1975 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, MARCH 20, 1975

Night Sitting

[ Page

861 ]

CONTENTS

Statement

Speaker's knowledge of committee debate. Mr. Speaker

— 861

Routine proceedings

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

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 861

Mr. Gardom — 867

Mr. Wallace — 869

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 873

Mr. Fraser — 876

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 879

Mrs. Jordan — 882

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 884

Mrs. Jordan — 885

THURSDAY, MARCH 20, 1975

House met at 8:30 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, at the adjournment hour a

question was raised about statements made by the Speaker when

the Committee of the Whole House is sitting and has not risen

but nonetheless takes an appeal to the House. There are three

interesting cases on this, one by Mr. Speaker Manson in the

Journals , found in our second volume of Speakers'

Decisions , where he gives some advice to the committee

which hasn't risen but still is in its appeal to the House.

After giving that advice, he says:

"Without, therefore, going further than to remind the House

that not only discussions but proposed amendments in committees must be strictly

germane, I shall submit to the House the question: shall the Chairman be sustained?"

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

That report indicates — and he goes into detail, I won't

take your time up with that — about how you can ask some

direction from the Speaker when you call him back to the chair

to take a vote on the ruling of the Chairman. As you know, in

those cases, the Committee of the Whole House does not rise.

Nonetheless, as soon as the Speaker takes the chair, he is

taking appeal to the House without the Committee of the Whole

House having risen.

It seems strange, and I understand why some Members would be

puzzled with this, but it has been traditional for many

years.

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

"...a point of order having risen in Committee of Supply as to whether

a Chairman should entertain by way of amendment a motion to strike out a proposed

vote to a certain supply. The Chairman having ruled that the proposed amendment,

being a direct negative, could not be entertained, an appeal was taken to the

Speaker.

"Mr. Speaker Manson, having resumed the chair, drew

attention to the fact that an appeal from the Chairman of

committee was to the House and not to the Speaker. The Speaker

could only advise." Advise.

"Mr. Speaker referred to May, 12th edition, page 481

et seq., dealing with amendments to resolutions for supply, and

pointed out that at no place, insofar as he was able to

ascertain, was it suggested that a motion by way of a direct

negative might be properly entertained. On the question being

put, the Chairman was sustained."

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

resumed the chair.

Then again, Mr. Speaker Paulin did the same thing. You find

that in the Journals , at page 11, second volume of

Speakers' Decisions — and I won't go into all the detail

except to say that he gave a great deal of advice to the House

so they could go back into Committee of the Whole House without

having any formality or motion to deal with the question. There

again he put the question: shall the Chair be sustained?

Now I think that I've made it clear that the House has no

knowledge of what went on in committee, but the Speaker does.

Now is this entirely clear to everyone, including the Hon.

Member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) who came in halfway

through? Now may we proceed?

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: PREMIER'S OFFICE

(continued)

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

Mr. D.A. Anderson (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, earlier

this afternoon you told me that I was unable to ask for an

apology because that would be imputing that someone had somehow

done something wrong. I quite agree with your

interpretation. I

wonder how you're going to call Members to order and issue

apologies across the floor. But as we are not allowed to ask

for apologies, I will accept that ruling that you made.

What I will do, Mr. Chairman, in the light of that ruling,

is simply refer to information never brought before this House

before, transcripts from the proceedings of the trial of

December 16 and 18, and simply leave these for consideration of

all Members. I'm quite sure that when all Members consider

them, some Members, or at least one Member, might want to jump

to his feet and apologize. But that is not a request from me; I

will leave it entirely up to him.

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

Member, when he makes his remarks, to relate his remarks to the

administrative responsibility of the Premier.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Yes. Well, this all deals with

the general issue of credibility of government and the right of

the Premier to interfere with boards and other bodies

established by statute, and other things. I would just like,

Mr. Chairman, as I mentioned to you, to refer you to testimony

of Mr. Edmond Morgan, a witness called on behalf of the

plaintiff in the British Columbia Egg Marketing Board

[ Page 862 ]

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

On page

2, it says:

"The board was advised by the Premier that the suit with Mr.

Kovachich was to be settled out of court, that he was to be

given certain amounts of permit or quota to satisfy the claims

made by him."

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

"The board met the Premier, I think, on October 26 of 1972

in his office. The other people, all the five...I beg your

pardon, four members of the board were there out of five. I was

there — Mr. Gilchrist, the marketing commissioner; Mr. Pope,

the poultry commissioner; Mr. King was the Deputy Minister; Mr.

Peterson, Deputy Minister of Agriculture; the Minister himself

and the Premier, of course."

On page 4, Mr. Morgan stated:

"Yes, I was present. Yes, I was there. Yes. The main topic

was that the court — the board should settle with Mr. Kovachich and comes to

terms with him, settle the differences between the board and Mr. Kovachich which

were due for action in court, to settle this out of court." Mr. Morgan was cross-examined.

He went on to say, in reply to a question, that the Minister of Agriculture,

as he recalled, said something to the effect that the Premier wished that to

be, and that the Minister has since said words to that effect — that the interior

producers would expand their local market demands."

This question was asked:

"In the past it has always been the board's policy to comply

with statements to this effect emanating out of the office of

the Minister of Agriculture and in some way affecting board

policy. Is that not correct?"

Mr. Morgan's answer was:

"Yes, sir. We — the board has made every effort to comply

with the Minister's directions, but he has not been most

approachable in discussing ways and means in which they can be

implemented without too great a disturbance to direction of

board policy."

Q. "Well, the board acts on the recommendations of the Minister

of Agriculture and the Premier?"

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

of the Premier?"

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

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

Q. "Now the Minister of Agriculture told you, I presume, from

what you have already said, just what the Premier had told him to attempt to

implement board policy."

A. "To come to an arrangement with Kovachich so that the case

would not go to the courts and Kovachich would be issued permits up to the amount

of 200 cases, subject to certain conditions."

Mr. Chairman, that is, as I mentioned earlier from the

testimony of Mr. Edmond Morgan on oath in the British Columbia

Supreme Court.

Another witness whom I have not referred to is one Nicholas

Cornelius Peter Samson. This was on December 18. Mr. Samson was

a witness called on behalf of the defendants.

One of the first questions on page 3 is this — the

questioner was Mr. Kenkins:

Q. "Did you have a conversation with someone at that meeting,

and, if so, whom?"

A. "I didn't have. I listened most of the time and listened to

what Mr. Barrett had to say. Mr. Barrett explained quite directly, initially,

that he directed us producers in the north, myself and Mr. Kovachich, and he

(that's the Premier) had said that he had already directed the board to settle

the matter out of court....

Another quote from Mr. Samson:

"I think Mr. Link asked Mr. Barrett a question and just

before the end of the meeting. I asked Mr. Barrett again...."

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

Mr. D.A. Anderson: It continues:

"Mr. Barrett turned around, pointed his finger at Mr.

Stupich who was sitting behind a desk...."

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

Member to relate his quotations or whatever it is that he is

saying to the administrative responsibilities of the

Premier.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: It is clear that the Premier feels

there is some responsibility for the egg board and he has made

certain statements in this House. This material is new, never

before brought to this House — indeed, it has only recently

been typed up from the court recording. I believe it is

relevant. As I mentioned earlier, it is not for me to draw

conclusions. It might be for you, as a person who attended one

of those meetings, to draw conclusions. You, indeed, might want

to volunteer your own information.

To continue:

"Mr. Barrett turned around, pointed his finger at Mr.

Stupich, who was sitting behind the desk of Mr. Barrett, in Mr.

Barrett's desk chair, and said, 'His head will roll or come off

it he

[ Page 863 ]

doesn't do as I say,' and that was pretty well the end of the

meeting at that time."

You bet it was the end of the meeting. That might explain

why the Minister of Agriculture has had amnesia, both in the

Legislature and in court. He had a choice of losing his memory

or losing his head, and he chose to lose his memory.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I believe the Hon.

Member now is....

Mr. Bennett: That is selective amnesia.

Mr. Chairman: I would ask the Hon. Member to relate

his readings to the administrative responsibilities of the

Premier.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Chairman, the relevance is

this: we are discussing the credibility of office, the

interference from the Premier's office to a theoretically more

or less autonomous body, and whether or not there was

interference, and whether or not certain affidavits and the

statements made about them in this House would lead some

Members, perhaps, to reconsider the position they took last

year.

Mr. Chairman: I would ask the Hon. Member if he is

suggesting wrongdoing on the part either of the Premier or the

Minister of Agriculture.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Absolutely not. The only person

raising the wrongdoing issue is yourself. But you were at the

meeting and you might know. I don't. I was not at the

meeting.

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

Mr. D.A. Anderson: On page 11 of the Samson

testimony, and I am quoting again:

"To start from the very beginning, Mr. McLatchie and Mr.

Kovachich were called in prior to our entry into the Premier's

room."

You will know how that corresponds with Mr. Kovachich's

testimony which I read earlier.

"The Premier opened the door and he says: 'I'd like to talk

first to Mr. McLatchie and Mr. Kovachich. Can you please wait,

gentlemen? "

Then I will skip a paragraph or two and come back

to where they came in:

"The Premier came up to me after he made some remarks and

laid his arms around me and patted me on the back and he said:

'Arnold' — that's my first name — 'yesterday was one of my best

political days, or my days in politics.'"

I quote again this

quotation from the Premier via Mr. Samson:

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

Board."

Some Hon. Members: Ohhhh!

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

Mr. D.A. Anderson: It continues:

"And then, of course, he turned around and I told him in a

certain way or" — listen to this — " I ordered him to implement the, how do you call this,

representations which in the meantime he had given us, to order

him to implement them."

Now later on, after further questioning, the witness says

again:

"Sorry, I forgot one thing. First of all, when he came in he

said: 'Yesterday I had a meeting with the....

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I've listened to the

Hon. Member now for a period of time and the only conclusion I

can draw from the reading of this material is that he is

indirectly attempting to make some kind of charge against

either the Premier or the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr.

Stupich).

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Absolutely not. No, sir. I'm just

raising evidence, never before mentioned, which the Premier has

had no opportunity to consider up to now — none — because this

testimony is court testimony and it's only been typed up in the

last few days. Anyway, the Premier....

Mr. Chairman: Order. I would ask the Hon. Member this

question again. I would ask you if you're not then suggesting

any impropriety on the part of any Member of this House.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: No, sir. As I said earlier, Mr.

Chairman, the impropriety has only been suggested by yourself

so far.

Interjections.

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

Premier, and he said:

"He [the Premier] "'was very lively, walking around and

making the gestures with his hands, and he said, 'I order him,'

and he pointed, and it is to him, and he pointed to Mr. Stupich

who was sitting behind the desk — and I must say Mr. Stupich

never said something. He never answered, even, or made a

remark. 'It is him who has to implement or bring these

representations into effect, and when you can't get results out

of him you come to me.'

