir, for nothing.'

''If you were smarter you would have gotten more.'"

End of dialogue.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BARRETT: Well, it's a now form of rating with the politicians and an interviewer. It's known as

[ Page 50 ]

the Nielsen rating: no comment, no comment, no comment.

MR. KING: Arrogance.

MR. BARRETT: No, no, no. It's not arrogance. You have to be

intelligent to be arrogant. It's obvious the promised end to

commissions and boards will never be fulfilled and end the political

appointments.

What are some other promises? I'll go through some of them very

quickly. There was a local taxpayers' property tax — an extra $68

million off in 1977. That's what they were promised.

Here's a page out the Vancouver Province . It says: "Taxpayers

to Shell Out $68 Million More for Schools." Now I've learned something

in observing Social Credit for a year: it is doublethink and

doublespeak. If they say they are doing one thing, you can be sure

they're doing the opposite. If they are planning to go in one

direction, you know they are going in the other. Here's a picture here

of a smiling candidate. "Bill Bennett's Way," it says. "No property

taxes on homes of those 65 and over." You see this one?

I want to establish something here and now before I go any further:

did the Premier authorize any single one of these newspaper ads? Just

nod your head, Mr. Premier. It's not MSI, it's just a matter of

responsibility — not muck, not smear, not innuendo.

MR. KING: "No comment," he says.

MR. BARRETT: Did you authorize any one of these ads, or were

they all done by a public relations team so that you would never have

to read them, never be responsible for them, or deny them if someone

asked you a question about it? It's very important.

MR. KING: He'll give you Nielsen's answers.

MR. BARRETT: Well, if the Premier doesn't want to answer,

later on I'm going to have to read some of his answers about some of

his other political ads. There hasn't been any action on this: property

taxes are going up and school taxes are going up.

Oh, yes, remember they had to do a full study on the B.C. Ferries? I

remember that one. Why, they studied them right out of existence,

practically — a deficit in the ferries this year and a reduction in the

number of people travelling.

Oh! Remove the 5 per cent sales tax on building materials. That was a promise

in the campaign, and while I was away this MSI group over here attempted to

hold the Premier to his promise. They put an amendment to the budget, saying

that they wanted to remove the sales tax, and Social Credit moved it up to 7

per cent. They increased everything for everybody, except for the mining companies.

Mr. Speaker, there has been a disastrous year in almost every field

to which this government addressed itself in the election campaign. I'd

like to quote what they say in the housing field about this government.

Mr. Richards, the president of the Vancouver Real Estate Board, says in

a real estate forecast of Western Living

that the residential market is suffering a lack of affordable housing.

One of the promises by Social Credit was a house that everyone could

afford. Mr. Tom Boyle, the president of Macaulay, Nicolls, Maitland,

said that the economic climate of British Columbia is poorer than in

the other provinces.

Are these the doom-and-gloom boys who are SMI, Mr. Speaker? Why,

they're businessmen who, in most instances, supported this government.

Mr. Spooner — Mr. Spooner, not Mr. Speaker — said that the housing

crisis in our province, and on the lower mainland in particular, has

alleviated very little, if at all, during the past 12 months. "A

housing crisis may be considered to be at hand when a large segment of

our population can afford to neither purchase or rent the accommodation

that is available." On and on and on; comments about housing, comments

about the economy.

Why, he even promised to renegotiate the Columbia River Treaty. They

almost gave away the only leverage we have left, and that's bargaining

on diversion. He wasn't even aware of that, Mr. Speaker, when he made

that statement, but then he changed his mind two days later on the way

back to Victoria.

He also said that he'd sell the shares of the B.C. Telephone Company

now owned by the government, and use the proceeds for social services.

That's what he said. Is that muck? Is that smear? Is that innuendo? Mr.

Speaker, he didn't even know enough to know that they cannot turn those

funds over to general revenue, that the shares belong to the public

service superannuation fund. Are you saying that you intended to take

those funds out of superannuation and put them in general revenue? Of

course not.

These can go on and on and on. But I think it's important just to

deal with one to give you one real example of how this government and

its Premier deal on two sides of the street on one issue. In an

election ad in the Prince Rupert Daily News

the Premier had his name put onto the following promises: the British

Columbia Social Credit Party policy statement on Canadian Cellulose —

that's for the working people in Rupert. Oh, yes, you can laugh, Mr.

Member for Vancouver–Point Grey, the election's over. It doesn't really

matter what you say in an election: say anything; promise anything.

MR. COCKE: Just give us their pay.

[ Page

51 ]

MR. BARRETT: Yes, just give us their pay. This is what the

Premier put his name to — that's his name, Bill Bennett. "B.C. Social

Credit Party makes the following commitments and guarantees: we commit

ourselves to the continuing operation of the Watson Island pulp mill

complex on the present scale and guarantee that the operations will not be curtailed." Do you remember reading that, Mr. Member for Prince Rupert?

MR. LEA: They're all out of work now.

MR. BARRETT: And all those people in Prince Rupert read this Social Credit ad and said that Bill Bennett will not close down the pulp mill.

"We guarantee that the proposed multi-million-dollar expansion and

conversion to kraft will have our emphatic endorsation and active

support." Yes, Mr. Speaker, we find that when the government decided to

renege on this promise, the Premier's selective memory came into

operation. Oh, yes, he has a selective memory. Selective memory — SM,

not I.

First, he could not remember the ad — that's his first line.

Remember? He remembered it but he could not recall whether or not he

authorized it. "Oh, I don't remember that ad, uh-huh. Yes. Oh, yes,

that's my name. Right. Oh, I recall it now but I don't think I

authorized it." "Is anyone authorized to use your name?" "Oh, uh-huh.

Yes, well, I'll look into that."

Next, he agreed he had sent telegrams to the Prince Rupert Socred

candidate on the subject. Oh, selective memory! Drip, drip, drip — it

comes out. Finally, he agreed that the wording of his telegrams could

have resulted in the wording of the advertisements. An incredible

performance for a man who had already made it as Premier!

"I don't remember the ad, but now that you recall it, I recall it.

Oh, yes, it had my name on the bottom but I don't know if I authorized

it."

"Oh, here are the telegrams you sent."

"Oh, yes, I remember those telegrams. Oh-huh, I guess you could

connect the ad to me, but not directly. It is only my name and it is

only a promise I made. I want everybody to understand, when I make a

promise, it's not directly connected with me, it's directly connected

with politics. What I say really does not make any difference because

that's politics. What I really mean is what I have not said yet, but I

have not said anything yet because that's politics and I've got to

determine that after I checked with what I referred to on the first

part after I have been there — the second part."

AN HON. MEMBER: Again.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, I can say it again and it will be just as

confusing. I don't know about this province gaining a Premier, but they

sure lost a good lawyer. What a defence mechanism!

"I did not say that."

"Oh, yes, you did."

"Oh, well, I just sent a telegram."

"No, I didn't see that."

"Well...."

"Yes it was me after all. That's my name, Bill Bennett. I am sorry if there has been confusion."

AN HON. MEMBER: Say you're sorry.

MR. BARRETT: No, he didn't say.... There's been confusion.

That's the ad, that's his picture, that's his name: "I pledge not to

close the mill." Those hundreds of workers are now looking for jobs

today all over this country. Mr. Premier, if you are going to make

announcements like that, please do us a favour. Don't promise any more

decisions like that — it has hurt too many people.

Oh, yes. There was a promise that was kept in full, and that was to

reduce...to take away all the mineral royalties, change the Mineral

Royalties Act.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: "Hear, hear!" says that would-be Socred who was

stopped from jumping the fence by a whiff of scandal. He was almost

there in the corral until a grizzly chased him away. (Laughter.) Yes,

he was almost there.

He's been stumping the province, getting himself clothed in sheep's

clothing like the other Liberals to join the wolves. Yes, he was

attacking the NDP. Oh, bad, bad, bad! Oh, yes, he was badmouthing the

NDP, ignoring what the auditor-general was saying in Ottawa about the

Liberals. After all, what's a little piledriving?