"So we had firmly the impression that this was an order

given by the Premier as to the

[ Page 864 ]

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

Et cetera.

Interjection.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: No, the Minister of Agriculture

(Hon. Mr. Stupich) probably gets it so often that he was quite

unable to remember. Now that standards have sunk somewhat he is

not in such danger, but he still seems to be a man of very poor

memory.

Now, Mr. Chairman, you will recall that last year, on page

479 of Hansard , the Premier said: "I told no one to

draft an agreement." On page 510 on February 26, 1974, he said:

"I've had conversations with many people but I recall

distinctly in this issue, which is a very emotional one, that I

made no order or did not order any solution."

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

said.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: On March 4, page 753, he said: "I

did not order them to do anything. I suggested that this kind

of fighting had to stop."

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

that.

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

An Hon. Member: Here come de judge.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Chairman, the argument has

been made all along that somehow, because the judge stated

there was no legal agreement, there were no such instructions

to the board. I would refer someone who is heckling me now, who

does not feel it is up to him to apologize, to the affidavits

of Mr. Unger and Mr. Brunsdon where they said that — and I

would like to make sure I get the exact words here — where they

said on page 13 of the Unger declaration: "If you don't toe the

line, I'll make a law to cover it."

Right from the very beginning in the Premier's office

everybody knew that it could not be a legal agreement, and that

was the whole purpose of those threats both to the Minister of

Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) and to the egg board and to

those other people who were present. So this whole question

about there could not be a legally binding decision...

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: ...of course, is fallacious because it's never been

suggested that there was, right from the very first affidavits.

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

Hon. Member if he is suggesting any impropriety on the part of

the Premier.

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

impropriety.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Mr. D.A. Anderson: I've done that before, but I have

been corrected by you. Therefore, I am simply putting forward

testimony which the judge accepted — the judge accepted — as

being accurate when he stated on page 6 of the judgment, and

let me read it again: "At the trial Mr. Stupich did not recall

the direction of Mr. Barrett in the terms in which it was

stated by the defendants. I accept the testimony of the

defendants that it occurred as described by them."

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Mr. D.A. Anderson: That's the point at issue. I have

given you some evidence, Mr. Chairman — and please do not take

notes from the government benches directing you how to act as

Chairman — I have given you, Mr. Chairman, some information as

to what the testimony was that the judge accepted.

I've given you the testimony and I've contrasted it with

statements made in this House. On your instructions, I am not

suggesting that an apology should obviously follow. That's not

going to be for me tonight. I tried it earlier but you stopped

me.

What I am saying is that given the new evidence, given the

acceptance by the judge of this evidence as factually accurate,

there is an opportunity for yourself, among others, as a person

who was there in that meeting, to come forward.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

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

other people there as well.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I think the proper way

to refer to an Hon. Member is in the third person, rather than....

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Right, The Chair, among others,

will want to come forward and make clear what their

understanding was and where they feel the right lies with

respect to two people who made affidavits which were later

denied. I'm leaving it entirely up to you — up to the Premier,

the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) and the

other

[ Page 865 ]

Members of the back bench. Oh, he's gone — the Member for

Shuswap (Mr. Lewis). He was there, too.

Interjections.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Right, he was there. I'm saying

that it's up to you people who had knowledge of that meeting,

who were present at it, who have allowed this matter to go on

for a full year, in the light of the new testimony, to come

forward and make a clean breast of it.

The judge agreed with the people whose quotations I read out — the plaintiffs whose quotations I read out. The information

of Brunsdon and Unger, the two people who swore affidavits, is

totally corroborated by Mr. Morgan's statement to that

court.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. It would appear to me

that the Hon. Member is identifying himself with the remarks he

is reading. Therefore it would seem that in some way he's

suggesting impropriety on the part of the Premier or of other

Hon. Members,.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Chairman, I hope it will never

happen again in this House that you will make a statement that

it is wrong to identify yourself with a judgment of a British

Columbia Supreme Court judge. I think that that has to be a

questionable decision from the Chair. I would suggest that you

reconsider that, because I see no reason in the world why I

should not identify myself with a decision of a judge of the

British Columbia Supreme Court.

He examined the witnesses, he heard the cross-examination,

he heard the testimony and he came to certain conclusions. The

conclusion: to support the affidavits which were tabled in this

House. It is my responsibility in an effort to protect two

citizens, who otherwise have no other recourse — no other

recourse whatsoever — of having their names cleared, to bring

these facts to your attention, Mr. Chairman, and the attention

of other Hon. Members who have special knowledge and who could,

indeed, clear their names.

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

Member whether he is suggesting that the remarks he is quoting

by the various individuals that he's quoting suggest or imply

wrongdoing on the part of any Member.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Mr. Chairman, you keep asking me

that. I accept your judgment earlier in the day that it was not

up to me to do that and that I could not do that. I couldn't

even ask for an apology, let alone start pointing the finger of

blame. So tonight all I have done is this: I have put forward

information — new information never before in this House, never before, indeed, heard outside a courtroom,

because it was the transcript of the court trail that I quoted

from today — which I think puts a new light, a very compelling

light, on certain actions that took place last year and certain

statements that were made last year. If you think that this

constitutes accusation, you might know; you were there. But in

my mind it's not. I wasn't there, and I don't know what took

place at those meetings, you did.

I can only take the decision of the judge. I can only take

his professional competence in analyzing what witnesses say,

hearing cross-examination and coming to a judgment accordingly

as being factual.

Mr. Chairman, you have suggested that perhaps I should not

accept the word of a judge, and I should not accept his

judgment. That's fair enough; you're entitled to suggest

that.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. This was not the

statement of the Chair. The Chair was simply asking whether you

were identifying with the remarks and construing them in such a

way as to suggest wrongdoing on the part of the Premier or any

other Member.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: You keep on making these

interpretations, Mr. Chairman, which you've forbidden me to

make, so how can I follow your lead?

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

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

me out of order.

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

these is so that the rules of the House may be enforced. As the

Hon. Member knows, you may not do indirectly what is forbidden

directly to be done. If the intention is to suggest or imply

wrongdoing on the part of a Minister, then the correct

procedure is to do it by substantive motion.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Yes, we went into all of that this

afternoon. That's why I listened. I pondered on what you said.

I spent a long time scratching my head and thinking of the wise

words from the Chair. That's why when I came back this evening

I told you I was accepting your decision of this afternoon.

Please don't change it, because I've accepted it and I've made

no suggestion of wrongdoing. I have not suggested — as I did

this afternoon — that certain apologies are owed. I simply

suggested that after hearing this testimony perhaps apologies

will automatically be forthcoming — just spontaneously.

Mr. Chairman, back to the point I had when you interrupted

me. It may be, Mr. Chairman, that the

[ Page 866 ]

judge is wrong. It may be that the Attorney-General, that

devout pursuer of justice, thinks that somehow or another the

affidavits are still inaccurate, and thinks that somehow or

another the information in the trial and the testimony in the

trail was therefore false, and somehow thinks that the judge

came to the wrong decision.

If that's the case, if indeed the judge is wrong, well then,

surely it's up to him to make sure that justice is done and

this decision is overturned. I wonder whether or not we're

going to see that from the Attorney-General. I mentioned this

afternoon that his job is justice. He's not simply a legal

gunslinger for the government cabinet Ministers. He's not there

as an advocate for them if they are going to be slander suits

or libel suits against the Premier. We don't expect the

Attorney-General to defend him; that's not his job. He's

responsible for justice in this province, not defending his

colleagues.

I hope that before the time his estimates come forward

he will have an opportunity to look at this and make up his

mind as to whether he's going to insist upon justice — justice

for Unger and Brunsdon — or whether he's going to go ahead and

insist that this judgment be overturned. He can't have it both

ways. There's just no way in the light of the testimony which

the judge accepted and in the light of the testimony which

backs up those two affidavits.

Now, on the question that was raised earlier, it was said in

the judge's decision, quite rightly, that there was no

agreement of legal consequence as a result of the meeting in

the Premier's office. And I only refer you, once more, Mr.

Chairman, to the fact that in the affidavit it was stated

flatly that there was no question of a legally binding

agreement, because they said in those affidavits, quoting the

Premier: "If you don't toe the line, I'll make a law to cover

it."

Even at the very, very beginning there was no question that

there was a legally binding agreement entered into. It was

strictly muscle; it was strictly chewing them out — or, to use

the Premier's descriptive words, "chewing their ass off." It

was strictly turning to the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr.

Stupich) and telling him his head would roll if he didn't do as

he was told. That's when he got the amnesia which affected his

brain.

It's this area which is simply being forward as a red

herring. If you check the judge's statement, if you check the

original affidavits, you realize that defence falls to the

ground.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The Hon. Member has

considerable latitude. I would ask him if the remarks that he's

made in regard to the Premier's conduct constitute misconduct

or impropriety. I feel that if the Hon. Member is suggesting

this, then he should do this by substantive motion.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Well, I find it awfully difficult

to follow your reasoning, because I tried this afternoon....

Mr. Chairman: Order, please! The reasoning is

perfectly simple. I'm asking the Hon. Member whether he is

suggesting wrongdoing on the part of the Premier.

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

Mr. Chairman: Yes or no? And if he is, then he should

do it by substantive motion.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: I am making no suggestions except

reading this testimony. That's what I'm doing. Now, if you want

to draw from that certain logical conclusions, I would give you

full marks for mental agility. But to ask me to charge anyone

with something which you told me I cannot do is an obvious

invitation for you to force me to sit down. And I'm not going

to fall into that proposal of yours, if you don't mind, Mr.

Chairman.

The fact is here that these statements of the witnesses in

the court case the statement of the judge who accepted them,

and the statements in the affidavit of William Henry Lawrence

Brunsdon and John Unger all coincide. And that's the point that

I leave with you, which may leave you, Mr. Chairman, and other

Members scratching your heads and trying to realize what they

should do, trying to develop some policy for themselves in the

future as to what might be done for two men who, I believe,

have been wronged.

Let me just refresh your memory on the affidavits, Mr.

Chairman. The Brunsdon affidavit, paragraph 5:

"That at the meeting aforesaid (the meeting on October 26,

which Mr. Morgan talked of too), 'There will be no court case

against Sy Kovachich,' said the Premier, or similar words to

the same effect."

And paragraph 6:

"That I was further informed by Mr. Barrett the the charges

against Kovachich must be substantially reduced and, if those

charges are not reduced, he will break him, or similar words to

the same effect."

On paragraph 9:

"I was further informed by Mr. Barrett that the said

marketing board was to forthwith draft an agreement for reduced

charges against Mr. Kovachich, and that the Premier added in

the following words: 'It has to be done today. Is there an

office that they can use?'"

Paragraph 13 I've read to you.

Paragraph 15 —

fascinating:

"I was informed by the Premier in the

[ Page 867 ]

following words: 'If anything is said outside this office I will

deny every word I said.' Or similar words to that effect."

Now that's one area where apparently there has been

absolutely letter perfect adherence to a commitment, because

that's what we've had ever since. However, when you look at the

new material brought forward by the judge, when you look at the

witnesses' statements on cross-examination, the picture becomes

clear. You, yourself, attended one of those meetings.

Mr. Chairman: I just caution the Hon. Member that

he's in the home stretch.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: I'm in the green? Well, I will

then shortly resume my seat. But I will tell you, Mr. Speaker,

that many people feel that there are standards which transcend

political loyalties, and one is to the test of fairness and

honour towards people who have no recourse to the courts, who

cannot get their names cleared in any way whatsoever unless by

people such as Members of this Legislative Assembly getting up

and saying: Yes, I heard certain things. Yes, certain things

are right and certain things are wrong.

They can do it. They have the opportunity. If they have the

moral fortitude to do it, well, I'm sure that the Province of

British Columbia and the people of British Columbia would

applaud them for doing it.

Mr. Chairman: Before the Hon. Member resumes his

seat, I would just ask the question again: does the Hon. Member...? I take it, on the integrity of the Hon. Member, that he

is not in any way implying any wrongdoing on the part of the

Premier or any other Member of this House.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: I don't know how often I have to

repeat it to you. I have my views that wrongdoing has been

committed and that wrong has been done to two citizens of

British Columbia who have no recourse to the courts.

Mr. Chairman: Then the Hon. Member is implying

wrongdoing on the part of a Member.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: You asked me for my views, not

what I have said up to now.

Mr. Chairman: I have asked the Hon. Member a number of times to tell

this House whether or not he is implying any wrongdoing on the part of any Member.

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

Mr. Chairman: You have told the Chair of this House that he is not implying

any wrongdoing. I'm accepting the word of the Hon. Member.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Well, Mr. Chairman, you're

constantly hooked up on this problem. I have not implied this,

but if you want my personal opinion.... Is it okay? Do you

want my personal opinion? I say wrongdoing has occurred. I said

it before and....

Mr. Chairman: Then the Hon. Member has been violating

the rules of the House and should have been doing this by a

substantive motion. Will the Hon. Member be seated?

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Absolutely not. You cannot suggest

that my personal views, which I have not put forward up to now,

have bearing upon reading out a judicial decision. And you

can't do that and get away with it, and you know it full

well.

Why are you acting as a defence counsel, Mr. Chairman? You

should not be doing that.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Your job is to enforce the rules

and not to come up here as defence counsel.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. The Chair is seeking to

enforce the rules of the House, and I'm attempting to do this.

The Hon. Member's time is up.

Mr. D.A. Anderson: Well, you told me to get up after

I sat down. You said to get back on my feet while you made your

motion. Then you argued with me. I'm quite willing to resume my

seat again, as I did previously before you asked me that final

question.

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

to answer?

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

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

Mr. Gardom: Mr. Premier, it's overwhelming evidence.

You know that. It's overwhelming evidence.

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

Second Member for Vancouver–Point Grey if he's suggesting by

his remarks, any wrongdoing....

Mr. Gardom: I'm just saying the evidence is

overwhelming. Form your own conclusions — as the general public

will, Mr. Chairman, as the general public will and have.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. In keeping with the

rules of the House, I would suggest that the Hon.

[ Page 868 ]

Member use the proper methods under parliamentary rules —

the substantive motion.

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

Chairman.

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

speech?

Mr. Gardom: You're just a little sensitive tonight.

Are we sure we have the right brother in the chair? You've got

a twin, you know. That's right.

Since the Hon. Premier is in charge of tax gathering in this

province and since the Hon. Premier is the man who can make tax

concessions possible in this province, I'd just like to talk

for a few moments about a tax concession that the Premier

should give very, very serious thought to.

Probably the most serious and continuing problem that exists

today in British Columbia is work stoppage and disruption in

the public service. Without any question of a doubt, Mr.

Chairman, an amazing amount of harm and inconvenience and

expense are being experienced by the general public and by the

taxpayer. This taxpayer feels — I'd say unhappily so but very

correctly so — that he's without rights and without remedies

and without redress. What the public continually has to

encounter is something that must surely be considered as a

denial of natural justice to them.

They are continually facing, in the public sector, a round

of cessation of public services. This is a situation that is

not improving. It's not improving in this province. It's not

improving in the rest of the country for that matter. But it's

getting worse, and it's getting worse every day.

The public are clamouring for one thing: for an effective

remedy. The Hon. Minister of Finance has the power at his

fingertips to provide that effective remedy. I suggest, as I've

mentioned before — this is a personal point of view — that

there should be binding arbitration in the public sector and

that should be a condition of service: eliminating the

privilege to strike and eliminating the privilege to lock

out.

The question to the Premier is: why should there not be some

tax relief to the taxpayer when public services are not being

provided?

There's no question that the public welfare and public

interest must be the primary test and the primary requirement.

But in the labour-management confrontations in the public

sector, there is no way that the government can get hurt in a

strike because it doesn't lose any revenue and it doesn't lose

any productivity because productive most governments are

not.

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

remarks more directly to the administrative responsibilities of the Premier.

Mr. Gardom: I'm just getting there. As he is the

chief fiscal officer, he is the person whom I'm making this

appeal to on behalf....

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Gardom: ...tax concessions that the Hon. Premier

can give, Mr. Chairman. Would you not agree with that?

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

Mr. Chairman: I would ask the Hon. Member to remain

seated until the Chair has made its point.

First of all, I would reprimand the Hon. Member for failing

to obey the Chair. The Chair has requested that the Hon. Member

stop talking until such time as the Chair has made a point of

order. But I would also caution the Hon. Member that the matter

he is discussing is, in my judgment, not in the administrative

responsibility of the Premier. I would ask him to confine his

remarks to the administrative responsibilities of the

Premier.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

Mr. Gardom: With all due respect, I have to question

your judgment, Mr. Chairman, because I'm talking about

finances, and if finances are not the bag of the Premier, whose

are they?

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

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

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mr. Gardom: If I can't speak to the Minister of

Finance as being the Minister of Finance, who should I speak to — the Premier?

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

Mr. Chairman: Would the Hon. Member be seated for a

moment again, please, so that the Chair can elaborate? And

remain seated, thank you.

Now the Chair attempted to establish this afternoon in this

afternoon's sitting the fact that if we were going to consider

every department's estimates because of the involvement of the

Finance Minister, then we would be able to debate all the

departments quite easily. This is clearly not the intention of

our standing orders. Therefore the proper place to bring up a

Labour matter, or any other matter pertaining to another

department, is under those estimates.

[ Page 869 ]

I would ask the Hon. Member to confine his remarks to the

administrative responsibilities of the Premier or Minister of

Finance.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

Mr. Gardom: Now to the administrative

responsibilities of the Minister of Finance, one of which I

assume is to collect money and to pay money out and grant tax

concessions if they are reasonable and in the public interest.

Would you possibly agree with that as a fair definition, Mr.

Chairman?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Every department is affected by

that definition.

Mr. Gardom: All right, fine and dandy. Now this is

the point I wish to make with the Minister of Finance. I'm

asking him for tax concessions on behalf of the general public.

Since by law, Mr. Chairman, children have got to go to school

and since by law people have to pay school taxes, is it too

much to ask that, by law, schools should be kept open to

function and operate, and if they are not, that the general

public should be entitled to some kind of a fair and reasonable

tax concession or tax rebate? I would like to hear what the

attitude of the Premier is on that point.

It is a rebate that could well be made annually. If services

are not being rendered, which are compulsory — compulsory

services are not being rendered — and the payment for those

services is compulsory and they are punishable by law.... And

the liberty of the subject can become involved. A person can

end up in jail if they don't pay. Under those circumstances, is

it too much to ask, if the government does not ensure that such

services are provided, that the taxpayers should be entitled to

some kind of a reasonable and fair tax concession?

An Hon. Member: Hear, hear!

Mr. Gardom: I say, Mr. Chairman, apart from anything

else, that this would indeed put the bargaining process into a

far better perspective than it now is in this province.

I'm asking the Premier, as a point of view of policy and a

point of view of personal attitude, if he would care to remark

on these points, all flowing completely from his administrative

and fiscal responsibilities.

Mr. G.S. Wallace (Oak Bay): Well, Mr. Chairman, I

listened to a great deal of the debate, and I would like to

just add a few comments.

After the lengthy discussion we have had on the whole question of the Minister's

dealings with Ottawa, I would like to ask one particular question. Most of the

people in this province who are not skilled in financial matters must be following

this debate with some interest. We've heard two conflicting points of view.

One is that the government had no choice but to reach the agreement it did.

The other point of view is that the government sold out its constitutional rights,

or the constitutional rights of the province.

The Premier took great exception to a comment this afternoon

that perhaps one approach might be to threaten the federal

government that we would turn off the tap. The Premier took

great exception to that statement. I wonder if we could at

least have the clarification also that the Premier has rejected

two options in this very important federal provincial debate.

He has turned down the option of threats to turn off the tap.

And I assume, from listening to the debate and the Premier's

comments, that he has also turned down the option of taking the

matter to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Mr. G.F. Gibson (North Vancouver-Capilano): I hope

not.

Mr. Wallace: I seem to recall during the public

comments made by the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) that

when one gets into this kind of situation of taking important

national provincial disputes to the supreme court, there is

tremendous delay, years of preparation for the case and a long

time-consuming harangue. Years go by before the issue is

ultimately solved. Certainly from my observation and reading of

this whole lengthy matter it would seem that if the

Attorney-General was correct in making that prediction that the

time involved would be years, then at a time when the world

energy situation changes fairly rapidly it would be a very

risky proposition and a very disruptive situation for this

country and this province, if, indeed, the wrangling that is

going on at the present time was to be left to simmer for two

or three years while we wait for the supreme court to give the

ultimate decision.

Because of the length of debate that has taken place and the

amount that has been said by both sides of the House, I think

it's only fair to ask the Minister of Finance and Premier if he

has ruled out these two options which are certainly two of the

obvious options open to him in providing leadership on behalf

of British Columbia in this very serious dispute over natural

resources. Has he, in fact, ruled out the option of going to

the supreme court, and has he ruled out the option of

threatening to cut off supply?

There's another issue I'd like to raise, Mr. Chairman —

perhaps one of less importance, but very important within our

own borders. This is the whole issue of the Premier's action

and the government's action when it was supposed or suggested

that City Savings company might merge with Block Brothers.