Oh, yes, there was the Liberal all ready to jump in the corral. What

happened? The bear bit him. (Laughter.) But he is still edging up. He

is waiting for nightfall and sniffing around the corral for a chance to

get in. The way he'll get in, Mr. Speaker, is by saying: "I'll be a

good boy. I won't hurt the mining companies one little bit."

AN HON. MEMBER: He'll get in when the Wolfes leave. (Laughter.)

MR. BARRETT: You know the first guy who will go if he gets

over there? One of the last to make it in the cabinet by his

fingernails. Clawing, scratching, he finally made it back as the reward

for all his years work — none other than the hon. member for Columbia

River (Hon. Mr. Chabot) who is the great fighter for jobs in B.C. —

those great speeches he made in opposition, saying he was going to

provide jobs and security.

[ Page 52 ]

For a whole year he was kept out while they waited for the member

for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) to jump into the corral. He

missed his timing, his foot slipped, the grizzly got him and Chabot is

in the cabinet today. How fate works!

MR. GIBSON: You're okay, Jim. (Laughter.)

MR. BARRETT: Okay for a couple of weeks. Poor, poor member

for North Vancouver. Everything was going along great until a little

bit of the smell wafted to his nostrils..

You would have joined that bunch. You would have joined that bunch

while there are some of them over there who have been so right-wing

they think that the Cincinnati Reds are a trouble-making group in that

city. (Laughter.) It's unbelievable. But of course, one will do

anything for one's advancement, I suppose.

Then it goes on and they relieve the mining industry. Oh, they left

the mining industry alone. The mining industries are crying, except for

Craigmont, Mr. Speaker.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to remind you and the people of British

Columbia just exactly what the royalty is worth. In the old days, under

NDP, people paid a 5 per cent sales tax. Because we wanted to be fair,

because we thought it was the right thing to do, we said: "If the

ordinary citizens pay a 5 per cent sales tax, so should the mining

companies." Don't you think that's fair, Mr. Speaker, if they are going

to take the resources out of the ground — that they pay a 5 per cent

royalty? Oh, terms, conditions — sputter, sputter, sputter.

MR. GIBSON: Birds and fish! Birds and fish!

MR. BARRETT: You know, Mr. Speaker, if the people pay 5 per

cent, the mining companies should pay it too. So we passed a bill

saying that the mining companies should pay 5 per cent — equivalent to

the sales tax — as a royalty. Social Credit wiped it out when they

burnped up the sales tax to 7 per cent. Those mining companies were

crying, crying, crying, while Craigmont announced its profit had

increased in 1976 by $314,000.. That poor little mining company!

I hope that the people of British Columbia will understand that

they've got to pay extra taxes. The profits of Craigmont Mines — net

profit, net profit.... From 1970 to 1976, the net profit from Craigmont

Mines has been $35.5 million, and this poverty-stricken little company

can't afford to pay its 5 per cent sales tax like the rest of you peons

out there who don't understand that you say one thing in election and

do another thing after you've been a government. Then if the opposition

criticizes, just say, "MSI."

Moody's Industrials Manual and Financial Post

show that Craigmont Mines made in 1970 $5.2 million profit; '71, $2.9

million; '72, $2.5 million; 1973, when the NDP was in office, the

highest year of profit by Craigmont, $10 million. We asked them for 5

per cent — nasty, terrible, ruining the value of the ore right there in

the accountant's book. Nineteen seventy-four, $7.4 million; 1975, $3.6

million; 1976, $3.9 million. No royalty, no royalty.

The giveaway gang got back and they gave it to the mining companies.

Now we see those lovely commercials on television brought to you by the

mining industry of British Columbia. You see them all: "Choo, choo,

choo" go the trains, and the lovely houses, and people diving in pools

and saying, "What a wonderful thing the mining industry's doing for

you." While you pay, you pay, and you pay, the mining industry gets

away without paying its share.

Right over there is the former Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr.

Waterland). There he is — nice fellow, nice fellow. I never knew he was

a social worker, Mr. Speaker.

When we came to power, the royalty on coal was 10 to 25 cents a ton.

We got it up to 50 cents, then to $1, then to $1.50. We ship out 11

million tons of coal every year from British Columbia. We are fantastic.

The royalty on coal was to go up to $2.50 in April of last year. It

was announced in 1975 that it would go up. The mining companies knew it

and they were prepared to pay it — $1 more a ton.

Last June I asked that minister over there. I said: "Mr. Minister,

the companies say they can afford to pay it. The ferry rates have gone,

income tax has gone up, sales tax has gone up..."

MR. KING: Hospitals.

MR. BARRETT: "...hospital premiums have gone up. All we've

asked is that the coal companies pay the dollar that they've already

agreed to pay. Can they afford to pay it?"

He sat over there and he said, "Oh, yes. They can afford to pay it."

"Well, are you going to collect it?"

He said: "Well, uh, it's under review."

MR. KING: Another Fagin.

MR. BARRETT: They never reviewed the ferry rates — bang, it

was done; they never reviewed the income tax — bang, it was done; they

never reviewed the sales tax — bang, it was done. But Cominco, Fording,

and Kaiser, they get a review.

Now my friend talks about Fagin and reviewing the situation. I think

you're wrong; you've got the wrong character. It's the Artful Dodger.

MR. KING: That's the mining companies.

[ Page

53 ]

MR. BARRETT: There they are, Mr. Speaker, protecting the

mining industry of this province, which is willing, able and ready to

pay another dollar a ton. They've said: "Okay, gang. Stash the $11

million. Forget it. You don't have to pay it; we'll sock it to the

people. Then we'll go on television with our commercials and say the

NDP hurt the mining industry."

Please, Mr. Speaker, hurt me that way. I'd like $11 million. I'd say

I'd been hurt. What a joke they play on the people of this province by

saying that the mining companies can afford to pay it, the coal can

afford to pay it, but you pay it first and the mining companies don't

have to pay at all. Eleven million bucks in the pockets of the coal

mining companies — not a new royalty, not a new increase, one that was

already agreed to and now forgiven by Social Credit as a reward for

being nice during the election.

Someone suggested to me that the mining companies had given Social

Credit money for their campaigns. Who would think such a thing? Who

would connect the benefit of the mining companies to the tune of $11

million with campaign funds? Not I. As a matter of fact, to dispel this

vicious rumour, Mr. Speaker, that comes under the heading of SMI, I

challenge Social Credit to open their campaign books, put them out

publicly and show us where they got their money from. Was there any

money from the coal companies? Was there? Let's find out! — $11 million.

Well, Mr. Speaker, enough of the promises. Why rake up those

promises now, because this government has adopted an age-old philosophy

that politicians understand better than anyone else: why ruin a good

promise by doing something about it? All of these promises will be

trotted out at the next election campaign and they will say: we will do

this for you, we will do that for you. Vote for us. Vote for me. Stop

socialism because it's hurting the mining companies. Well, well, well.

Then we go on to the economy, and we examine the statements made by

the head of this government, the Premier of this province — some of the

statements he's made over the last year after the Social Credit

policies have devastated the economy of this province. In the Vancouver

Province on November 26,1976, Premier Bill Bennett said: "B.C.

Is moving well. We've got B.C. turned around and I'm more optimistic

than I've ever been before." Premier Bill Bennett said that on November

26 in the Vancouver Province . Then he said in The Vancouver Sun .... Oh, here's another one from the Vancouver Province , when he was back in Ottawa. Listen to this.

Now for goodness' sake, if there's a reporter in here, I want him to

put down his pen because I don't want this to get out to the citizens. Everybody

take a coffee break because I don't want anyone to be embarrassed.

This is what the Premier said. He didn't have the nerve to say it in

British Columbia; he said it in Toronto, hoping that no one would ever

say anything. In Toronto he said that his government's policies have

been for the people. He said he has tried throughout his year in office

to provide new initiatives in B.C. to allow people to keep money in

their own hands. That's what he said in Toronto!