[ Page 870 ]

There was a great deal of reporting in the media, and one

interesting headline from the Colonist of December 21:

"Barrett Says Whoa." Whoa, not woe, although probably there are

occasions when woe would be more appropriate.

At any rate, this was an intervention which the Minister of

Finance took when it appeared likely that Block Brothers and

City Savings might work out a merger. Again, I think the public

of British Columbia must have wondered, as the reports

unfolded, as to what exactly the Premier was so concerned

about. One of the questions that was asked was whether such a

merger would in some way be a serious obstacle to the Premier's

own proposals for some form of banking system sponsored by this

government. That was one of the questions.

The Premier winces, and if I cause him concern, perhaps

answering the question will clear up the doubt.

This certainly was widely covered in the media. At the same

time, or about the same time, a little later, it became public

knowledge that it was suspected that the government might be

planning to acquire Yorkshire Trust. Co. I think this raises

another very interesting question which is worth being asked

because at the same time as the Minister of Finance was asked

about his opposition to a merger between Block Brothers and

City Savings — publicly stated on January 9, and I commend him

for the statement — he said: "We have to protect the public

interest in the trust area." Of course, as the Minister well

knows, the word "trust" has a very significant meaning, and

where it relates to an institution which takes money from the

public in deposits, it gives the impression to the public that

their money is very safe and redeemable at all times, compared

to, perhaps, other less secure forms of investment.

About the same time, in another interview, the Premier did

refer to Commonwealth Trust when he was asked why he was

intervening, suggesting that the government had a rightful role

to play in investigating the situation before any mergers took

place or before Block Brothers and City Savings could come to

any agreement.

Now as an ordinary citizen of this province, the reaction

that had with me, and I think with many other citizens

throughout British Columbia, was simply: are trust companies as

completely trustworthy as the word has always implied in the

past?

Certainly when the Premier has made a public statement about

concern for the investment and concern for the public in the

area of trust companies. I think it caused a great deal of

concern among many people.

I wonder if the Premier would tell us, first of all, why he

was concerned about the proposed merger; secondly, in the kind

of references he made, is the Minister of Finance still concerned about the fact that we

could have another Commonwealth Trust fiasco in this

province?

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

Mr. Wallace: The Premier says that wasn't the

allegation. I have a clipping here, Mr. Premier, through you,

Mr. Chairman, which, in the context in which you made the

statement....

Hon. Mr. Barrett: That's an important

distinction.

Mr. Wallace: Okay. You were asked why you wanted to

intervene and perhaps stop the merger. Part of the public

statement that you made....

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You guys, you're always

interpreting. Just read the facts.

Mr. Wallace: Part of the statement you made was that

you must assess the situation. I'm quoting so that we get this

clear on the record. Perhaps you can clearly deny, if you wish,

the content of the statement...

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Go ahead.

Mr. Wallace: ...from The Vancouver Sun , an

article by George Froelich...

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

Mr. Wallace: ...on January 10:

"When confronted on December 20, the Premier, in his role of

Finance Minister, acted quickly and decisively."

I continue to quote:

"In a statement released through his press secretary, the

government admitted that it had asked for the delay in order to

assess the situation..."

Here the

article quotes the actual press release:

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

area."

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Right! Right!

Mr. Wallace: The Minister is saying, "Right." I hope

we can assume from that that he has an explanation which he

will give us shortly.

The other question relates to the Yorkshire Trust Co. and

the whole question of trust companies, as to whether the

Minister of Finance is satisfied with the regulations involving

the capitalization of trust companies where much of their

investment is on fixed-income securities, which is not a very

stable

[ Page 871 ]

situation in times of inflation. I would like to ask the

Minister of Finance, in the light of some of these events which

I have mentioned and which have been given publicity, whether

he is concerned at all that legislation regarding finance

companies perhaps requires rewriting and tightening up in

relation to the tremendous turmoil in the financial world, both

nationally and internationally, in the last year or two.

Many people invest in various ways through trust companies,

and the word "trust" certainly gives a measure of assurance and

a feeling of security to the investor. Some of the publicity

that I have described leaves the public in some doubt as to

whether, in fact, their investment is as secure, is as well

guarded, whether the trust company has the necessary capacity

to guard and protect and ensure the investment by the

individual.

Another issue I would just like to raise briefly is the

recent publicity given to the experience of the Municipal

Finance Authority. I have frequently spoken about municipal

autonomy in the House and I would like to think that that is a

very useful way of decentralizing government. I think it is a

rather shattering experience to find that the Municipal Finance

Authority made the kind of decision which led to the fact that

we are repaying loans on behalf of municipalities in foreign

currency.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Who were their advisers? They are

in the Social Credit now. They should have had all that wisdom

that we had from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Bennett.)

Mr. Wallace: Mr. Chairman, on this issue I choose not

to indulge in individual responsibility of individual persons.

I think that the Municipal Finance Authority was a new

creature. This is not a situation where I am trying to make

excuses for anybody either. What I am trying to do is to

prevent the same thing happening in the future. All I would

like to the ask the Minister of Finance is: in the light of

just a few years of experience, is the Minister giving any

consideration to some measure of provincial government

supervision not presently in the legislation to govern the

actions and decisions of the Municipal Finance Authority,

because regardless of the goodwill and the intentions of the

Municipal Finance Authority to obtain funds for the

municipalities at the lowest possible interest rate, even with

these good intentions some unfortunate consequences have

followed. The person who suffers is the individual homeowner

and taxpayer in the municipalities across the province.

Although, personally, I would like to maintain the greatest degree of municipal

autonomy possible, nevertheless, in the light of events, one has to wonder whether

there should not be some greater degree of provincial participation in the functioning

and actions of the Municipal Finance Authority. I wonder if the Minister could

respond to that suggestion.

The last point I would like to make relates to the question

of the Treasury memo which was issued to the departments of

government regarding government spending, or spending within

different departments. This memo has been quoted by other

Members of the House, and I won't belabour the point. But one

of the very significant paragraphs in the memo which was

subsequently sent to Deputy Ministers, I think, should be

quoted, because the first paragraph of the memo talks about.... I think maybe I should quote it — it's a good quote:

"A good many people now on our staff come in at the top of

the cycle and tend to regard this more affluent period as the

norm rather than an abnormal situation."

Then the paragraph goes on:

"This attitude is reflected in frequent requests for travel

to various events, sometimes of dubious benefit to the

department, requests for expensive equipment when less exotic

equipment will do just as well, and a generally relaxed

attitude toward expenditure of public funds."

Mr. Chairman, I think one of the most prevalent concerns

expressed by the man in the street when you talk — to him these

days in any part of this province is his impression that this

is a free-spending government and that, indeed, a very relaxed

attitude to spending pervades this government in the very terms

that the Minister's memo to the Deputy Ministers describes: "...travel to various events...of dubious benefit, requests

for expensive equipment," et cetera.

Whether the Minister makes the point that this was

correcting old history or not, I just find it surprising, to

say the least, that when one looks at the Minister of Finance

and we'll come to some of the specific votes later but in some

of the divisions of the Minister's responsibility.... We

find under his office, for general administration, that

equipment is up by 210 per cent — the cost of equipment.

Travelling is up by 33 per cent. Salaries are up by 41 per

cent. I would like to deal with these specifically with

specific votes.

Vote 54, for example — furniture and equipment — is up by

525 per cent. All I'm saying is that is that I would like the

Minister to explain to us one simple matter regarding the

Treasury memo. It said that no extra staff should be hired

before April 1 and that these other austerity measures that I

mentioned should certainly pertain until April 1.

Are we to assume that after April I we go back to the

relaxed attitude toward spending? Because certainly if one

reads through all the different votes under the Minister of

Finance, there is this recurring example of very substantial

increases in the very

[ Page 872 ]

items of expenditure which the Treasury memo said should be

restricted. But the memo, of course, only said until April 1. I

hope this doesn't leave the impression that after April 1 all

the departments of government can go back to this relaxed

attitude. I think that's a frightening phrase in that letter to

the Deputy Ministers: "...a generally relaxed attitude

toward the expenditure of public funds."

I don't think there's one single issue which concerns the

people of British Columbia today more than their impression

that this is a freewheeling, high-spending government that not

only does employ more and more people in the public service

doing jobs the financial benefit is anything but clear.

But on top of that, they do best buy the most exotic,

expensive equipment, that they do a great deal of travelling in

excess of previous department staffs, and that furniture and

equipment and salaries are substantially increased over

previous years. Again, to refer back to the Premier's office

and vote 2 very specifically, the executive assistant's salary

has been increased by 35 per cent.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Where's that?

Mr. Wallace: In vote 2, Mr. Minister. The

administrative assistant is listed as having an increase of

34.5 per cent in the Premier's office. And further down we have

an item that we will no doubt be referring to right through the

estimates, under a heading called "salary contingencies." The

salary contingency is $37,280.

Now there may be very valid reasons for this which the

Minister of Finance and the Premier will tell us, but it does

seem to me that there's a substantial contradiction here

between the philosophy and the instructions outlined in that

Treasury memo and the clear, documented financial facts that

are being proposed in vote 2, in various votes under the

Minister of Finance, and, in fact, as you go through the

estimates, of almost every department of government. You find

very few in the area of travel, office furniture, salary

contingencies that are anything under 25 per cent on average,

and some of them are a great deal more.

I think the Premier is well aware of the serious nature of inflation and the

fact that the public tend to be quite naturally influenced by the percentage

increase which employees in bargaining procedures are asking in different sections

of our labour force. The action and example of government surely has to be a

very significant, factor in some of the wage increases which are being requested.

I realize, as the Minister has pointed out, that some people on the very low

end of the scale do have some catching up to do. But if you talk to the person

in our society — and I talked to the old-age pensioners this afternoon in the

Newcombe Auditorium whose bargaining power is virtually nil....

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

Mr. Wallace: Yes, Mr. Minister. And if you look at

the percentage by which Mincome is adjusted, compared to the

percentage that CUPE is asking in Victoria right now and for

which we have the schools providing three hours a day

education, we are talking about figures in the neighbourhood of

46 per cent. You're not giving 46 per cent increases to the

old-age pensioners on Mincome, Mr. Minister of Finance. Don't

give me that!

It's all very well and quite reasonable to talk about

catch-up. But when there's one segment which has the power to

bargain and is leaping ahead by 30 and 40 and 50 per cent

increases, the gap on the part of the segments of our community

which cannot negotiate for their own increase is becoming

increasingly great. While the good intention of indexing

Mincome and indexing old-age security is sound, I think the

government has this other responsibility: within its own ranks

and within its own employees there has to be some sober

recognition of the fact that catch-up is all right but you

can't do it all in one year. The inflationary effects on the

rest of society, when you try to correct in one year by

increases of 30, 40 and 50 per cent, I think are just

catastrophic.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please!