Among these initiatives is the increase in sales tax by 40 per cent

— does that help to keep money in your pocket? Increased personal

income tax by 6 per cent — does that help you all? Increased taxes on

the sick — medicare premiums up 50 per cent, hospital insurance up 300

per cent. Does that help you all? Increased ferry rates,100 per cent.

How much money have you got left in your pocket? We're still working on

it. Increased hydro rates, 11 per cent; increased natural gas rates,

9.5 per cent; increased campground fees,100 per cent — but now if

you're over 65, you can sleep there.

MR. KING: ICBC.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, ICBC — 100 to 300 per cent. Allotment rents

increased 100 per cent. Well over half a billion dollars out of the

taxpayers' pockets in this province, and he says in Toronto that his

policies are to keep money in people's pockets.

AN HON. MEMBER: Which people?

MR. LEA: Another bill to pay.

MR. BARRETT: Also at a federal-provincial conference he said

the following words: "Some of the provinces came in on their knees,

waiting for the scraps to fall off the table." Now, Mr. Speaker,

imagine what would happen if a labour leader in this province said: "I

am going into bargaining standing up on my two feet and I won't get

down on my knees and wait for the scraps to fall off the table. None of

that negotiating for me, no siree-Bob."

The Premier and this government would be the first to attack any

labour leader who made such a statement. But he goes to a federal

conference and he said that he's helped the people of this province,

and he said: "Some of the provinces are going into this conference on

their knees, waiting for the scraps off the table." What provinces?

What provinces are you making that accusation against, Mr. Speaker? Who

was the Premier talking about? What calumny is he broadcasting on what

province for going in on its knees? Not he! Oh, no! Lord help us when

labour or management take that position in this province, saying:

"We're not going to negotiate on our knees. We're going to get

everything we can." That's exactly what he's saying. He attacked the

other provinces for that attitude and said that he went in there to get

[ Page 54 ]

everything he could, and not on his knees, no

siree-Bob. And you wait till we have another labour crisis in this

province. The first one to come winging in with words about not

bargaining for so much, not demanding so much, will be the Premier of

this province.

MR. KING: "Exercise restraint."

MR. BARRETT: Exercise restraint, caution. His own words don't

mirror that, but he forgets that sometimes they report what you say

back there, Mr. Premier. He said that....

Oh, yes, there is a bit of a sort of a doubletalk in what the

Premier says. We've seen already that more initiatives are on the way.

There's already been a new increase in Hydro rates and in natural gas

rates. The Premier says that the Crown corporations make their own

decisions; they don't stand for election.

What about the question of nuclear power, Mr. Speaker? We've had

different and conflicting statements from the Premier on that. Mr.

Bonner says that we are going to have nuclear power. The Premier denies

that he ordered them to look into nuclear power. Which is it, Mr.

Speaker? What is the truth? Is the Premier in favour of nuclear power,

or isn't he? Has he authorized Hydro to investigate nuclear power, or

hasn't he? Is Hydro committed in any way to going ahead with nuclear

power, or aren't they? Does the Premier know? Does the Premier care?

The Crown corporation makes its own decisions and goes in its own

direction but, Mr. Speaker, when they announced the pipeline for a $100

million expansion in the north, that was different.

You see, Mr. Speaker, I'll let you in on a secret: when there's the

good news the Premier decides that and announces it; when there's the

bad news the Crown corporation's board of directors decides it and

announces it. That's it for simple observers in the public on how the

government determines its policy: good news is announced by the

Premier; bad news is announced by the board of governors. Who announced

the $100 million pipeline in the Grizzly Valley? Not the board of

directors but the Premier!

MR. KING: He says it's good.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, and then on top of that, when he was

questioned as to the delay in terms of share trading — which we will

not discuss, Mr. Speaker — he said that the Petroleum Corporation had

no authority to make that — announcement. Oh! The Crown corporation can

settle out of court on the railroad; the Crown corporation can announce

nuclear power. That's bad news. The Crown corporation can announce

increases in power rates and gas rates. That's bad news. But when he

wants to announce what he thinks is good news, he announces it, Mr.

Speaker. He selects politically where his policy will be established.

He is very, very political. As a matter of fact, that's exactly what he

is supposed to be, only he's doing it selectively: bad news time, the

other boys' turn; good news time, my turn, and if you get out of turn

I'm going to stomp on my little feet!

The Premier said he's turned the economy around. He certainly has.

He turned it from a not bad economy into a recession and a depression.

Mr. Speaker, I want to quote to you from the economic review tabled and

given to the public by the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr.

Phillips), the Social Credit Minister of Economic Development.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: No, I don't know. It isn't in handwriting on the back of a cheque so his assistant couldn't have written it, Mr. Member.

MR. KING: Did Ellis write it?

MR. BARRETT: No, he was only there two days.

MR. KING: Ohhh!

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Shorthand? (Laughter.)

MR. KING: Was Ellis fired?

MR. BARRETT: Oh, Mr. Speaker, how lightly they jest. Ohhh,

and it's so serious that this government would never get caught playing

games like that — not this clean little group of sweeties. No, no, you

shouldn't make comments like that, Mr. Member, it's under SMI — Smear,

Muck and Innuendo. You don't want to do that. That's only when Social

Credit makes unfounded, unbased charges against the NDP.

This is what the Economic Development report said:

"The British Columbia economy withstood the shocks of world

recession and major work stoppages in '75 surprisingly well. Personal income

growth estimated at 6 per cent was the major factor contributing to an anticipated

10 per cent nominal growth in the provincial product. Attesting to the relative

strength of the provincial economy is the fact that employment increased by

approximately 3 per cent with the net addition of 29,000 jobs over the previous

year."

That's 29,000 new jobs between '74 and '75 — a report filed by

Social Credit quietly, signed by that Minister, saying that 1975 had a

gain of 29,000 jobs under the NDP. "Average weekly industrial wages

increased by 15 per cent. The level of capital and

[ Page

55 ]

repair spending in British Columbia was estimated

at $5.7 billion under the NDP or 9 per cent over 1974," filed and

signed and praised by the Minister of Economic Development about the

NDP's last year in office. "The dollar value of shipments by

manufacturing establishments rose to $7.13 billion under the NDP" —

signed, tabled, by the Minister of Economic Development.

It goes on to say: "The value of mineral production in '75,

estimated at $1.223 billion, was above the '74 level." On and on and

on. "There was a balance in gained receipts from agricultural products

of 2 per cent to $373 million from $366 million." That was the NDP's

last year in office.

It's a document filed as an economic review by the minister sitting

over there, Mr. Speaker, and I recall seeing it in headlines in all the

major papers, and editorials in all the major papers, saying what a

wonderful last year the NDP had. If you missed it, I'm sure it was in

the Sun and The Province .

If you missed it, I'm sure it was banner headlines on the financial

pages saying: "Social Credit proves the NDP last year was great — they

signed the report." If you missed it I'll give you a copy of the

report, but I'm sure it will be the subject of a feature story on the

editorial page of The Vancouver Sun or the Vancouver Province .

Don't you think so, Mr. Speaker? Those great radical newspapers that

support the NDP will have this report tabled by the minister.

Mr. Speaker, here's another ad in the paper. I don't know if he's

responsible for this one or not. He didn't sign this one. He just put

his picture on it. So it's different. If you just put your picture on

it it ain't yours. But put your name on it and it ain't yours because

you forgot whether you sent the wire to give them the message to put it

in the telegram, to put it in the wording for the ad for the election,

if you follow what I mean. But this one has his picture on it. Anyone

could recognize that picture.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: No, no, no, Mr. Member. Anyone can recognize

that picture. They have a hard time bringing up the light on the bottom

part. It cost $1,000 to do him up right on television for that

Thanksgiving turkey. Do you remember that? The people of this province

spent $1,000 to bring up the light.

Here it is: "100,000 people out of work. Can we afford the Barrett

way?" Thank you very much. Any advertising is good advertising. You had

the decency to spell my name right.

Unemployment is the most serious issue of this election." Ha, ha,

ha! It's all a joke now, isn't it, Mr. Minister of Labour? It's all a

joke, the election's over.

"The Barrett government, in attacking and restricting the major

industries of this province, has succeeded in destroying economic

growth. On December 11 remember 100,000 men and women out of work. Vote

Social Credit."

What was the truth, Mr. Speaker? By the government's own statistics

in December of 1975 there were 82,000 people out of work, not 100,000.

It is one year later. There are now 92,000 people out of work in

British Columbia — 10,000 more.

MS. SANFORD: And more.

MR. BARRETT: More than 1,000 more a month.

MR. D.F. LOCKSTEAD (Mackenzie): Eighteen per cent in my riding.

MR. BARRETT: Eighteen per cent in your riding, Mr. Member.

That's the pledge of Social Credit — 1,000 jobs a month down the tube

under Social Credit and that's the record, and he said that it's the

most important election issue of all. Unemployment went from 7.8 per

cent in 1975 to 8.2 per cent in December, 1976, and every single policy

under Social Credit has added to that unemployment figure. The

seasonally adjusted rate went from 7.9 per cent in 1975 to 8.8 per cent

in 1976, Mr. Speaker. All of these unemployed people read this ad, and

there has been a huge increase in unemployment directly attributable to

Social Credit policies.

"Can we afford the Barrett way?" I'll tell you it's a lot

better than the Bennett way. Yes, Mr. Speaker, it's all in good fun because

it's an election time. Yes, did you say those things? Throw them out, 'cause

people won't remember. Social Credit has been a disaster for the working

people of this province. I remember, Mr. Speaker, when the Premier was the Leader

of the Opposition, how he used to rant, rave, wave his arms and talk about unemployment

and jobs. He hasn't had much to say about it lately, Mr. Speaker.

And the tragedy is that unemployment will even continue to rise.

There has not been one single, positive move by this government to

stimulate the economy of this province. Even the 8,000 people laid off

during December for the forest curtailment did not show up in those

figures, and it is my prediction that unemployment will rise again next

month — directly attributable to the fact that Social Credit has taken

no initiatives in the economy. Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you one of

those most dangerous and provoking statistics within this unemployment

figure. The unemployment rate between the age group of 19 and 24 is

19.6 per cent — almost 20 per cent of all people between the ages of 19

and 24, one out of five, are looking for jobs. Mr. Speaker, one out of

five people between the ages of 19 and 24 looking for jobs — available

for jobs — is a social calamity and social dynamite, Mr. Speaker. The

expectations, the

[ Page 56 ]

desires, the legitimate goals of the young people

of this province who want to participate, who want to work and have

made themselves available to work, are being frustrated by a government

that has not shown one single initiative at putting people to work. And

it does not help psychologically to have a government in office that

makes statements in cliche form about people getting a shovel.

We have an extremely serious situation in this province and we

cannot go through these next few months without seeing some of the

consequences of this high unemployment rate in a volatile group in our

society. You cannot tell young people to go to school and finish

school. You cannot tell them to work hard and seek jobs when one out of

five can't find a job, Mr. Speaker. They are told by television, radio

and politicians that they have expectations of cars, homes and clothes.

When those expectations are not met, what other course will they follow

to get those material goods?

Oh, yes, there is a difference between democratic socialism and

capitalism, and no more is there a glaring example of the gap between

your philosophy and ours in that you are laissez faire and you say the

rich must be taken care of; let the poor scramble. Within a matter. of

days the philosophy of your government was stated through the minister

responsible for ICBC (Hon. Mr. McGeer) when, like Marie Antoinette, he

said: "Let them sell their cars."

You don't care, Mr. Speaker, and you won't show an iota of concern

until just a few months before the next election when cynicism will

overcome you again and you will trot out these ads and mislead the

people again in an attempt to hang onto power to protect the large

corporate entities that are benefiting from your policies. The coal

companies: $11 million of a downy cushion to protect their gentle heads

while our people are out there at a level of unemployment in this age

group that rivals the great Depression, while there is a deaf ear here

in government under a coalition representing the self-same centralized

interests that have dominated this province's history for 9 7 of its

100 years.

You don't give a fig about the people. You don't care about these

unemployed. They are just a message I in an election ad, to be used or

dismissed when you think it's necessary to benefit yourselves

politically. c

What is the succour granted to the people, Mr. Speaker? Why, there is a line

in the throne speech that gives a message to the hard-pressed wealthy in British

Columbia not to fear, gang, when you go on t to the world of never-never land.

Your estate is going to be saved; it won't be taxed anymore. I predict that

one of the major pieces of legislation brought in during this session will be

the removal of succession duty and gift tax. Yes, for all you people out there

who've been worried about the gift tax, rest well tonight in British Columbia.

We know that thousands — yea, tens of thousands — of you last year gave your

wife or husband a gift of over $10,000. Yes, Mr. Speaker, that's the only

gift that can be taxed. The oppressive laws under the social democrats said

that any gift over $10,000 should be taxed. I know that this gallery is filled

with people today who last year gave or received a gift of over $10,000 from

their husband or wife, and never asked for a simple reason why they gave them

that gift.

Yes, and the succession duty tax that exempts to almost $.25 million

before it's taxed: that will be repealed. The wealthy will be taken

care of, and the excuse will be that they're going to reinvest in

British Columbia. I remember the word of W.A.C. Bennett, the former

Premier of this province who brought in succession duties and said that

the rich should pay their fair share.

MR. KING: Right. If they wouldn't stay in the province, let them go. They were not good enough citizens.

MR. BARRETT: That's right. The former Premier, my

predecessor, said that if they didn't want to pay their fair share, let

them leave British Columbia; they weren't being good citizens anyway.

MR. KING: He had a conscience.

MR. BARRETT: No, he lost his conscience at the Kelowna

Charter, my friend. Just three months before the 1972 election, the

former Premier announced that if he was elected he would do away with

succession duties. He brought it in in May, and said he was going to

take it away in June. Oh, the son has learned well, Mr. Speaker: whip

them and then take away the whip.

MR. KING: Sins of the father visited upon the son.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, while these people unemployed, while the wealthy

will be taken care of, while the mining companies, which my Liberal friend from

North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) loves and praises, don't pay their

fair share, that money is not being invested. If you're not going to collect

the $11 million, at least have the decency to order that that money be reinvested

in British Columbia to provide jobs for British Columbians. What are businessmen

saying about the fact that here's no employment, that the economy is crippled

by Social Credit? What are businessmen in this province saying? Joseph Segal,

president of Field's Stores, said in his report to shareholders, May 28, 1976:

"Consumer spending in British Columbia was affected by

both economic conditions and government action. Motor vehicle premiums

were increased substantially, and this alone had

[ Page

57 ]

the effect of eliminating a large amount of consumer spending

in British Columbia in the first quarter of 1976. This had a major impact on

our retail stores and resulted in a sales growth of only 5 per cent in our B.C.

stores — this in sharp contrast to an increase of 21 per cent in Alberta."

Joseph Segal of Field's Stores.

C.N. Woodward of Woodward's Stores said on June 24:

"Retail business is flat and the feeling is that we

won't come out of the slump in 1976. The ICBC increase in auto

insurance premiums and the recent increase in retail sales tax to 7 per

cent took about $500 million out of the consumers' income in this

province."

B.C. Employers' Council — this is not a New Democratic Party group,

Mr. Speaker. The B.C. Employers' Council is not a front group with the

New Democratic Party; I want to dispel that rumour before it starts. On

August 5 the council issued what the Victoria Colonist

called a dismal economic forecast for Canada's third-largest province.