Mr. Wallace: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, that I woke up

the Member for Esquimalt (Mr. Gorst). He's been silent all

session.

Interjection.

Mr. Wallace: Yes, and you'll wake up when we get

after you at the next election, too.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Wallace: That's one of the seats that the

Conservatives will win, Mr. Chairman.

Hon. Mr. Lea: Which one?

Mr. Wallace: Esquimalt.

Interjection.

Mr. Wallace: No, they won't lose Oak Bay. Don't get

upset about that. But I think the little bit of interjection

from Esquimalt and from the government benches suggests that

maybe some of my

[ Page 873 ]

comments are just causing a little bit of concern.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Somebody has got to applaud him.

He's all alone. (Laughter.)

Mr. Wallace: Mr. Chairman, I do believe that is a

very valid point. Collective bargaining and the kind of wage

increases which many sections of the labour force are now

seeking are somewhat related to the example set by government.

It surprises me that when the government issued that statement

to the various departments of government from the Treasury

Board to restrict some of these expenditures such as travel,

furniture, office equipment, salary contingencies, and so on....

Mr. Chairman: I would caution the Hon. Member that

the green light is on.

Mr. Wallace: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to

ask the Minister of Finance if he doesn't feel that within his

own office and under the various votes of the Minister of

Finance the kind of increases which he is proposing in these

very areas of expenditure is something of a contradiction to

his espoused belief that these expenditures must be

reduced.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I will try to answer all of the

questions raised by the Member. I have extensive notes here.

First of all, I will deal with the questions he raised about

the forthcoming discussions at the energy conference in Ottawa.

I'll quote from the Member of the Liberal Party, and I'm going

to have to take this back to Ottawa with me. I have no

alternative but to take it back. It's not that I agree with it,

but it shows you a level of irresponsibility that I'm going to

have to tell Ottawa I've got to cope with at home.

Mr. Wallace: That's not an option.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Well, Mr. Member, I don't think

it's a.... Let me read what was said. Let's read what was said

by the Hon. Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A.

Williams) "You can do it very simply," he said, "If

necessary, he's got to put the threat right back to the

national government." The Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound

was assuming that the national government was threatening

British Columbia. The Member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr.

Gibson) said they were trying to scare us. Today we get the

rest of the story from the Liberal Party: the national

government was trying to threaten this little Government of

British Columbia and the people of British Columbia. The

Liberals said that.

He went on to say: "You can do it very simply...." Let the people of British Columbia

understand that this is what the Liberal Member said: "You can do it very simply. If the national government is

not prepared to give what is rightfully British Columbia's, ask them how they

would like it if you turned off the tap." Ask them how they would like it. "I'm

not suggesting that that is the course of action you can take." But what's the

point of asking? Now he was trying to say — and I tried to pin him down later

on.... He was trying to leave the impression that he would have a counter-threat

to Ottawa to turn the gas off to our American friends."

He attacked the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr.

Lauk), and he said: "If you read the budget in November, you

would have recognized that the national government was not

attempting to attack Premier Lougheed." Here's the scandal.

Here's the words out of a Liberal's own mouth. I know it will

be headlines in The Vancouver Sun tomorrow, because they

would want to tell all of British Columbia what the Liberals

are really up to.

The national government had its guns trained clearly on the

Province of British Columbia, not Lougheed, because of this

province's use of the Crown corporation technique. The Liberal

Member was saying that because British Columbia had the guts to

protect the people through a Crown corporation, they would

threaten us. That's what he was saying. He was saying that

because we were the only province in all of Canada that made

sure that the people had a fair return from their resource, the

Liberal Member was admitting that they didn't care a hoot about

Lougheed's giveaway to the oil companies. What they wanted was

to stop British Columbia from protecting its own people. That's

what the Liberal Member said.

If I said it, they'd say that I was just being political. If

I claimed it, they'd say: "Oh, that's an NDP line." But it's a

Liberal Member who said it in this House. He's so embarrassed

he didn't show up after supper.

Mr. Wallace: I just want to know that you won't turn

off the gas. I want a commitment from you.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Member, I tell you right here

as I stand here that I will never take that irresponsible step — never. Never! There are valid contracts and I, as an NDPer

and as the Premier of this province, will never break a

contract as the Tories in Alberta threatened to do with their

Attorney-General and what the Liberals are advocating in this

House tonight. Shame, I say, on the Liberals! Shame!

Thank you, Mr. Member, for your support.

I am making it very clear that in no way will I threaten to

turn off the gas to the Americans. I want to warn the CIA, if

they're listening in, not to worry

[ Page 874 ]

about us socialists; it's the Liberals you've got to watch

out for. So I am going to tell the CIA and the FBI that all you

have to do is read Hansard and you'll know who the real

anti-Americans are in this province. Save the CIA its money.

Don't send in agents; just subscribe to Hansard and

you'll find out.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: The Chairman's what was bugged?

Well, you guys ought to know; you've been buggy for weeks

here.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. I think that this is

directed directly to the Hon. Member, and I would ask the Hon.

Premier to withdraw that unfortunate adjective.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I withdraw, Mr. Chairman. That's

right. I withdraw. They are not....

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Three days in a row you've flopped.

You haven't said a word today. Three days. You fellows, you

want to come crashing back in and collapse again. I think you

ought to talk to Davey Brown and get your heads straightened

around. You paid all that money for PR.

Look, he's up, everybody. There he is. He's up, everybody.

Say something bright. Have you got a note?

Davey Brown. They spent all that money on public relations

and the best they can come up with is some inane interruption.

What is the matter, man?

You lost back there, Mr. Member for Langley (Mr.

McClelland), and that doomed your party. At least you could

have done something with the group. The only thing you didn't

have was money. The only reason you didn't get the job of

leader was that your name was wrong.

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

Member....

Hon. Mr. Barrett: That was what kept you from

ascending to the crown.

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

Premier to confine his remarks to the vote.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I have to answer the questions, but

they keep on interrupting. They shouldn't interrupt.

Well, now, the question of the Supreme Court. We have been negotiating with

Ottawa. We've been having conferences, and as a result of the conferences we've

been making some progress. You will recall that the gap was 33 cents. We got

it up to 57 cents. Then we got it up to $1 when we were asking for 99 cents.

That was a funny incident.

We were asking for 99 cents, and our American customers

said: "No, we won't pay for it." So we filed with the National

Energy Board for $1.35. All of a sudden the Energy Minister

(Hon. Mr. Macdonald) announced it would be $1. Some cynics

believed that the national Energy Minister announced $1 because

he didn't want to have public hearings at our request for

$1.35. That shows you how cynical some people can be, Mr.

Chairman. All I said was that we asked for 99 cents and he gave

us $1 without hearings — a penny for his thoughts. He never

answered.

Now I will not go back and threaten the United States about

cutting off the gas, as suggested by the Liberal Member. I

think that's a disgraceful suggestion, coming from him. We have

an obligation to our customers and we understand contractual

obligations, even if Conservatives in Alberta don't and

Liberals in B.C. don't.

But we do not intend to continue the subsidization of

competing American industry with low-cost gas.

Now I have not considered the option raised by the question,

if the federal government turns us down, because, quite

frankly, I do not believe the federal government will turn us

down. How could they? How could they turn down our request for

an increase when just this week Alberta has had a significant

increase on gas to make up for our production in British

Columbia of $1.61 to $1.90.

Now, how in the world can they say that the private

companies from Alberta can get $1.60 to $1.90 for gas that is

Canadian but owned by the multinational oil companies, but for

British Columbia, where the people own their own gas through

the petroleum corporation, can't get the same money that is

guaranteed to them by Ottawa to private companies. Now, that's

illogical. It also is highly charged politically. No Liberal

could justify giving away our gas while the oil companies get

rich in Alberta, that we shouldn't have a chance at least at

the same level of prices.

So therefore I do not believe that Ottawa will turn us down.

I don't believe it. I just don't. I don't believe it, that's

all. So I'm not going to deal in the ifs or threats. I'm not

the kind of person to go around threatening anyway. It's not in

my nature to go around and threaten.

Mr. W.R. Bennett (Leader of the Opposition): How

about the Egg Marketing Board?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: No need to threaten, especially

politically. Some people are suicidal anyway. (Laughter.)

[ Page 875 ]

Now the next thing you asked me was about the trust

companies. We have no intention of purchasing Yorkshire Trust.

We have no intention of purchasing Yorkshire Trust.

Mr. Wallace: Did you get that, fellows?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Yes, that's under commercial —

under 148 in classified ads, commercial. We have no intention

of purchasing Yorkshire Trust.

Mr. Wallace: One more time.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I'll bet you there's going to be

three different versions in the paper tomorrow. (Laughter.)

"What Barrett was really saying was that unless they did

this.... On the other hand...." There will be all kinds of

interpretations. That's the way it is. But I'll do it again: no

intention of purchasing Yorkshire Trust.

An Hon. Member: You had.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Why did we look into the proposed

merger? Well, Mr. Member, it is the responsibility of the

Department of Finance to administer the Trust Companies Act.

This was a significant merger that was being proposed. It is

incumbent upon us, in administration of that Act, to review all

aspects of the proposed merger to satisfy ourselves that the

merger would not harm the people who had invested in the trust

company. I did allude to Commonwealth Trust by saying: "Look,

I'm not suggesting that this is the same as Commonwealth Trust,

but I am telling you that we must be responsible to ensure that

such a thing doesn't happen again, because an irresponsible

government was warned. A lot of people lost a lot of money, and

a man went to jail. If I am the Minister of Finance, I want to

be sure of what is going on under my responsibility." And I did

a good job again.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

Continuing in my modesty, with the assistance of my

excellent advisers and staff, I was able to conclude our

inquiries very quickly. I said publicly that City Savings got a

clean bill of health and was a good investment; Block

Brothers, fine. Be my guest, I told them they could go ahead if

they wanted to. They decided not to go ahead, but they

certainly had no impediment from us to go ahead.

Mr. Wallace: What about trust companies in

general?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Trust companies in general? We

monitor, we watch, we are conscious of the problems. Excellent

staff; excellent advice; highly sensitive because of earlier

experiences. They are watching things very closely.

The Municipal Finance Authority. From everything that I've

learned in the two and a half years I've had the

responsibility, I wouldn't advise anyone to borrow in foreign

currencies. But that wasn't a choice on which I had to advise

them. They made a decision. That's fine. I'm sure the Leader of

the Opposition will severely condemn them with his brilliant

hindsight. I'm sure that they will take it on the campaign

trail, whenever it comes. But aside from that approach, I want

to say that the Finance department is willing to be consulted

if the Municipal Finance Authority wishes to consult with the

Finance department. That is entirely up to them.