Among other things, the council forecast capital expansion outlays to

remain relatively unchanged over the next 12 months. Bill Hamilton,

president of the council, says that the business community is

pessimistic about the future — and well they should be. This government

has taken not one single step to stimulate capital investment in this

province, and has taken out hundreds of millions of dollars from

consuming spending that would normally circulate in the community,

providing employment and income for significant numbers of people.

Fred Moonen, well known to all the members of this House,

vice-president of the Council of Forest Industries, said: "As far as

our own outlook for the balance of the year is concerned, we're not

terribly optimistic. Looking at our industry I would not expect to be

looking at a spurt in the economy."

The B.C. Chamber of Commerce, another non-NDP group, said: "In some

areas of the province it is virtually impossible to obtain general

insurance, particularly for rental accommodation, mobile homes and new

properties.

What about this, Mr. Speaker? No concern, no commitment! The B.C.

Federation of Agriculture, not even mentioned in the throne speech, say

that fruit and vegetable farming is in a disastrous state, and the

Socreds' performance in agriculture is disappointing.

On and on and on it goes, Mr. Speaker. When they mention that the mining companies

should be taken care of, they went out of their way to take them. And they attacked

that former minister who is now sitting in the gallery, Mr. Leo Nimsick — the

only mining minister who had the nerve to put a 5 per cent sales tax on the

mining companies. They said, oh, he was terrible.

Look at the consequences of their particular policies. In November

the economic disaster story started to speed up. On November 3, the

headline in the Vancouver Province was: "Restaurants Going

Broke Faster Than Ever: a 30 per cent drop in business in the summer."

S. Medill of Nanaimo announced that they decided to build a new plant

in Portland, Oregon, instead of Nanaimo. In The Vancouver Sun ,

November 27: foreclosures on mortgages have doubled in the last 12

months. Some help the people hang onto their homes, Mr. Speaker!

Foreclosures on mortgages have doubled in 12 months in British Columbia

under Social Credit. People are losing their homes every single day,

where there's no assistance for them. "And it's likely to double

again," says The Vancouver Sun .

MR. KING: They really turned the province around!

MR. BARRETT: Yes, Mr. Member, you're absolutely right. The

relief for that is in the throne speech: if you're over 65, you get to

sleep free in the parks. There is some relief. I want to thank you for

reminding me of that great social step. All those 85-year-old friends

of mine who go out camping were absolutely delighted with the

announcement of that policy.

Then on December I came the first massive layoffs in the forest

industry, after the Premier made the statement that the economy is all

right, that everything is turned around. We've completed the janitorial

job; Social Credit is the answer. Everything is dandy, okey-dokey, No.

He even had the Liberal leader convinced, almost — as I related

earlier. Not the Tory — he's been that route before. (Laughter.) Not

the Tory boy. He's been inside Social Credit; he established what level

of smell he could stand. He walked out. I don't blame you, Mr. Member.

I don't blame you, Mr. Member. It isn't saying much for the Liberals

sitting over there, that they're still there.

You know, sometimes I sit down over a cup of coffee, Mr. Speaker,

and I get a little smile on my face, and I think about those vicious

speeches made by the two members for Vancouver–Point Grey and the

member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound about Social Credit. Oh, the

moving hand, having written, moves on.

And how the siren calls out for the other Liberal leader: "Come on over."

MR. GIBSON: No way. (Laughter.)

MR. BARRETT: Come on over, blue rover. Ali, yes, yes, yes, we have our own little games in here.

People outside, who might be serious and who

[ Page 58 ]

take politics seriously, and who look upon

politicians as cynical and not telling the truth, and making political

promises, are being misled, Mr. Speaker. They should know that Social

Credit believes in that as a humorous approach: don't tell the truth;

make false promises; say anything that's necessary, and see who we can

suck in. We got in three Liberals, and now we want one more — and he

was almost there.

The Liberal ship is going down the tube in Ottawa. How does a ship

go down the tube? (Laughter.) The Liberals are going down the tube.

Yes, yes.

MR. KING: What do you think they caught him on? A worm or a...?

MR. BARRETT: I don't know. They caught him on a hook. The

hook came from W.A.C. at the Union Club like that. He pulled him in

over dinner. He said: "You guys don't like David Anderson, do you? We

promise you we won't give the member for Cariboo (Hon. Mr. Fraser) a

senior post in cabinet." That was a commitment they kept. They shuffled

poor old Alex to the side. I need those curtains, Alex. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: What about Cyril?

MR. BARRETT: Oh, Cyril. He's back for Act II. (Laughter.) My

dear, very good friend from Omineca is back for Act II. For years he

got away with that act of saying: "I'm a maverick. I'm alone. I kick

the slats out of the government." He's back doing the same song and

dance again and we're happy to see you here. You are living proof of

that old adage: "You can fool some of the people all of the time."

You've been doing it long and long and long.

Why, he's even in there.... He's going to fight for equalized

gasoline prices. When the freeze went off he never said a word.

Gasoline is up over $1 a gallon in his constituency. He's down here in

the warmth of Victoria while they're paying a buck for a gallon of gas.

But they're all secure in their little cabs or their cars tonight

because old Cyril is down here fighting for you again, gang. He ain't

gonna get nothing except your vote, but he sure likes to fight anyway.

Good to see you. (Laughter.) Good to see you. It renews my hope and

faith in.... The con game will last forever. Good to see you.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Chabot? He made it. Whew!

MR. KING: It was close. (Laughter.)

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Of course, the Speaker got put where he was.

He's a good Speaker too, on occasion, most of the time, almost all of

the time. We need some staff, Mr. Speaker.

The first layoffs came in the forest industry. Eight thousand people

were laid off. The Premier said: "I don't know anything about this." It

came two days after he made his announcement that the economy was in

good shape. He called in a Mr. Knudsen, an American brought up to run

the great MacMillan Bloedel Corporation.

Mr. Knudsen pronounced his American solution for Canadian workers.

Guess what it was, gang. "Freeze their wages next year, " he said. "Let

the workers have a frozen wage. That will help the company because we

have to pay Mr. Bonner $60,000 in a pension, Mr. Timmis $80,000 in his

pension. To pay those pensions we've got to freeze the workers'

salaries next year." I want to tell Mr. Knudsen that if that's an

American message, take it home. Take it home. The workers of this

province are not going to take messages on that basis.

But the Premier said the economy is turned around. I want to bring to the attention

of the...just the Legislative Assembly, Mr. Speaker, what the Premier is saying

in one mouth and out the side of the other mouth. Two mouths — it takes both

to handle all of this.

MR. KING: He always was mouthy.

MR. BARRETT: Now Mr. Speaker, I want you to keep this to

yourself again. I have in my hand here the British Columbia Hydro and

Power Authority prospectus. For $150 million in bonds on the New York

market asked for by Social Credit.... This is what they have to do in

the United States. They have to file with the Securities Exchange

Commission and tell them what's going on.

"The economy has turned the corner," said the Premier — page 4 of

the government's prospectus for B.C. Hydro. Page 4 says: "The Authority

estimates that the transportation loss for B.C. Hydro could amount to

$50 million exclusive of provincial grants and subsidies." Things are

working well. Things are working well; they've turned the corner. Page

10: "The Authority has announced an increase in its basic transit fare

from 25 cents to 35 cents. This will bring in $6 million." Things are

going well. The ordinary people have to pay these.

Then we go on further in some more interesting information. It says

here that there is a price increase that has already become effective

January I to add $6.5 million to the Authority's operating costs for

the fiscal year of 1977 of natural gas. But Mr. Speaker, tucked away in

this little report is a nice little statement on which I want to spend

some time — two things that are of particular interest to the taxpayer

of this province.

[ Page

59 ]

Before the British Columbia Railway court case was settled, on page

41 of this prospectus submitted to the United States in November, 1976,

it says: "The Railway has incurred a loss of $40 million unaudited in

1976 for the first nine months, and estimates for the loss of fiscal

1976 to be approximately $55 million." The first year of Social Credit

administration of that railroad and they're going to lose $55 million.