Mr. Wallace: Won't you consider making it

mandatory?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: No. What's the point of having a

Municipal Finance Authority with elected officials on it if we

are going to control everything? The philosophy of the former

administration was to say: "Okay, you go and borrow." I must

say, if we did that kind of borrowing as socialists and made

that mistake, I can guarantee you that every paper from here

right up to Pouce Coupe would have a front-page story about

Barrett and Swiss marks and Liechtenstein and financial

mukabuk. But these guys made a mistake and they are

businessmen, not socialists. That's different. If socialists

make a mistake, the world comes to an end. If businessmen make

a mistake, well, they are businessmen; they know how to make

mistakes.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I am not going to pass judgment. I

am just a casual observer of the political scene in this

province. (Laughter.)

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

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Am I still a country boy? Yes. You

can't take the country out of the boy even if he comes to the

city. I'm still a country boy.

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

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

extensive notes.

Mr. Fraser: You've lost them all.

[ Page 876 ]

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

questions.

Mr. Wallace: What about your own office?

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

now.

The salary contingency used to be a lump sum in the Finance

department. As a result, when you go through estimates and you

get down to each Minister the excuse used to be, when you

wanted to discuss details, that the salary contingency has

already been passed and it's in the Premier's office, the

Minister of Finance. So this year we worked out a system of

saying: "All right, let's give the opposition the full reign.

Let's break the salary contingency out in every Minister's

department and let him be available and responsible to

respond." That is the decision we made. I think it is a good

decision — make more information available to the Members of

the opposition and, if necessary, hire more research staff for

them. We try to help every way we can. But no matter how much

help you offer some people, they still crash. That has been a

puzzle to me as a social worker for years. But I never give up

trying because my heart is full of love.

Mr. Wallace: What about all that furniture you're

buying for yourself?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Oh yes. We moved the offices of the

purchase of new equipment, not furniture. Also, the question of

the staff in the Premier's office — when you compare that staff

to other Premiers, it's still a very modest number of

people.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I tell you quite frankly, Mr.

Member, I don't operate as a one-man, one-decision, central

operation. It's a very complex business. Seat-of-the-pants

decisions can end up with fiascos like the Columbia River. I

like to get help, and we're slowly....

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: My visit to Ottawa will cost more

than the Columbia River?

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Well, we're travelling Economy. I

don't see how it's going to cost that much, but I don't know.

"Liberals Threaten the Americans Tonight" — I can see that

headline. (Laughter.)

The last question...I think that's the last question. Yes,

that's it. Now you did ask me a question on

section 54, and I'm

prepared to answer that when we get there.

Mr. Chairman: I recognize the Member for Cariboo.

Interjections.

Mr. Fraser: I sure appreciate that ovation, Mr.

Chairman, but I think we should get down to the facts of the

matter here. We're dealing with the Minister of Finance's vote

here.

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

Mr. Fraser: You know, this Minister of Finance told

us, Mr. Chairman, on June 18....

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

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

Chairman, you'd better believe I've got to watch, too.

(Laughter.) But this Minister of Finance told us on June 18,

1974, that he'd only borrow $100 million.

Hon. G.V. Lauk (Minister of Economic Development):

We're going to run a candidate in the Cariboo.

Mr. Fraser: You can't find anybody. You blue savages

will never find a candidate in the Cariboo, I'll tell you that.

But anyway, getting back to the discussion....

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Lauk: Hansard wants a translation of

that. (Laughter.)

Mr. Fraser: They'll never get it. (Laughter.) This

Minister of Finance told us on June 18, 1974, that he'd borrow

$100 million, even if we authorized the bill under debate for

$500 million.

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

believe we did.

Mr. Fraser: We voted against that because we were

suspicious at that time. Do you know what's happened, Mr.

Chairman? We have his quote that he'd borrow $100 million

maximum, and no more.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: And no more.

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

[ Page 877 ]

honour.

Mr. Fraser: He's borrowed $375 million. And he

announced today that he's going to borrow another $125

million.

Mr. Chabot: His word's no good.

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

written on.

An Hon. Member: Careful, Alex.

Interjections.

Mr. Fraser: Yes, right. But the point I'm trying to

make here is that he said he'd borrow $100 million.

The other point I would like to make is that he's borrowed

all this money from unknown sources. We can't find that out,

and that's fine. It could be the Mafia. But what I would like

to know is: what is he doing with the money he's borrowed?

Where is it? He hasn't had to spend it. He must have borrowed

it, got the liquid funds, and reinvested it. I'd like to know

where they're reinvesting it. What interest rate...?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Hydro. It's all spent on clearing

up the Columbia River treaty.

Mr. Chabot: Clearing the corridor down the Moberly

River.

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

started.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Sit down and I'll show you. I'll

give it to you in detail.

Mr. Fraser: I feel that this capital borrowing has

been made and you haven't had to use it. I would like to know

where it is invested, or if it is invested at all.

Interjection.

Mr. Fraser: Well, I don't think you've spent it, and

I think you should tell the public of British Columbia where

you have invested it.

Hon. G.R. Lea (Minister of Highways): We sent his dad

to barber school. (Laughter.)

Mr. Fraser: Another thing that hasn't come up here,

Mr. Chairman, in this debate.... You know, Allan Fotheringharn

has talked a lot about it, but it's regarding the....

Interjection.

Mr. Fraser: We're dealing with the Minister of

Finance's vote here, and I have reason to believe that this man

we're talking about here now won't be the Minister of Finance

very long. I'd like to know who the new Minister of Finance is

going to be.

Interjections. (Laughter.)

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

jumping up.

It's my understanding that the Minister Without Portfolio

for northern affairs could be the new Minister of Finance. I

think the Minister of Finance, now that we're debating his

estimates, should come clear with the House tonight and tell

us: is he going to be the Minister of Finance?

We're talking about a lot of money here. All of us poor

poverty-stricken MLAs at $24,000 — that's one thing. He gets

left with another $28,000.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: What does your leader get? That's

what Bob should have got.

Mr. Fraser: Well, just a minute now. I want to know

who's going to get that other $28,000.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Bob needs it more than that

millionaire leader of yours.

Mr. Fraser: It's our information that he's going to

shuffle the cabinet, and I think the people of this province

should be told....

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Watch your back.

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

Interjections.

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

You've chased your leader out.

Mr. Chairman: Order!

Mr. Fraser: Tell that Minister of Public Works (Hon.

Mr. Hartley) to sit down, because it's obvious that lie's out

entirely.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: The Member for Cariboo has the

floor.

Mr. Fraser: Is it correct that the Minister of

Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich) is going to become

[ Page 878 ]

the Minister of Finance? I think it's up to this Minister of

Finance, the one who has the portfolio now, to tell the public

of British Columbia. There's going to be a further roll-out

from that. If the Minister of Agriculture becomes the Minister

of Finance, it's my understanding that the Provincial Secretary

(Hon. Mr. Hall) becomes the Minister of Education, and the

Minister of Education (Hon. Mrs. Dailly) ends up as the

Provincial Secretary.

I think that when we're dealing with the Minister's vote, we

should know all these things.

I realize that you feel quite jovial, Mr. Chairman, but I

want to tell you that I don't appreciate the legal advice

you're getting. I think you're getting wrong legal advice.

Interjections.

Mr. Fraser: Really, what I'm saying, Mr. Chairman, is

that the Minister of Finance had better level with this House

and the province. When we're dealing with his salary, is he

going to be around to earn it? In my opinion, I don't think he

is.

Mr. R.H. McClelland (Langley): Well, he hasn't so

far. Why should he change?

Interjections.

Mr. Fraser: The big issue made here last evening

about the tendency of the revenue side....

Interjection.

Mr. Fraser: Oh, baloney!

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

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

word.

But anyway, there was a big issue made here last night — I

think a good one — about the facts of the revenue side of the

budget. I want to make a further issue here about the

authenticity of the revenue side of the budget the Premier

brought in.

In the budget they show $135 million from stumpage revenue

from the forest industry of this province. It's my information — and I said it in the budget debate and I'll repeat it — that

$90 million is already owed by the Forest Service to the

industry for road building. Nobody can find out any answers

about that, so I'm challenging the revenue estimate there of

$135 million. It should be reduced by $90 million. And due to

the lumber market and so on, we're going to see, for the first

time in the province's history, a net loss from the Forest

Service as a contribution to the revenues.

What I'm saying is that when we arrive at March, 1976, rather than a revenue

asset from the Forest Service, it will be a loss. I'd like to know what the

Premier has to say about that, as Minister of Finance.

Another thing seems to be the Premier's big suit going on

now. He was in North Peace River a couple of weeks ago. Last

week he was in the riding of Cariboo, which I have the honour

to represent, and when he was up there....

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

Mr. Fraser: Yes, I'll bet!

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

while.

Mr. Fraser: Yes, right.

Interjections.

Mr. Fraser: Anyway, the issue came up in the Cariboo

about the problem the industry has with chips. Due to the

chipping bill we passed here in November, there's a real

problem in the industry.

I'd like to know from his public pronouncements — I refer to

the Premier — whether he has been able to talk to Woody

Woodchips since he came back — which he said he would. I realize

you have to have an appointment quite far ahead, including the

Premier. But has he been able to talk to Woody Woodchips about

the problem of the surplus chips? What is he going to do about

it?

An Hon. Member: He's never around.

Mr. Fraser: It's a real problem. Because of the

chippy bill we passed here in November everybody's producing

chips like mad and now there's no one to buy them. I refer to

the pulp mills, because in effect what the pulp mills are doing

is scuttling the legislation that was passed in this House.

They're producing their own chips rather than buying the chips

at the price that was established by Woody Woodchips — $35 a

cunit. The pulp mills have their own timber harvest licences

and they have their own woodroom. Now they're telling the

independent operators: "Quite frankly, we can't take your

chips. We haven't got room for them."

What is going to happen, and I think the Premier found this

out last Friday, is that the independent operators will be out

of business about April 1, unless the government takes

action.

The other problem they have up there is that Woody

Woodchips, the Minister, has put on a $ 1.10 basic minimum on

stumpage expiring March 31, and the operators can't find out

what's going to happen on April 1. I think they are entitled to

know. I think

[ Page 879 ]

the Premier as Minister of Finance has the answers and I'd

be glad to hear from him.

Before I sit down I would just like to say that we've had a

lot of gas go on here and a lot of facts. I refer to the

natural gas issue as it relates to the municipalities. I don't

think that the municipalities are going to get a thing out of

this because, as somebody said.... I think even the plastic

mayor of Vancouver said that they'd get one-third of nothing,

and for once I'll agree with him.

I would urge, through you, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister of

Finance, that if he would, rather than wait on this deal from

Ottawa.... I think lie knows already what price he's going to

get — about $1.35. The municipalities of this province would be

quite happy if they had a minimum guarantee of $20 million.