But there's not a word in here about the court case.

Do you remember, Mr. Speaker, when we were in government, how the

former Premier assailed us and said, "Oh! Did you tell the Securities

Exchange Commission about the court case?" Do you remember those

speeches...?

Do you remember, Mr. Speaker, when we were in government, how the

former Premier assailed us and said: "Oh, did you tell the Securities

Exchange Commission about the court case." Oh, do you remember those

speeches? Time and time again he went through it. He made the wild

accusation; he said that there was patronage and family members hired

on the B.C. Rail. And when I asked the Premier at that time, Mr.

Speaker, the name, whose family and what jobs, under SMI he didn't say.

He just sneered, he just muckraked and he just threw innuendo. All

those words are in Hansard . Some of the most vicious diatribe

against the railroad was made by that Premier, but not a substance, not

a substance of proof — wild accusations. Now he piously stands up today

and says that the railroad settled out of court on their own hook.

You know they can't do that, Mr. Speaker. You know they can't do

that. They have no authority to spend public funds without coming back

for authorization, and in last year's budget there was $12 million in

the budget for extra railroad expenses. And when the Minister of

Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) was asked about that, he said: "I don't know

what that's there for. The railroad asked for it." Are you trying to

tell us, Mr. Speaker, that the railroad can do anything it wants with

public money? Don't kid us! Treasury Board has the absolute

responsibility for Crown corporations. Treasury Board must approve

those decisions and Treasury Board allowed B.C. Rail to settle that

fraud and conspiracy out of court, and that's all there is to it.

And, Mr. Speaker, I put this to you: even if we accept the Premier's

argument that it was the railroad that made the decision to settle that

fraud and conspiracy charge, I challenge him to name publicly who was

responsible for the fraud. Who was responsible for the fraud? This is a

very serious case. If the railroad has settled the case out of court

and tacitly admitted that there is fraud, tacitly admitted there is

conspiracy, then it is the responsibility of the Premier of this

province to tell us who caused the fraud, who caused the conspiracy.

Who was it that said to the railroad: "You can go ahead and build this

line, but don't tell the public how much money it's really going to

cost."? Who was it that authorized the helicopter to fly up north and

look down through the Plexiglas and say: "Hmmm, this looks rough,

that'll cost so much."? Who filed the report in this House of June,

1976, exposing decisions that were made on the railroad time and time

again on a political basis with no engineering? It was Social Credit.

And who embraced those decisions as soon as they got in office? The new

Social Credit government.

Will the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) proceed to prosecute

those persons who caused the fraud and conspiracy that cost the

taxpayers over $2 million so far? Is fraud a serious crime? Is

conspiracy a serious crime? If it is, Mr. Speaker, then name the people

who are responsible and prosecute them for fraud against the people of

British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: No matter who it is, everybody stands before the

bar of justice. And I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the Premier of this

province is hiding behind the board he appointed. He authorized that

board to make the settlement. Treasury Board gave the okay to settle

out of court and it was done cynically on Christmas Eve, and it stinks,

Mr. Speaker. It is a scandal and this government stands condemned for

that kind of payoff.

You know, Mr. Speaker, we'll get a nice reply on television. We'll

have the $1,000 make-up job and it will be a sweet television broadcast

saying: "I've taken all political influence out of the railroad. Why,

those chaps made a decision to settle fraud and conspiracy on their

own."

"Is fraud and conspiracy serious, Mr. Premier?"

"Oh, well, I guess it is. I haven't talked to the Attorney-General about that."

"Oh, if there's fraud and conspiracy in a Crown corporation, then the government of the day is responsible?"

"Oh no, not really — you see, fraud and conspiracy is at arm's length. I wish it would go away."

It's taxpayers' dollars. The taxpayers of this province are paying

for that fraud and conspiracy, and to stand up in this House and say it

was a board decision is nothing but a direct runaway from

responsibility and one of the stupidest moves this government could

have made. There was no need for them to embrace the fraud and

conspiracy. It was the previous Social Credit government that made

those decisions. It was not their fraud, it was not their conspiracy,

but they clutched it to their breast and made excuses politically for a

former Social Credit government, and now the three Liberals are right

wrapped up in it too. Yes, the Minister of Education

[ Page 60 ]

(Hon. Mr. McGeer), the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr.

Gardom) and the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Hon. Mr.

Williams) have made statements — especially the Minister of Education,

especially the present Attorney-General — in this House condemning the

railroad for overruns, condemning the railroad for these practices, and

now they sit on cabinet benches and they sit silent, inheriting a mess.

They won't stand up and say: "The former government was wrong and they

did this, and we're going to pay off." But instead of doing that they

say: "The board did it." They've clutched the problem to their own

bosom and said that it's okay for the board to settle.

Why? Why did you find it necessary to take this problem as your own,

Mr. Speaker? Why did the Premier find it absolutely essential to wrap

himself in the cloth of that British Columbia Railway mess? Name who's

responsible for the fraud. Name who's responsible for the conspiracy.

They are serious, serious charges.

Will the Attorney-General prosecute anyone on the basis of his

former speeches as an MLA while he was a Liberal? I don't care to read

those to him now, Mr. Speaker. I'll send them in the mail to him. But

I'm sure he knows what his duty is.

Mr. Speaker, also in this prospectus is a very interesting statement

that makes the government look bad again. They went on to say in the

1976 budget that $44 million was owing the federal government from

unpaid taxation shares of natural gas. The Clarkson Gordon report and

the Premier's first statement said that $75 million was owing under the

NDP; then it was scaled down to $44 million. Mr. Speaker, there is a

correction here in this prospectus to the New York market, but never a

correction to the people of British Columbia. The figure was not $75

million owing to the federal government — no, not $44 million as was in

the budget, but $29 million when they have to 'fess up with the actual

accounting in New York.

Anything, any statement, any figure is okay in British Columbia, but you can't

fib to the Securities Exchange Commission, Mr. Speaker. They can fib to the

people of British Columbia, but to the Securities Exchange Commission they admit

that it is not $44 million, it's $29 million — $15 million dumped on in

the budget deliberately to mislead the people of this province by Social Credit;

$15 million that was padded in the budget, that they knew was a wrong estimate.

They scaled it down from the Clarkson Gordon estimate and they've admitted

to the Securities Exchange Commission in New York that it was padded by $15

million and the figure is $29 million. They've been playing with $15 million

to pad the budget to make it look bad on the NDP. They play politics anywhere,

only they've been caught by the Securities Exchange requirement. Not very

nice, Mr. Member.

AN HON. MEMBER: Prostituted the throne speech.

MR. BARRETT: Not very nice, telling the people of this

province one figure and then going to New York and telling them another

figure. Mr. Speaker, someone told a lie.

MR. KING: Is that open government?

MR. BARRETT: Someone told a lie, Mr. Speaker, and it was a

$15 million lie to boot. Say anything, do anything, make any accusation

you want; they're social democrats and we want power. That's the

philosophy of this government: hide fraud and conspiracy; don't tell

the truth about figures; get caught with the Securities Exchange.

What's the explanation? Who made the $15 million mistake? It's no

mistake. It's deliberate, Mr. Speaker, in my opinion, a deliberate

shuffling of figures, padding, to make the situation look worse than it

is.

Mr. Speaker, one happy note in the Securities Exchange report is a

very bragging statement. It says here that since the inception of the

British Columbia Petroleum Corporation to September 30, 1976, transfers

to the provincial government's general revenue fund have totalled $302

million.

MR. KING: How did they vote on that?

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, $302 million was given to the taxpayers of this province by the British Columbia Petroleum Corporation.

MR. KING: How did they vote on that bill?