I would like to ask the Minister of Finance if he

acknowledges the fact that on March 5 he got a letter from the

president of the Union of B.C. Municipalities laying this out.

Is he prepared tonight to answer that letter?

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: The Member for Cariboo has the

floor.

Mr. Fraser: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, This First Member for Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) comes in here

and seagulls about twice a month. He always makes the

headlines. The press really go for that seagulling stuff.

Interjection.

Mr. Fraser: Yes, right.

But what I want to ask again of the Premier, because he is

kibitzing with the First Member for Point Grey: does he

acknowledge the letter from the president of the UBCM, and what

is he going to do about it? Are you going to answer it or just

acknowledge it as a friendly...?

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

Mr. Fraser: Has it? Fine.

Interjection.

Mr. Fraser: Well, we'd sure love to be tied into

that, you know. (Laughter.)

With that, Mr. Chairman, I'll sit down, but I'm sure that

the Premier has lots of answers.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I'm concerned about something you said, Mr. Member.

You said — if I got it down right — that the pulp mills are scuttling the legislation.

Mr. Fraser: Yes.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: You said that. Do you think that

the pulp mills are in a conspiracy to squeeze but the

independent operators by opening up their woodrooms?

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

government.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: It didn't work that way, because

the next thing you said was: "The small operators will be out

of business unless the government takes action." The only way

we can take action is under the legislation that you

opposed.

Now I hate to do this to you, because as one country boy to

another (laughter), it always isn't a good thing to be logical.

But in this case we've got to be. You can't interfere....

You've confirmed that you think that the pulp mills are

scuttling the legislation. Now the legislation was designed to

get a higher price for chips so the little guys can stay in

business.

Then you make the claim that these large companies are

opening up their woodrooms and chipping, and then telling the

small operators that they won't buy. Then you say that the

small operators will be out of business by April 1 unless the

government takes action. The only way we can take action is

under the legislation. You have taken a tortuous route to admit

that the legislation is right. Now you want us to impose it

more strictly than we have up to this point.

Interjections.

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

over.

Hon. Mr. Lauk: Good boy, Alex.

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

us.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: No one on our side will ever tell

you to sit down, Alex.

I met with the small operators in your area. I flew up there

and spent the day with them because they have problems, and we

are a responsible government. I went up there. I think I have

been in your constituency more since I've been Premier than you

ever had in visits from the former Premier when you were the

MLA.

The only reason you got elected is that you attacked Phil.

Otherwise, you would have gone down

[ Page 880 ]

the tube too. You know that is right. You made a wise

political decision. You dumped him before he dumped you. The

others are smiling; they narrowly made it. (Laughter.) The

Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) — a 21-vote

victor. They were all carrying that albatross. You complain

about the birds known as seagulls. Your biggest problem was the

albatross.

Now we go back to your other statement. After I came back

from your constituency, where the people are very hospitable.... I really love that country up there; it's beautiful

country. I really admire you for being the representative from

that area. It is a lovely part of British Columbia.

The problem was that they were producing these chips. We all

thought that the big pulp companies wanted to keep these little

operators in business. That is what they told us. They never

told us, these big capitalist operators, that they were trying

to squeeze the little guy out in that economic jungle out

there. We took them at their word. We passed the legislation to

see that they didn't squeeze them out, because that is what

they told us.

Now this Member is coming in and making a very serious

charge. He is saying that the pulp companies are scuttling the

legislation. They are opening up their woodrooms; they are

chipping and not buying chips from the small operators. He

wants the government to do something about it.

We are going to have to study his request very seriously

because he has made a serious charge against those big

companies. When that kind of charge comes from someone who

supports the free-enterprise system, we know he has got

information; otherwise he wouldn't be saying that they're

scuttling the legislation for political gains. You must know

something. You think those big boys are up to squeezing the

little guys out?

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

Water Resources....

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

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I talked to him on Monday, and he has made arrangements

to go up there and spend some time up there. But now he is going to have to

get up there sooner, because the situation is serious. You're charging that

the big guys are ganging up on the little guys. We are the only ones who are

supposed to be doing that, because we believe that's happening in that rotten

jungle known as free enterprise. When a free enterpriser says it, we've got

to check. I'm going to talk to the Minister right away. You've given me information.

That'll be headlines on the finance page: "Socred MLA Charges Major Pulp Mills

are Scuttling the Legislation." I'm sure we'll see that on the business pages:

"Socred MLA Says Small Operators Will Be Out of Business by April 1 Unless the

Government Takes Action." (Laughter.)

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

market.

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

sympathy.

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

Hon. Mr. Barrett: That will be on the finance page.

There will be two editorials attacking the vicious capitalist

system for doing this. (Laughter.)

On the export of chips, we have to consider that

proposition, Mr. Member, even though Can-Cel has been making a

lot of money and the people are finally getting a little return

back from their own forests because of the wise decision by

that Minister and the support of this room. We have the best

board in the world making money for the people of British

Columbia.

Mr. Chabot: New York directors.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: There is nothing wrong with New

York directors when they are making money for the people of

British Columbia.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Oh, there they go. They are crying.

Listen, with the kind of advice you guys got.... What was the

name — Stonehill and the glass house that you guys played

around with? What was it, Harry Stonehill and the glass

house?

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

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Oh, no. I don't want to bring this

one up. I know it's past the deadline. Talk about political

advice, these are the guys who are going to build the monorail

down the Rocky Mountain Trench. That is a triumph of

imagination over economic facts. You went to Sweden for Axel

Wenner-Gren.

Mr. Chabot: That's a tunnel.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Oh, it is a tunnel through the

Rocky Mountains. They've got to hide the Socreds somewhere.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Shh! Wait. I've got to finish

answering the rest of this question.

[ Page 881 ]

The export of chips. Now it's not the policy of this

government to give medium-term export of chips.

Mr. Chabot: Long-term then?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: It's not the policy of this

government to give long-term export of chips. However, if what

the Member is saying is correct and there is a threat to the

small, indigenous operator whom we socialists want to protect,

then we will have to consider medium-term export of chips. And

if that comes home to haunt the big companies, they may be the

authors of their own disaster. I don't believe in threatening;

I'm just explaining the situation. I want to repeat: if it is

necessary for the survival of those small entrepreneurs in your

riding, Mr. Member, or the riding of Omineca, the riding of

Skeena, the riding of Mackenzie, the riding of Nelson...half

of the constituencies of this province cannot be threatened by

the multinational corporations who run those big pulp mills.

I'm not threatening; I'm not warning; I'm just taking what

that Member told me tonight. I say this: if they keep on using

their woodrooms, we may have to consider medium-term export of

chips, and if they want chips to help them make money, and

we've committed medium-term export to Japan, they may lose

money. So I'm telling them tonight to put two and two together

and come up with four. But I am not warning them.

(Laughter.)

The Minister and I have discussed this and the big companies

have got the message. We want a little fair balance; that's all

we are asking for. Let's help the little guy, even if he

doesn't vote for us.

I've talked to some of those small businessmen and they say

to me privately: "You know, Barrett, I've got to admit,"

and they look around to see if the door is closed first, "if it

wasn't for your legislation, we'd be out of business

today."

Fort Nelson Forest Products up in North Peace River — you

ask the manager. He even told the press that it was true that

the NDP saved his sawmill. He told them. I had to tell him that

he voted against the bill, but I didn't want to do it. Then

when I spoke to the chamber of commerce....

Mr. D.E. Smith (North Peace River): Why doesn't he

get some of that money back?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Mr. Mohammed said that if it hadn't

been for the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources

(Hon. R.A. Williams) he'd be out of business in two weeks.

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

that.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Oh! Shh! Shh! Two hundred people would have been out

of work if it wasn't for the socialists. I have talked to small businessmen

in the sawmill business and they tell me, after they close the door: "You did

the right thing." But they're frightened to death of the big pulp mills that

have been squeezing them for years.

The only government that's had the guts to say to the big

boys: "Leave the little kids alone." Let the little business

grow and survive, even if they vote against us. Some of them

remind me of the guy you rescued from the burning house: you

take him out, roll him in a blanket, give him love, save his

life, then he looks at you and runs back into the burning

house. That's what they are politically, but we don't make

anybody pay political homage to us. What's right is right. And

we've saved those small sawmill operators now. I tell you, when

I hear a Socred Member say: "The pulp mills are scuttling the

legislation; the small operators will be out of business unless

the government takes action: I have been warned by free

enterprise and we must seriously consider medium-term export of

chips.... " Please get the message out.

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

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Well, I don't blame him for

leaving. When that party was in power we lost more small

sawmills to the big integrateds than at any other time in the

last five years of their administration. I don't want to go

through the whole history of Houston in that Member's

constituency — when Bulwater-Bathurst went into that town and

wiped out about a dozen small sawmills, centralized one sawmill....

Mr. Chabot: Commie Bathurst.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Commie Bathurst. They took a bath

all right and so did the local people — $60 million. Noranda

came in and the whole history was of instant towns, instant

solutions by the former Minister of Lands and Forests. Instant

disasters were guaranteed. Now we're not going through that

again. No way. I'm taking the warning you've given me tonight

because it confirms what I've been seeing out there. And when

you tell me, I know it's true, so I say again — very quietly,

no threats, just a very quiet statement — we are going to have

to consider medium-term export of chips with all the problems

that has for the big pulp mills, including our own....

Interjections.

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

it.

[ Page 882 ]

Mrs. P.J. Jordan (North Okanagan): We've heard from

the Cariboo Kid who just rode again in the Coquitlam Kewpie. I

don't want to insult CUPE, but you know you can't but listen to

him and think of these fat little kewpie dolls — you press

their little navels and suddenly they talk, talk, talk.

Mr. Premier that's all that speech was — talk, talk, talk;

flap, flap, flap. There wasn't a word of truth in it.

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

be?

Mrs. Jordan: You know perfectly well that your

legislation, the Timber Products Stabilization Act, came in to

suddenly rescue the small operators after you and your

government and your Minister had knifed them in the back. And

this is one of your favourite...

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mrs. Jordan: ...accomplished tricks — squeeze the

banana in the corner, then skin it...

Mr. Chairman: Order! Order, please.

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

Interjection.

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

Premier.

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

sensitive.

Mr. Chairman: Order! Before the Hon. Member

continues, I would ask her to use more reasonable language for

parliament. Would the Hon. Member continue, please?

Mrs. Jordan: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I certainly won't use

the word "guts" like the Premier does, and I accept your

warning.

But that doesn't alter the fact that that whole last speech

was talk, talk, talk. The Premier always likes to stand up here

and say how benevolent he is, how concerned he is about the

little guys, and by jingo, he says, and he said tonight, how

modest he is. But you look at his estimates and you look at

what's going on in this province under his jurisdiction, and

you'll find out how much action there is and how much talk

there is.