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, $302 million that would have gone

into the hands of the international oil companies — $302 million that

would have disappeared into Great Britain, the United States and into

Holland — stayed here in British Columbia because of the British

Columbia Petroleum Corporation marketing all natural gas to the United

States.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, when the former Attorney-General,

my colleague, Alec Macdonald, took his place in this House and

announced the Petroleum Corporation, the most vicious, calumnious and

scandalous debate that ever took place in this House broke out. Next to

the Premier, his first and eminent colleague, the Minister of Economic

Development, spoke for 14 hours attacking the Petroleum Corporation

saying it was

[ Page 61 ]

Moscow-inspired, it was communism, it was terrible,

it was horrible — 14 hours, attacking it, attacking it, attacking it.

Not one Social Credit member voted for the Petroleum Corporation — not

one! The Petroleum Corporation is now here providing $300 million in

three years of operation to the people of British Columbia, and the

irony of it is Social Credit is bragging about it to the SEC.

Do you really believe anything you say, Mr. Speaker, over there? Do

you really believe a single word of your debate? If you did, why didn't

you get rid of the Petroleum Corporation? You knew you wouldn't because

the idea was sound, but you would attack it simply because the NDP

brought it in, Mr. Speaker. It's a fact. Read the record. Say anything,

do anything for a vote — that's what you are over there. Ferry

deficits...everything is outlined here in this report.

It's better than the budget; it's certainly more accurate than the

budget. They'd better be accurate because if they weren't, the

Securities Exchange Commission would ruin our borrowing credit in New

York, and no one knows it better than Social Credit.

You can fool in the budget speech, you can fool the people in

Clarkson Gordon's report, you can fool the people in all kinds of

political statements, but you'd better not fiddle around with the SEC.

And we get a more accurate report of what's going on in this province,

Mr. Speaker, by reading this prospectus. This prospectus on B.C. Hydro

borrowing is more honest than anything put forward by that government

over there. If you're not responsible for the decisions of the Crown

corporations, why do you put it in the SEC-required prospectus?

You guarantee every single penny of B.C. Hydro; you guarantee every

single penny of B.C. Rail by legislation. You voted for that

legislation, and then you say you're not responsible. Shame, tut-tut,

and all the nasty things that I can think of to say, Mr. Speaker.

That railroad line that was to cost the people of this province $90

million, down to $68 million, has now cost the taxpayers of this

province $279 million. It's $279 million that Social Credit has blown

on that extension in a scandalous method of handling contracts, and the

reports were filed in this House in June, 1975.

Well, Mr. Speaker, on and on it goes. Ferry traffic. Those people

who supported the cabinet minister from Victoria were not so happy to

hear that in the month of July there was a decrease of 31,000 vehicles

and 117,000 passengers here in Victoria, to save money. The new

Minister of Transport (Hon. Mr. Davis) has sold our ferries to a

Toronto firm, only to buy them back at twice the price. Doesn't that

make sense, friends?

MR. KING: That's the businessman.

MR. BARRETT: All the people of British Columbia should be

aware of how this businesslike government operates: they created a

ferry corporation, sold the ferries to a Toronto financial firm, and

now are buying them back at twice the price. Wouldn't you like a little

slice of that, folks out there in British Columbia? The businessman's

government take your ferries, which you own, sell them to a Toronto

financing firm, and then pay twice the money to buy your own ferries

back while you're travelling on them. That takes brains. Is that Social

Credit philosophy, or is that Liberal philosophy? Or did Cyril work it

out for them? (Laughter.)

Mr. Speaker, if you take an average of $33 a day, given to us as a

figure by the tourist bureau here in Victoria, as a daily expenditure

of a tourist, and if you assume that only half of these passengers lost

were tourists, there was a loss to the city of Victoria of $60,000

every day of consumer spending because those ferries weren't

travelling. My friends, the new member for Victoria (Mr. Barber), the

youngest member of this Legislature, has done more to bring these

problems out in the open and try and solve them than the cabinet

minister who represents Victoria.

You hurt the economy of this province, and you hurt the little

people of this province, many of whom had huge signs out supporting

Social Credit during the election. I saw many of them, even some on the

highway — yes, some insulting signs about my colleagues? I never read

the ones about me. Where are they now?

MR. KING: Out of business. Bankrupt.

MR. BARRETT: Those poor little businessmen who fought so hard

to get Social Credit elected are the group that has been betrayed more

by this government than any other single group. There are more

bankruptcies, more mortgages being called, more loans being called than

ever before.

But, Mr. Speaker, one last comment on the prospectus. In August of

this year I asked the Hon. Evan Wolfe a very uncomplicated question,

for him — for anyone?; for him too. "Dear Mr. Wolfe: With reference to

the quarterly report and the sale of $500 million in Hydro bonds, could

you please let me have the names of the investors in these bonds?"

That's what I asked Mr. Wolfe: please let me have the names of who

bought the bonds.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): You should have asked the Minister of Finance. (Laughter.)

MR. BARRETT: I did. My colleague said that I should have asked the Minister of Finance. I thought I did, I'm sorry.

[ Page 62 ]

Let me know the names of who bought the bonds. Now for the

uninitiated, before I go any further I have to tell you a little bit of

history. Two years ago the New Democratic Party borrowed $200 million

from an OPEC nation. All the details of the loan were available to this

House, Mr. Speaker — everything about the loan except the name of the

originating company.

Don't leave now. Where is the Attorney-General leaving.... I just want to read some of his statement. Don't leave!

Come back! I won't call you a Liberal anymore.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: An urgent call. It's not one of nature, Mr. Speaker; it's this part of the speech.

Oh, let him go. I'm sure someone else will remind him when he comes back.

Two years ago, Mr. Speaker, after Hydro had borrowed the money....

After all, it was a Crown corporation, but they asked the government to

explain where the Crown corporation borrowed the money. Now they should

know better than that, Mr. Speaker. They believe Crown corporations

don't have to explain anything. How come it is that when we were the

government they wanted an explanation from us, but when they're the

government they don't want an explanation? Oh, oh, oh! What a

difference the months can make!

This is what was said by Bill Bennett in Hansard

page 670, in the spring session of 1975. Any resemblance to that Bill

Bennett and the Premier is purely coincidental because the stories

don't gibe. Bill Bennett 12 short months ago — no, 14 short months ago.

Oh, how the time doth pass!

This is what he said, with a lovely smile: "Many of us believe that

when you're dealing with the public money and borrowing on behalf of

the people of the province, the lender should be identified." That's

what he said.

He said: "I know that we've had an area outlined as being the lender

of these loans, that they came from the Middle East, and it was

petro-dollars. But I notice that Ontario has borrowed money and they

have made available the name of the lender and the country who lent the

money to Ontario. Yet in British Columbia the Premier and the Minister

of Finance as fiscal agent hasn't shared with the people of this

province who the lender is. It is unusual for any government body not

to disclose the source of the lender and not to provide the information

to this House." That's what Bill Bennett said, Mr. Speaker — and I

quote from Hansard — now the Premier of this province.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, I think you have been in the House long enough

to know that when you are quoting from Hansard , you quote about the hon. member

for South Okanagan.

MR. BARRETT: You are absolutely correct, Mr. Speaker. I was

just trying to save the member the agony of being identified with his

own words. But if you insist, I will go ahead and say: "Yes, indeed. It

was the Premier, not Bill Bennett after all."

He said that they have to identify the lender. Then he asked these

questions: "Will the Premier provide that information in this House?

Will the Premier provide as Minister of Finance and fiscal agent the

information that would normally be found if we were doing a normal

public financing, a financing in which all the details are available to

the people of the province?"

Do you believe that, Mr. Premier? Make it public. Through you, Mr.

Speaker, stand up and tell us where you borrowed the money. We're the

borrowers, not Mr. Premier. We're the borrowers. He's taking the

attitude: "I know what's good for you. I'll tell you that it doesn't

matter who we borrow from. Trust me." That attitude isn't good enough.

Mr. Speaker, I wrote Mr. Wolfe again in October because he forgot to

answer my letter of August. A little oversight — just a matter of six

or seven weeks. He wrote back to me. He said I wrote him on October 5.

I said: "Hey, Hon. Mr. Wolfe, are you going to tell me where you

borrowed that money from? Because the Premier, when he was Leader of

the Opposition, would like to know." This is what I received back on

October 29 from the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. "This will

acknowledge receipt of your letter of October 5 regarding B.C. Hydro

bonds. I regret to say I am not able to provide the information you

have requested."

He was asked in the corridor, Mr. Speaker, by some enterprising

reporters: "How come is it when you were in opposition you demanded

that the former Premier reveal this information but you won't reveal

it?" He said: "Oh, I wasn't here then." Some say he isn't here right

now.

This is what the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) said. Oh, this

is a lulu, this is a lulu. Talk about SMI! This one is loaded with

smear, muck and innuendo. This is a classic in smear, muck and

innuendo. It was by the former Liberal member, now the Socred member,

now the Attorney-General. Listen to this one, gang. It will curl your

hair.

MR. KING: What was he then — Liberal or Conservative?

MR. BARRETT: He was on his way dropping his principles along

the trail. "You give me one good reason, Mr. Premier, why the public

should not know who lent the money to B.C. Hydro, one single reason.

The public of B.C. are committed to pay it back, not

[ Page 63 ]

you. By far the majority of B.C. citizens are

law-abiding, conscientious, fair-minded people. We all agree with that.

They want the fairness in dealing. I for one want to know if Mafia

money came to this province." Mafia money! Smear, muck, innuendo, SMI

par excellence. Smear, muck, innuendo, Social Credit style.

"Was it Mafia money? I for one would like to know if it was Mafia

money coming to this province behind a Crown corporation on who

borrowed it. I'm not suggesting it is. I just want to know if it is.

I'm not suggesting it is," he says. Don't start to throw your arms and

say: "Ah, he said Mafia money!" I know he's anticipating it. I'm just

anticipating.

Then, Mr. Speaker, when it comes to SMI, the graduate of that school

of politics, the post-graduate student, the doctor of letters of all

sitting next to him, none other than the member for South Peace River

(Hon. Mr. Phillips), entered with his comments, and I know he's

repeated these comments to the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) . I

know he's going to step down from the cabinet because the public hasn't

been told where the money came from because listen to what he said —

SMI: "We have continually asked in this House where the Minister of

Finance went in the OPEC countries to borrow money." Am I emulating his

manner of speech well enough?

AN HON. MEMBER: No, you're not.

MR. BARRETT: That calm, rational debating style:

"To this day we have not had the answer. The people of this

province would like to know because they are the ones who are going to be responsible

for it in the end — for paying the interest on that Mafia money. It is Mafia

money, and I don't know whether it is Mafia money or not — I have no way

of knowing."

"It is Mafia money. I know it's Mafia money, but

I have no way of knowing it's Mafia money, but it's Mafia money anyway."

MR. KING: Good old rational Don.

MR. BARRETT: SMI at its best: smear, muck, innuendo and Mafia.

SMIM: smear, muck, innuendo in the name of Mafia.

MR. GIBSON: Sink or SMIM.

MR. BARRETT: Sink or SMIM.

Mr. Speaker, there is no logical reason for this information to be

withheld from this Legislature and therefore from the taxpayers of this

province who would like to know.

Mr. Alex Fraser — excuse me, the hon. Minister of Highways and

Public Works — got infected by this, too. It must have been late at

night. (Laughter.) He got infected with this, too.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who was that?

MR. BARRETT: The Minister of Public Works and Highways. He

got caught up in the stirring debate given by none other than the

dancing trio, the present Premier, the Attorney-General and, swinging

on the end, the Minister of Economic Development screaming "Mafia

money!" They drew in one of the quieter members. It must have been late

at night.

"The other thing I would like to remark, Mr. Speaker,

is regarding the Premier again saying that everything went on the table

regarding the $200 million from the Arab country. Everything is on the

table except the important thing: who are we mortgaged to? The people

of British Columbia want to know. That's what we want to know. I would

like to give the Premier some advice when he has to go out in the

market again: you said in reply to the House before you had to do this

as a condition of borrowing. Well, Mr. Speaker, say to the Minister of

Finance the next people that want to lend you money like that tell them

to keep their money."

He wouldn't be a part of any borrowings that were kept secret from the

people of British Columbia. "Tell them to keep their money," he said,

What hypocrisy! What hypocrisy! Is there any twinge of conscience left? The

sheer catalogue of hypocritical statements, double talk and pettiness by Social

Credit when they were in opposition, leading to this hypocrisy within a matter

of months. What sheer, unadulterated cynicism and hypocrisy — and smiling about

it, Mr. Speaker. It was all said in fun. When we become the government it doesn't

matter; say anything, do anything, smear anyone, muck on anything, innuendo

anywhere. For sheer, unadulterated hypocrisy it has never seen its duplicate

in this House, and sitting smugly there saying that, "the Crown corporation

made its own decision and we can't tell you where we borrowed the money,

" after saying it was Mafia money that the government of the day had borrowed.

Oh, laugh about it! Perhaps the memory will fade it. Hypocrisy pays.

A sense of responsibility; a sense of duty; a sense of any commitment

to the traditions of this House? Not on your life. Say anything, do

anything, promise anyone just to get a vote.

I'm not embarrassed for them, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I can take a more

charitable attitude and say forgive them for they know not what they

do. But I don't believe that: they knew exactly what they were doing.

They were calling down the government of the

[ Page 64 ]

day any way, any how, any style, with any statement

— never to think they would be caught within a matter of months with

their own words flung back in their teeth. And they justify it by

saying: "Well, after all, they're social democrats." You know, Mr.

Speaker, let them live with that. Let them have politics Social Credit

style. Let them have their hypocrisy.

Through all of that vicious, uncalled-for onslaught, and charges of

Mafia money never apologized for, I remembered one thing: that we

represented the people of this province, not any special interest, and

there were limits to anything we'd do. Mr. Speaker, there is no limit

to what this group will do or say. None whatsoever. We've seen so many

acts of hypocrisy by this government in the 14 months: doublethink,

doublespeak. It's the Orwellian group that excuses itself from any

conscience by saying: "After all, we're fighting socialists."

On December 9 I wrote a letter to the Premier asking him for a copy of the Pemberton Securities report.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: I wrote on December 3, Mr. Member. I said to the

Premier: "I understand the government has received a report on the

financial state of the forest industry in British Columbia from

Pemberton Securities Limited. In view of the importance of this matter

I would ask that you let me have a copy of this report by return mail."

I received a letter from Mr. Tozer, the executive assistant to the

Premier. Is it a $36,000 job for a brother-in-law, Mr. Speaker? Why

would the Leader of the Opposition raise such a thing as that? It's not

polite to say that the Premier's brother-in-law has been given a job at

$36,000 a year in the Premier's office. That smells like political

nepotism. But I'll bet you this: if I had hired my brother-in-law,

there would have been screaming headlines by that group over there

every single day in the House: one standard for the socialists; another

standard for them. Say anything, do anything: the SMI group.

Time and time again vicious statements were made against individual

citizens of this province who chose to serve in government, and were

dismissed by Social Credit only to have their own appointees hired. If

we were to take the same tactics as Social Credit — never, never should

we lower ourselves — we would have spent 14 hours debating the fact

that you hired your brother-in-law. I don't give a fig if you hire your

brother-in-law, but at least be honest about it. Don't stand around

saying that the NDP hired political hacks, but that you're pure. Double

standards.

The letter said: "This is to acknowledge and thank you for your letter of December 3 to the Premier. Yours sincerely...."

On December 12 my executive assistant, Mr. John Wood, who, by the way, is still

receiving mail from Ottawa as the executive assistant to the Premier.... We

wrote Ottawa and told them there has been an election here — I don't blame

you for their being out of touch.

MR. KING: Did you get the communication back?

MR. BARRETT: No, we didn't get railway communications. That

wasn't sent by Ottawa; that was purloined. That was the case of the

purloined telegram. D