There are just two small points I want to make at this time in the debate.

The first relates to this modest offer that the Premier told us just a few minutes

ago that he had. If you look through his vote, Mr. Chairman, you'll see that

his executive assistant, indeed a very modest man, received a salary increase

from $27,000 to $36,432 this year, just a modest increase for a political appointment

of 34 per cent in one year. Just a modest increase for a modest office for a

modest Premier.

But in his next increases, his administrative assistant...he has an executive assistant; he has an administrative

assistant. He has one with a red button and one with a green

button so he knows which is which. His administrative

assistant's salary increase went from $17,628 to $23,710, a 34

per cent increase...

Mr. Wallace: Time, time!

Mrs. Jordan: ...for a modest administrative

assistant, for a modest office, for a modest Premier.

The press secretary, ah, another political appointment — a

press secretary for a modest Premier so that he gets modest

press coverage at a modest cost to the taxpayers. He got a

salary increase from $17,628 to $19,646, and that is, Mr.

Member, a modest increase because that political appointment,

for the modest publicity the Premier wants, is only a 10.4 per

cent increase.

An Hon. Member: What did he do wrong?

Mrs. Jordan: Well, I don't know. What did he do

wrong? I guess he was twigging around. Maybe he lost a cheque.

I don't know. Maybe he lost a cheque or maybe he lost a message

that was supposed to be given to the Premier.

His administrative officers — six — an increase from $17,628

to $20,180. That's a 20 per cent increase. He's just half as

good.

No guidelines. No reasons. It's like when this Premier talks

about borrowing money — it makes you quiver in your roots.

We're in one of the most inflationary and most dangerous

economic periods in the history of the post-war era, and this

Minister of Finance stands up here with his social work

mentality, which is great in the field and not so hot in the

accounting books, and says: "We're going to borrow carefully,

modestly, $116 million that's going to cost the people of

British Columbia over 20 years to pay back $200 million."

At the same time, while he is managing his budget modestly

with 34 per cent salary increases for political appointments

and spraying gold filigree around, living in the lap of luxury

himself, he's jeopardizing the future of this province and the

future of the children of this province. And no guidelines for

his tinkering in the marketplace. No guidelines in his

office.

If you examine the rest of the salary increases in his

office — after you have heard him talk about how he's for the

little guy, and how one Minister has set

[ Page 883 ]

up a bureau of economic research for women's rights, and

another political appointment is sent to search out through the

civil service for inequalities for women — we see that his own

secretary, a lady, and a lady of great accomplishment and

well-respected in these buildings, but nonetheless, an

order-in-council appointment the same as the administrative

assistant, the same as the executive assistant, the same as the

press secretary and one of the many that this man, the Premier

of this province, has said comes with him and goes with him.... Political appointments to do a political job that he

wants, subject to the political salary that he wishes to

give.

I don't want any misunderstanding, because the flowers are

not ordered for this lady. But I would like to point out that

her salary increase was $115 a month, while the executive

assistant's salary increase was $788 a month: a 34 per cent

increase for the executive assistant, a 34 per cent increase

for the administrative assistant — in this modest office of

this modest Premier who cares about those who are the small

guys — and barely a 10 per cent increase for his chief

secretary. Mind you, Mr. Premier doesn't know about business,

but he always tells us he does. Anyone who knows anything about

business administration knows that an executive's efficiency

can only be as great as that of his secretary — whether that

secretary is a man or a woman.

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

Mrs. Jordan: Now come clean, Mr. Premier and Minister

of Finance — and kewpie doll that winds up with his benevolence

to the little people — why don't you practise what you preach?

Why don't you back up what the Minister of Economic Development

(Hon. Mr. Lauk) is doing in spending thousands of dollars of

taxpayers' money on economic research into the rights of women?

You don't have to pay me a thing. You pay me as an MLA. I tell

you right now: you're underpaying your secretary, a lady. She's

an order-in-council appointment. She rises and falls with you,

and you give her a piddly 10 per cent increase. But you give

your others a 34 per cent increase. Come on, let's practise

what you preach. Let's practise in your own office what you

like to spread through the newspapers in terms of protecting

your own employees.

You know, Mr. Premier, I couldn't help but think as I looked

at your expenses, and your own salary which you set yourself —

and you set yourself a salary of $52,000....

Mr. Chairman: Order, please. Before the Hon. Member

continues, would you address the Chair, please?

Mrs. Jordan: Oh, yes, Mr. Chairman. I'm glad to see

you, again. Mr. Chairman, $52,000 a year this Premier gave

himself. I think he was earning $11,200 or something, before he

got this job — by default. That's $52,000 a year and

$20,000-odd per year in travelling expenses.

You know, Mr. Chairman, there's been a request put before

this government and this Minister of Finance by a group of

people in this province who have been frozen to their jobs by

this government, who make a major contribution to our

environment, and who make a major contribution to the greatest

problem we have in this Legislature, the problem of waste. It's

the producers of this province, the farmers of this province.

All they ask of this Minister of Finance at this time is for

him to remove the estate tax in passing their farms to their

sons and daughters.

Now this Premier stood up and said how he wants farmers to

stay on the land, how he wants young people to go into farming.

Yet he makes it almost impossible for a father or a mother to

pass their farm on to their son and daughter. You know, Mr.

Premier, if a farmer has a parcel of land worth $100,000, which

is less than double your annual salary — you get $52,000 a year

plus $22,000 expenses — this individual has put a lifetime of

work into that land that is worth $ 100,000. When they go to

pass that on to their son or their daughter.... I want you to

follow your hero, Peter the Red, from Alberta and remove gift

tax and inheritance tax between the farmer, the producer, their

wives and their children.

Mr. Premier, they have to pay gift taxes on $40,000 on a

$100,000 piece of land. That amounts to $4,350.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: What? In inheritance they get a

$150,000 exemption.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

Mrs. Jordan: Mr. Premier, you get $70,000-odd a year

that you had the audacity to set to yourself.

You should hide your head in that desk. (Laughter.) You

should get right in it. You're sitting there getting nearly

$100,000 a year from the taxpayers for fumbling and fiascoing

around this province, and you begrudge a producer and his

family a little piece of land.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Look, if I have to stand it, you

should be down there too.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please.

[ Page 884 ]

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

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

Mr. Chairman: Order! The Hon. Member for North

Okanagan has the floor.

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please!

Mrs. Jordan: Mr. Chairman, perhaps as the Premier is

so anxious to talk, he'll stand up and tell this House, first,

that he's going to raise the salaries of his order-in-council

secretaries in this government to the equivalent of the

executive assistants and, secondly, that he's going to remove

the gift taxes from the land of the farmers so they can pass

from father to son, from mother to daughter, so that a

hard-working, lifetime farmer can have the same benefits in a

lifetime that this Premier took for himself in one year and

that he will remove the inheritance tax. It's a very simple

request.

You know, I imagine that it's little more than the cost of

financing that elf from the north and some of the other

extravagances we've had. It's very simple.

Would the Premier like to give us an answer?

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

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

Mrs. Jordan: All right, will you raise your

secretary's salary?

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I'll give you an answer, Madam.

Please sit down and I'll give you an answer, because you're

wrong again. I always hate to ruin a good speech with facts,

but in this case I have to do it again. You have my complete

sympathy on this occasion, Mr. Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Bennett).

I'd move exemption under the Succession Duty Act, special

beneficiaries: husband, wife, father, mother, grandfather,

grandmother, child, grandchild, son-in-law, daughter-in-law —

$125,000 plus home, property, insurance to $25,000, pension to

$250 per month...home and insurance and not a total of

$25,000. Total exemptions deemed to be $150,000.

The next line — family farm. The whole family farm is exempt

as defined by regulation if passing to the child.

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

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

Mrs. Jordan: Get off it.

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

Interjections.

Mr. Chairman: Order, please!

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Sit down!

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

the floor.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: I don't blame you for staying down

there, Mr. Leader. Please get your Members to do some homework.

I don't mind being yelled at, I don't mind being insulted, I

don't mind being prodded, I don't mind being accused, but do a

little research. Thank you for nodding. I recognize, with

wisdom, the space you put between that Member and yourself.

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Family farm, as defined by

regulations, if passing to a child. This is about the sixth

time you've raised this point, and you refuse to read the

Act.

Let me say once and for all: if you are a farmer, if you

have a son and daughter, and you decide before you die to write

in your will that you want your son or daughter or both to have

the farm and everything that goes with it, you put it in your

will and this government says that they can have the farm with

no tax.

Some Hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Hon. Mr. Barrett: That's what she's asking for.

(Laughter.) She's asking: would the government please allow the

son or daughter...?

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Hon. Mr. Barrett: Shhhhh!,Shhhhh! Shhhhh!

Edu-ma-cation is going on. (Laughter.) Don't ask questions

unless you know the answers — the first rule of politics.

(Laughter.)

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

help.

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

[ Page 885 ]

Why, I don't think you should discuss your conversation with

her in public. (Laughter.) I find that rather shocking. I want

to tell you that you can't come back here and say the law is

something other than it is. I'm going to send a letter from my

office tomorrow with a copy of the Act for you.

Let me say it again. What the Member wants and demands and

is fighting for is that, if a family farm passes to a son or

daughter, she doesn't want them to pay any inheritance tax. I

got news for her — that's already the law.

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

Interjections.

Mrs. Jordan: I wonder if the Premier, now that he's finished his waving

— he didn't ask what he could do about his secretary.

Some Hon. Members: Oh, oh!

Mrs. Jordan: The Premier is doing exactly what he

says — expressing his ignorance. He knows as well as I do that

many family farms are incorporated because of the federal law

and for many other reasons, and they are not exempt. Is he

willing to waive the deferred tax?

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

incorporated.

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

Interjections.

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

Mr. Chairman: Order!

Mrs. Jordan: Do you know how much a tractor costs today? A Ford 3000

costs well in the neighbourhood of $6,000 without a loader — which you should

know about — and a backhoe, my friend. It's nothing to get tip to a value of

$150,000 on a farm. You don't even know what you're talking about.

Interjections.

Mrs. Jordan: Well, a spreader is worth $7,000. Ask

the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis); he's an authority on

it.

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

there?

Mrs. Jordan: Will you...?

Interjections.

Mrs. Jordan: Mr. Chairman....

Mr. Chairman: Order, please!

Mrs. Jordan: Will the Minister completely exempt the

family farm, whether it's incorporated or otherwise, from gift

and estate taxes, and above the $150,000, and the gift

tax?

Will he also raise his secretary's salary? Two

questions.

Interjections.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Leave granted.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10: 51 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1975, 2001, 2013: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada