1979 Legislative Session: ist Session, 32nd 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)

TUESDAY, JUNE 19, 1979

Night Sitting

[ Page

235 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation Amendment Act,

1979 (Bill 12).

Committee stage.

On the amendment to

section 1.

Mr. Levi –– 235

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 236

Mr. Barber –– 237

Mr. Howard –– 238

Mr. Leggatt –– 241

Mr. Mitchell –– 241

Hon. Mr. Williams –– 242

Mr. Howard –– 243

Division on the amendment –– 244

section 2.

Mr. Barber –– 244

Mr. Leggatt –– 245

Mr. Barrett –– 246

Division on motion to rise –– 247

Mr. Barrett –– 247

Division on motion that the Chairman leave the chair –– 248

Ms. Brown –– 248

Erratum –– 250

Appendix –– 250

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, there is a serious error in volume 1, number 1 of Hansard .

In the list of members of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia,

I note that my name is followed by the letters "SC." [Laughter.] So,

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you bring that to the attention of the

Queen's Printer. I'm sure that it would also be welcomed by the other

side of the House if that were attended to.

MR. SPEAKER: The member's remarks are noted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to proceed to public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Committee on Bill 12, Mr. Speaker.

BRITISH COLUMBIA

RESOURCES INVESTMENT CORPORATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 1979

(continued)

The House in committee on Bill 12; Mr. Rogers in the chair.

On the amendment to

section 1.

MR. LEVI:

Mr. Chairman, I just want to go back to the somewhat weak explanation

that we got from the minister about why it's not possible to accept the

amendment and allow everyone with the free BCRIC shares to have a vote.

He used the argument that it would be administratively impractical.

would like to remind the minister that, even with companies having a

much larger number of shareholders than BCRIC has — I have in mind, for

instance, GenTel, which has something like 1.2 million shareholders in

the United States. Certainly Bell Telephone in Canada has about 250,000

shareholders. And I think that it would be worthwhile looking at

General Motors, who have something close to three million shareholders.

All of these companies that I've just mentioned manage to have an

annual shareholders' meeting. I don't accept the minister's explanation

that this is impractical. You're not being asked to set up a general

meeting to which something like two million people will come; it is not

the practice that shareholders come to these meetings in such large

numbers. What you need to provide is the opportunity for this to happen.

We've been told that this is a new corporation; it has a new style; the

intent is different — and here is an opportunity for the government to do something

a little bit different. The minister kept insisting that right from day one

the Premier had told us exactly what was going to happen in terms of the shareholders

and their voting privilege, and I'd suggest to him that he is mistaken;

we were not told that from day one. What we were told from day one was that

this would be an opportunity for people to purchase an equity position in it;

it was only on day 380 or something that the Premier came up with the idea that

he was going to have the free shares.

The

government has not looked at the possibility of annual meetings any

more than the corporation. I did have an opportunity to talk to Mr.

Helliwell, who was very forthcoming on a number of matters. He did say

the possibility had occurred to them to hold three or four meetings

simultaneously around the province so that everybody who wanted to go

would have an opportunity.

The minister's argument is simply

not acceptable, particularly based on the kind of provocative

statements made by the Premier when he issued his statement on January

11. He said: Our commitment is ownership for all our people on an

individual basis, as opposed to big government ownership." He went on

to say: "We want people to be able to see and feel their ownership in

the form of a tangible share certificate. The share ownership will

bring home to everyone, and particularly those who have never owned

shares before, the value of ownership, which can pay rich, personal

dividends.'' Well, he's not correct on the end one. There aren't going

to be too many dividends of any kind for two or three years. As for the

rich, personal dividends, it does not apply to people who have the free

shares. They will not be entitled to anything other than to have what

really amounts to five pieces of paper, which have some trading value,

but that's all.

I remind the minister that a year ago there

was a royal commission done on the whole question of corporate

concentration. In one

section they dealt with they had quite a lot to

say about the role of the shareholder and shareholders' rights in

corporations. They talked about the kind of thing that takes place in

terms of minority control that can exist in a corporation. What we want

to be able to do with this amendment is make it possible for everybody

to have voting rights. No doubt there will be people who will be voting

their shares through proxies, and that's okay too. But the main thing

is: if the minister wants to go past the more than 60,000 people who

have bought shares.... This is the information we have at the moment.

That number coincides with the number Mr. Helliwell provided some

months ago when he said up to the present time about 60,000 people in

British Columbia involved themselves in the purchase of shares.

now have the figures which are almost identical. I have no doubt that

there are a few more people who have gone into purchasing shares who

previously had not done so. But the major question is: what happens to

all those people that the Premier wanted to get to? He was very keen in

his statement that he wanted to be able to get to the young people. He

said in the letter he sent to everybody in British Columbia: "I'm

particularly hopeful that our young people will seize the opportunity

for a practical education in individual ownership and recognize the

potential it has for lifelong benefits." If he means by that statement

that education means the sheer delight of having five free shares, and

nothing else, not being able to participate in any of the company's

operations in terms of the annual meeting or to receive the information

about the corporation, what is he talking about, then?

There

was a discussion in respect to the statement by the minister that the

100-share-board lot was the most practical. My understanding is some

consideration was given to reducing that board lot to 50. I would

suggest that a number

[ Page 236 ]

people who would have bought BCRIC shares in smaller lots have now been

denied that opportunity. For example, people interested in buying 25 or

50 shares for their grandchildren or for their children, hoping to have

some kind of participatory operation, are not able to do that.

What

we have at the moment in this operation is something like the same

number who have previously purchased shares in this province — some

60,000 to 65,000 people. The same kind of control is going to be there

within that corporation, and we have to be concerned about that. That

is why another point we are making is asking that as many people as

possible be given the opportunity.

The minister says it is

impractical, but he's not been able to demonstrate to us how

impractical it is. We know some of the impractical things they've done

in terms of the large amount of money that's been spent, either by the

corporation or by the government, in promoting this operation. It seems

to me that if you spent that kind of money to promote this operation —

and it will probably come in at about $20 million to $25 million when

everything is counted up — surely in the interests of furthering this

corporation, and the interests of the people of British Columbia you

talk about, you should go one step further and see that everyone has an

opportunity to participate in this. That's why we've put the amendment

forward.

Otherwise, what you've done is simply go through an

exercise which I hope will not, but it looks as though it will, prove

the very argument we've been making all the way through this operation:

that control will remain in the hands of those who always control the

corporations in this province. That will be a sad day for this province

if the control of BCRIC goes to the usual minority share — that

minority group who control most of the major corporations in this

province. I'm talking about where they have controls and corporations,

with as little as 10 percent and 12 percent of the shares issued.

I'd

like the minister to tell us his estimate of the cost of having annual

meetings — not in which two million people are coming, because that's

just not the case. That is not the experience of General Motors; that

is not the experience of GenTel. That is not the experience at all.

Have they worked out some kind of cost of this operation? Or are they

simply saying it is impractical? They're not prepared to give any

details, and they simply want the corporation to go along as they have

wanted it to go along, right from the beginning, with no intention of

giving the large number of people in this province any possibility of

participating in it at all. From the beginning people were excluded

from getting into this on an equity basis where they could have some

rights. If you want to be a shareholder and register you've got to

spend some $600, and $600 is not something you can easily come by.

ask the minister: have they been able to work out a figure? Has he got

the information from BCRIC, or has the government worked up the

information? What exactly would it cost to have an annual meeting of

BCRIC and why is it so prohibitive? I know that we've had to deal with

this minister before, Mr. Chairman, in terms of other bills in which he

said: "We've done a certain amount of research.'' When they got rid of

the succession duties, he said that they had information which would

demonstrate that this would increase the investment in the province. He

never produced one piece of information for us. Now what kind of

information can he produce for us to substantiate the argument that

it's impractical to have an annual meeting of this corporation and give

voting rights to these people? He'd better give us some information as

to how much they've found it would cost.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

The major consideration in saying it's impractical is the cost

associated with the obligations: the calling of the annual meetings,

the notices required thereby, the proxies, the annual report

requirements, et cetera. I'm told that these would equate to somewhere

between $3 and $5 per shareholder. If you take 2.4 million

shareholders, you're talking about an annual cost of something like $12

million per annum. Related to sales projections, I suggest this is an

unfair burden initially which would reflect itself on the possible

return that would equate to shareholders down the line in the very near

future. In other words, it's going to place a burden on their initial

operation, which you would have to agree would saddle them.

MR. LEVI: Would you repeat the figures again, please?

HON. MR. WOLFE:

The cost of the calling the annual meeting, the notices, the annual

report circulation, the proxies and all of these requirements today

equals somewhere between $3 and $5 per shareholder.

MR. LEVI:

On the basis of the number of shareholders that are identified at the

moment as having purchased new shares, you're talking about $300,000.

You don't send a separate notice out to each share if somebody's

holding more than 100 shares. Some of these people have 100 shares to

start with.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Bearer shares.

MR. LEVI:

We have pretty close to two million people who have picked up the

bearer shares. We had, for instance, the Premier who went to the

trouble of sending out a letter. Have you any idea what that cost? We

had that kind of information just hours before the election was called.

HON. MR. WOLFE: You're skirting around the whole thing.

MR. LEVI:

I'm not skirting around it at all. We're looking for some mechanisms.

What the minister is simply saying is that if we do everything, if we

have to use letters and we have to use notices.... If you are prepared

to go along with the idea that people have free shares, then the whole

question is what we will deal with later on in the amendments about

exclusions and having to publish annual reports, other than printing

them in the newspapers. There are a number of ways around this which

can reduce the cost, if you're talking about communicating with people.

If you're going to use the reason of cost, then I'm suggesting to you

that it could be done a lot cheaper than that if you're prepared to use

the newspapers to get out all that information out.

So it is

not impractical that these people could have a vote, if those are the

arguments that your minister is using. I think that those are not

sufficient arguments to justify that there could be no vote for the

people who have the bearer

[ Page

237 ]

shares. That's not true at all, because you have access to the media — that

would take care of all of those problems. I know that there are many companies

out there, many companies that are even on a buy-back basis, because they find

that many of the requirements under the Companies Act are very arduous. It may

very well be that we will have to look at the Companies Act and give some relief

to those companies — the very kind of relief that in this bill, later on, is

recommended to the government.

All

right, that's fine. If we do that, then where is the great cost? That's

eliminated. So what is the other objection to letting these people have

a vote? I think you just don't want them to have a vote; that's all it

is. If you're telling me it's cost, the cost can be reduced

dramatically. So I don't buy the minister's argument at all, Mr.

Chairman. He has not demonstrated to us that that cost argument

prohibits people, making it impractical.

HON. MR. WOLFE:

Mr. Chairman, in describing how this suggestion is ridiculous and

impractical, I've explained that one of the reasons is that the cost of

it is a burden on the new company. Now one thing that should be

mentioned is that in maintaining a share register of that size and

description you really have an impossible task to try to maintain and

keep up to date the list of shareholders that we're talking about — in

other words, some 2.5 million as opposed to, as you say, a figure of

60,000. I don’t know what the figure is now for what registered

shareholders there will be, but you have some idea of the scope of the

problem. The maintenance of a list or the share register of registered

shareholders would be just mammoth.

MR. LEVI: You've

already got, apparently, within the B.C. Systems Corporation

arrangements that have been set up — not one list but three lists,

which apparently can be merged, in which notification to everybody in

the province was given. You presumably will know, by September or by

August, those people who will have picked up the shares. You've already

got a shareholders' list within the computer right now. Now you're not

suggesting to me that if you get free shares, somehow the government

would not make those kinds of lists available. You've already done that

work. That's already been completed. Don't tell me that with all the

work that can be done within the computer system that has obviously

been done up to now, that should be so onerous, that kind of task. The

government has done all that work.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Transfers.

MR. LEVI: Okay, so you’ll have transfers. All corporations have

transfers; that’s the cost of doing business. But the point is that what

you are doing is putting these hurdles in the way, which you are suggesting

make it impossible for people to have a vote because we can't service them.

I'm suggesting to you that you've already demonstrated that you can

service these people, because you've serviced well over two million people

in the province — with the use, presumably, of computers — and all of that information

which is there could be made available to the corporation. We've reduced,

again, some further expense. The transfers you will always get; you always get

that in the operation of a company.

that, Mr. Minister, is not a satisfactory answer, considering that an

incredible amount of taxpayers' money has gone into the promotion of

this company. The taxpayer also wants an opportunity to participate in

the business of the corporation. After all, they've paid for the

setting up of the corporation. Therefore it seems to me that it is

quite logical for you to be able to do the kind of work that the

corporation would require to maintain its shareholders lists. And if

you are talking about the transfers, that will inevitably settle down.

So I just cannot accept that argument at all, Mr. Minister.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Sorry about that.

MR. BARBER:

I would like to draw a couple of other arguments to the attention of

the minister. He tells us that there are significant problems

associated with accepting our amendment, the burden and purpose of

which is to guarantee that every shareholder, just like in private

enterprise, has a voice and a vote. That is all we're asking — that you

apply to your operation what private enterprise applies to theirs.

That's all we’re asking in this amendment, nothing more, nothing less.

The

minister tells us that there are problems. We tell the minister that it

is his problem. He established the corporation; he created the problem;

he created the difficulties; he created the hurdles. It is his problem,

and we have one particular solution which is embodied in this

amendment. The problem was created by this government; the problem must

also be solved by the government. It is not a rational or competent

excuse to tell us that it costs too much. If the paper burden costs too

much, reduce the paper burden. My colleague for Coquitlam–Moody (Mr.

Leggatt), has indicated some ways you could do that. Let me illustrate

some other ways you could do that.

B.C. Government News — you flog that thing everywhere in the province. You pay a fortune to flog it. Use B.C. Government News . You use it for every other political purpose. Why don't you use it for this one? Reduce the cost; consider B.C. Government News .

If your sole defence against democratizing this company is that it

costs too much, and you don't want to pay for that much democracy, then

reduce the cost. Use the other systems that are available. My colleague

has demonstrated, I think more than adequately, that the very systems

that you used to announce the corporation can be used to make it

democratic. Those very systems can continue to be used for the purposes

embodied in this amendment.

The government will have spent $20 million by August 6 to sell this corporation politically.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Where did you get that?

MR. BARBER: You admitted to $17.5 million.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I did not. Get off your $20 million; that's not right.

MR. BARBER: It's going to be more than $20 million — and we both know it — by the time the bills are all in.

HON. MR. WOLFE: That's a lie.

[ Page 238 ]

MR. BARBER:

If you include the bills from Motor Vehicles, from the Systems

Corporation and from the Premier's office, it could well be more than

$20 million.

HON. MR. WOLFE: You're absolutely wrong.

MR. BARBER: Wait until we get the public accounts; you'll have a chance to defend yourself then.

HON. MR. WOLFE: We'll see, all right. You don't know what you're talking about.

MR. BARBER:

It's our estimate that $20 million-plus, not the $17 million admitted

by the government — $17 million is surely enough — has already been

spent to sell this corporation to British Columbia politically.

HON. MR. WOLFE: You're coming down now, Charlie.

MR. BARBER:

If the government can spend $20 million-plus to set it up, why won't

they spend $20,000 or $200,000 to make it democratic? You have the

systems in place now. Mishandled as the B.C. Systems Corporation has

been, it does at least exist in structure adequate to the purpose of

guaranteeing that every shareholder shall have a vote, that every

shareholder shall have an opportunity to stand up at an annual meeting

and ask questions. If this kind of democracy costs too much, reduce the

costs, don't reduce the democracy; that's no answer at all.

think it must be fairly clear to the Chair that, as time has gone by

debating our amendment, the grounds for the debate have become

successively and progressively more narrow. No government member has

suggested that the shareholders don't have a right to a vote — perhaps

the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) would, but almost no one else would.

No one challenges the democratic precept that every owner of a company,

no matter how small that holding, has the right to question at an

annual meeting the direction of his or her company. If they do, let

them speak now; otherwise we can only presume that you agree with us

that in private enterprise — so too in this enterprise — every

shareholder should have a voice and a vote.

The grounds have

become more narrowed, the debate more specific, the arguments more

literal and pointed. The final argument the minister presents seems to

be that this kind of democracy costs too much. I reply: reduce the

cost; use the systems that are in place; use the facilities that

already exist; take the opportunities that exist now within government

and within its bureaucracy to enable this amendment to succeed. You

haven't opposed it on principle; you've only opposed it because it

costs too much.

May I point out that one of the reasons you

guys were almost dumped is that the only thing you talked about for

three and a half years was the bottom line. The only thing you talked

about in human programs was how much they cost. The only thing you

looked at was the ledger. This time look at something different. Look

at the human value. Look at the human reward when so many people can

participate in their company. The fact that you were so concerned about

that ridiculous bottom line of yours and nothing else almost defeated

you. If you wish to be defeated again, which we would certainly

welcome, deny our amendment and allow us to go to the people and tell

them: "For fear of democracy and spending a little more than they

should, these guys voted down an amendment that would have given you a

vote at the shareholders' meeting." If you want us to go to the people

with that, deny our amendment. If in the first place you don't deny the

principle of the amendment, then find a way to reduce the cost, and

allow the amendment to pass tonight.

MR. HOWARD: I

want to say how much I appreciate the applauding comments from my

colleagues opposite, who are smiling and pleased to see me rise again.

[Applause.] It was just a bit delayed, Mr. Chairman, but with practice

it will improve.

There are a couple of points made by the

minister which, I think, need to be examined here. They are spurious

and incorrect, and leave a false or inaccurate impression with the

Legislature.

While I am on the general subject, the

committee voted earlier to say it is okay for this technical-legal

adviser not to be a stranger and to stay in the House. And I wonder,

looking at the display opposite me — I see the minister and two or

three other people conferring over their desks — whether the Chair

might not say to the gentleman who is this legal adviser from the B.C.

Resources Investment Corporation, or to the minister, that he might as

well sit next to the minister as be hunched over the desk — as he is

doing there — leaving the impression with the gallery that he might

even be a member. I'm serious, Mr. Chairman, in saying that if the hon.

minister so needs that technical advice — and the House has decided

already that the gentleman is not a stranger — he should sit next to

the minister. Then he can get that advice that he so desperately needs.

HON. MR. WOLFE: That's pretty sick, Frank.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The matter has already been determined by this committee. Please proceed.

MR. HOWARD:

I only mentioned it in that way, Mr. Chairman, because the minister was

so engrossed in getting his legal and technical advice that he wasn't

listening to what was happening in the chamber; and I thought that it

was one of the functions of a minister to pay attention to what other

people say. Perhaps that's an indication that he really has a blind ear

for any suggestions made from this side as to how to proceed to

preserve democracy in the corporate organization that is being set up

here.

One of the arguments made was that, in addition to the

cost of printing all this paper that has to go out to shareholders,

there is the cost of transferring ownership on the records of the

company. Perhaps the minister doesn't know that companies are moving

very rapidly into the area of computerizing the transfer of ownership;

the cost becomes negligible in that regard. Secondly, they are moving

in the direction of actually eliminating the pieces of paper, the share

certificates that evidence share ownership. This argument of the

minister's means that he really isn't up to date on what is happening

in the business community, and his argument about transfer falls flat

on that one.

The intention of B.C. Resources Investment

Corporation — because it is the handmaiden to this mechanism that we're

dealing with here — is to set up a procedure different from the normal

procedure in order to pay dividends to the

[ Page 239 ]

holders

of these five-share bearer certificates, if and when they do become

payable. The mechanism being set up here contemplates an advertisement

in the newspapers, or an advertisement somewhere, that....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Maybe I can have the opposition benches come to order so that their own member can be heard. Please continue.

MR. HOWARD:

I'm never, never embarrassed when men of great intellect confer

together in order to present something intelligent to hon. members

opposite.

Already the corporation, Mr. Chairman, is going to

set up a procedure to pay dividends that is at variance with the normal

procedure of paying dividends. They're going to run advertisements some

place in the newspapers which say to the holders of these bearer

certificates: go to a certain place, a dividend-paying agency — and I

don't know what that's going to be, but it will likely be a bank — with

your five-share certificate and tell them who you are, give some proof

as to who you are, or something of that sort, and that dividend-paying

agency will pay dividends out of the corporation and on behalf of the

corporation.

What's wrong with extending that concept of

advertisements to annual meetings? What's wrong with advertising in

newspapers to the holders of the five-share certificates, in saying

that you're going to have an annual meeting, so that the person who has

that five-share bearer certificate in his possession can walk into the

annual meeting and say: "Here I am; I am a shareholder; I've got five

shares. Here’s my certificate; it's in my possession."? It's exactly

the same way as going into a bank or a dividend-paying agency and

picking up his dividend. Why can't you do that? The cost of that is no

greater than advertising with respect to the dividends. The prospectus

issued by B.C. Resources Investment Corporation says that's precisely

the way they're going to pay dividends.

What has occurred

here is that the government made a decision based upon its philosophy

as to how the economy should operate and said to the people of the

province of British Columbia: "Even though you, the people of the

province, acquire these particular assets, by paying for them in some

instances, by guaranteeing debt in another — so far as Can-Cel is

concerned — and even though you, the people of the province of B.C.,

put out money to acquire these assets, inasmuch as we are now going to

transfer or give those assets to a corporation, if you, the people of

B.C. who own those assets, want to have the right to vote you’re going

to have to buy that right to vote. You're going to have to pay for that

right to vote to deal with the assets that you already own and that we

are giving away to B.C. Resources Investment Corporation."

That's

the only way that holders, and those who apply just simply for the five

shares, can possibly acquire the right to vote in this corporation

which is going to own the resources the people themselves acquire. They

either would have done it at the time of applying for the five shares,

by digging into their pockets and forking out an additional minimum of

$570 to buy the additional 95 shares necessary to make up a

100-share-lot, or sometime between now and any time into the future,

scouring around and buying additional shares on the open market. Either

way, the government is telling the people of British Columbia: "You've

got to buy your right to vote with respect to the resources that you

own." That's not out of sympathy with the philosophy of the party

represented by the Minister of Finance and not out of sympathy with the

philosophy of the Premier. It says to those individuals in our society

who cannot afford the extra $570 — and there are some — "You are

disfranchised: you do not have the right any longer to have a say with

respect to this corporation and the resources which it owns and which

you, at one time, used to own. Unless you can dig into your pockets and

come up with the money, you lose your rights."

It is also

saying to those in our society who do not have the inclination to own

shares in a corporation: "If you want to have your right to vote, in

addition to finding the money to buy it you're going to be forced to do

something which you may not want to do.'' The individual's concept or

philosophy may be at variance with the idea of share ownership. Yet if

he desires to have that continuance of his right, to have a say in what

happens to those particular resources, he has got to subdue that

concept and that understanding. Both principles are wrong: for the

government to insist that if people want the right to vote with respect

to the resources they already own that they've got to pay for that

right, or that they’ve got to combine that payment with subduing their

own inclination as to whether or not they even want to own shares. Both

those principles are wrong. They force people to do something which

they may not want to do.

Another reason the minister gave

the House was that everybody knew from day one that these five share

certificates (called bearer certificates) did not contain within them

the right to vote. Everybody knew that, he said. Well, Mr. Chairman,

the Premier of this province wrote me a letter, sometime this past

spring. And the Premier of this province led me to believe otherwise.

The Premier of this province in fact misled me. The Premier of this

province, in fact, wrote in that letter something which is not

accurate; something that was deliberately misleading, something that

was false.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: On a point of order, in

the absence of the Premier I would be pleased if the hon. member would

withdraw his statement that the Premier deliberately misled.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

The member for Skeena has been asked to withdraw the words

"deliberately misled." There are many precedents in this House for it,

so please withdraw it.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, I am

delighted to accede to your request, and I wonder about the sensitivity

of honourable gentlemen opposite. Let me tell you what the Premier told

me in the letter and draw your own conclusions. Now I'm not going to

offend the sensitivities of the House by reading the whole letter.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, yes, read it.

MR. HOWARD: Do you want me to read it all?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Yes, read it!

MR. HOWARD: Oh, well, if you insist. Applaud at the appropriate moments, and I'm sure the members will know

[ Page 240 ]

how

to do that. If you're in doubt as to when to applaud, I'll hold up my

hand and the members opposite will know that that's the point to

applaud. We'll tell the Premier when he gets back who it was that

applauded at the right moments.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the debate will be more appropriate if you address the Chair.

MR. HOWARD: Oh, yes, I'm getting to that. I'm just putting on my glasses to ensure that I have the correct words.

"In

this richly endowed province of ours, continued economic development is

the key to future growth and prosperity. I am writing today to

personally invite you" — that's me — "and your family to participate in

this development" — there are then three dots — "as shareholders in the

British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation.

"Specifically,

I" — now this is the Premier saying he's doing this — "am offering to

every eligible man, woman and child in British Columbia five free

shares in a company which was formed through legislation passed in 1977

to remove from government those investments which, it was felt, could

be more properly operated and owned in the private sector.

"These

investments include companies which between them operate a total of two

pulp mills, five sawmills, one plywood mill and an interest in a gas

pipeline system, and the government added to the new company's assets

oil and gas exploration rights of more than two million acres in the

northeast of British Columbia.

"An estimated

2.4 million British Columbians are eligible to receive free shares in

BCRIC. If this vast number accepts the offer, as I sincerely hope they

will, the corporation will be the most broadly based public company of

Canada today. At a time when the control of industries is falling into

fewer and fewer hands, this would truly be a positive step."

This is the point I want to comment upon, but the gentlemen insisted that I read through to it, and I think it was worthwhile:

"To you, the individual citizen, the shares represent real ownership of a portion of our resource industries."

What

does real ownership mean? It must mean something exceptional to the

Premier, because he underlined the words. Ownership — never mind real —

has two fundamental aspects to it: one is possession and the other is

the opportunity to do something with that which you possess. That's

what it means: possession and the opportunity to deal with that which

it is you possess. Here, insofar as these bearer certificates are

concerned, they purport to be ownership of a portion of a company which

owns some resources. All that's involved is that the individual will

have possession of a piece of paper which will be called a bearer

certificate. He cannot take that piece of paper to his company at its

annual meeting and say: "I want to have a say; I want to deal with it;

I want to say something about that which I'm supposed to own."

The

second aspect of the ownership question is the opportunity and the

ability to be able to deal with in some way that which you possess is

gone and doesn't exist — unless the individual buys that right. When

the Premier wrote to me and told me and others in this province that

the shares represent real ownership, the Premier was not telling the

truth. It's a partial truth and it's misleading. If the Minister of

Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) wants me to withdraw it, then he'll have the

opportunity to request me to withdraw it. I say that letter was

deliberately written to leave the impression that I would own something

which I do not.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: On a point of

order, Mr. Chairman. The member has again alleged a deliberate

statement on the part of the Premier, and I ask him to withdraw.

MR. HOWARD:

The Minister of Labour has just now said that I made a reference to the

Premier making a deliberate statement. He did make a deliberate

statement, and I just read the letter to show what that deliberate

statement was.

MR. CHAIRMAN: He asked you to withdraw that the Premier deliberately misled someone.

MR. HOWARD:

I never said that. I said it once and I withdrew it on the first

occasion. But if you want me to withdraw the fact that the Premier made

a deliberate statement, you bet I'll gladly do that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would like you to withdraw the fact that you said the Premier's letter was deliberately misleading.

MR. HOWARD:

I did not say that. If that seemed to be what I said and hon. members

are offended by that and have taken that

interpretation from it,

they're taking the incorrect

interpretation. I'll withdraw what I said

about the Premier making deliberate statements, if you insist upon

that. The Premier wrote to everybody in this province and said to the

individual citizen those five free shares represent real ownership. He

said that deliberately. He wrote the letter. I assume he knows what

he's doing.

If you want me to withdraw that as well I will.

I assume the Premier knew what he was doing and knew what he was

saying. The impression left in this letter is contrary to what the

Minister of Finance said, namely that everybody knew from day one that

these shares would not be voteable. This letter says otherwise.

Nowhere

in that letter, Mr. Chairman, does the Premier tell the people of

British Columbia that they can't vote those five shares. Another thing

the Premier said was that he hoped every person who was eligible to

apply for these five shares, would also take advantage of the

opportunity to buy 5,000 additional shares. If every one of those 2.4

million people would have bought not the 5,000 shares but would have

bought an extra 95, every one of them would have become holders of 100

shares. They would have been able to register them, and the company

would have to mail out 2.4 million pieces of literature about the

annual meeting. That seems okay, but not if they just hold the

five-share certificates. They're entitled to receive notice of the

annual meeting only if they own 100 shares.

Either way, it's still 2.4 million shareholders and it's still 2.4 million pieces of paper.

[ Page 241 ]

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD:

If they desire to say anything in this debate, they can take the

opportunity to do so by standing up instead of chattering like a bunch

of jackals from their seats.

As the member for

Maillardville–Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) pointed out, every other corporation

is required by law to send out these notices. They are required to have

the shareholders attend the meetings. If anybody owns one share, never

mind five, in B.C. Telephone Company, then that share is registerable

on the books of the company. The holder of that share is entitled to

receive, and does receive from the company, the various pieces of paper

the company sends out from time to time. He doesn't even have to take

that piece of paper with him — the certificate. He's entitled to go to

the annual meeting and stand up and ask B.C. Telephone officers what

they're doing with the company which he has one share in; but not here,

not under this peculiar system that's being developed now. All, I am

sure, it's designed to do is for this party and this government to say

to the average people in this province: "You no longer are going to

have the rights that you held before. Somebody else is going to have

those rights and is going to exercise those rights." And that "somebody

else" are going to be the ones, as was enunciated earlier, who control

B.C. Telephone Company, who control MacMillan Bloedel, who control B.C.

Sugar, and who control all the other corporations in this province.

That is the shameful part about what's happening here.

It's

very disgraceful, very disturbing; and while I've been asked to use

language which is appropriate and doesn't impinge upon the

sensitivities of the Liberal Minister of Labour, because I'm sure he's

still a participant in that great party, the essence of it is here in

the letter from the Premier; the essence of it is here in the attitude

of the minister. No matter how valid the arguments put up in opposition

to the idea, he comes down on the side that says he can't accept the

amendment because the Premier said earlier in the campaign that from

day one, whenever that was, no such amendments would be accepted. He

can't accept the amendments, because he says it's going to cost the

company a lot of money.

That corporation, B.C. Resources

Investment Corporation, had handed to it on a silver or golden platter

resources of this province, and it didn't cost that corporation one

single cent to get them. Not a penny. They were given to them, and the

corporation now gloats about having retained earnings of $15 million or

$16 million. No wonder! You don't have to put out anything to acquire

the assets that you get and they're generating dividend income and

profits as those corporations are. No wonder they can gloat about

retained earnings — retained earnings that should belong to the people

of this province, but are not going to, and are not going to be

distributed to the people of this province, no way whatever.

I'd

just conclude by saying it's a shameful moment in the history, I think,

of this Legislature and this government that the House should be asked

to embark upon a provision in a bill — not by way of the amendment —

which says, in its final analysis, that the people of this province

don't have the right to have any say in whatever it is that’s going to

happen to the corporation which has been given assets they once owned.

MR. LEGGATT:

I want to add a word to my colleague's comments concerning the tragedy

that the voting rights aren't transferred to the bearer shareholders.

Just a point of history: these assets were transferred to this private

corporation for a paper value of $151 million. Most objective

assessments valued those assets at that time at about $300 million.

Three hundred million dollars of the assets of the people of the

province of British Columbia will now go into the hands of a small

percentage, basically, of those 60,000 people who have applied to

register as voting stock. That's the reality of this particular debate,

and the reality of the government's refusal to accept this amendment is

that they have confirmed this theft from the people of British Columbia

to the few people who still own and control most of the assets in the

province.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I rise to

participate in this debate with a positive note. I don't want to have

the negative attitude that some of the members on my side have

expounded. I know that the amendment will be accepted by the great

majority of the private MLAs in this House. I'll tell you why: the

members of this House had the opportunity and the responsibility when

the assets of this company were Crown corporations to question every

director of these companies and to keep on top of the business of the

people's industries. There is no MLA in this House who wants to sluff

off that responsibility. There is no one who denies what the Premier of

this province said: there is no cost to approved private ownership.

Money is not an object. The Premier stood up in this House and said

that private ownership of these resources will be protected. If you are

given private ownership, there is no such thing as free. You are given

private responsibility. It is the responsibility of each shareholder of

that company, if they are going to share in the profits of this

company, to share in the responsibility of seeing that those who

control these industries are doing an honest job. This is the

responsibility that this amendment is giving back to the MLAs. It is

ensuring that we are the ombudsmen, the Ralph Naders of this province.

We have the responsibility to be on top of that company to protect the

interests of the shareholders of this company.

I can't see

any of my brothers across the House who want to shuck that

responsibility. Most of them are like me. We represent the working

people of this province, not those who can go out and spend $570. There

are millions of people out there who cannot afford to put out $570, and

we, the MLAs, represent those people.

I know a famous

statement that was bandied across this province: "Not one dime without

debate." I know there is not an MLA in this House who would allow this

corporation to have one dime without debate. There is not an MLA who

would do that — not on my side of the House, Mr. Chairman. I am sure

that famous statement was credited to a person sitting on the other

side of the House, and I know that the members over there will support

his position of "not one dime without debate.''

There is no

way we can sit back and not accept the amendment proposed on this side

of the House, because it protects the interests, assets and the

tradition that was established by this House and has been placed in the

hands of the corporation. We cannot take that responsibility away from

the private members of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia and

lose it to a select group.

[ Page 242 ]

were elected to do a job. I know the responsibility must lie with the

private members. I have confidence that there are enough members on

both sides of the House who will accept that responsibility, who will

support the Premier against the minister when he says there is no cost

that should be used to deny the private ownership of these great

resources of our province.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. MITCHELL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

MR. CHAIRMAN:

Order, please. For the benefit for the member for Esquimalt–Port

Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell), we are in committee now and have been for some

time. Therefore it would be best if you would refer to me as Mr.

Chairman.

MR. MITCHELL: I stand corrected, Mr. Chairman. I will not use that famous word "Rogers."

Getting

back to what I was saying, there is no cost, and we must accept that

responsibility. I can assure you that each one of us as MLAs has a job

to do: to attend annual meetings, to stand up and to question the

operation of this corporation. We have that responsibility because this

corporation was created by this chamber. It was formed by this chamber.

It was paid for by the people of this province. This responsibility

must continue to rest on our shoulders.

I feel confident

there are many people on both sides of this House who, deep down and

underneath all their laughs and jokes and kidding, support the

principle of "not one dime without debate."

When they go

into caucus I know they will express that. How are they going to go

back to their constituents? How are they going to justify that they

would not accept the responsibility that was given to them by their

election?

I ask you to honestly, in the name of justice and

in the name of responsibility, accept the amendment as sincerely

proposed and to give the people of this province not only something

free but the opportunity to share in the responsibility of running this

great corporation.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: In view of the misapprehensions some members have with respect to this amendment, perhaps I could make a few remarks.

has been suggested by members opposite that somehow or other the bearer

shares constitute a major departure from share ownership rights. While

the issue of bearer shares is not one in general practice in North

America, it is certainly found extensively in corporate organizations

throughout other parts of the world. In the organization of our

corporate affairs in this country, we can draw very heavily upon some

of the favourable experiences which have been proven by long practice

in other countries.

I would also, however, point out to you

that the concept of non-voting shares is not in any way unique in this

country. What we have in this corporation is a very happy marriage of

two concepts: one where you can acquire shares which in bearer form are

non-voting, but which in the fullness of time, and with the acquisition

of additional shares, can, without any influence on the part of the

corporation, become voting shares, an opportunity which all members

should appreciate.

Aside from the obvious lack of

understanding on the part of members with regard to corporate share

structure, I find other aspects of the debate unusual, to say the least.

was suggested by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) that somehow

or other the citizens of this province were misled with respect to the

acquisition of these shares. I urge the member for Skeena to look back

into the record as to when the first announcement was made with respect

to the offering of five shares to each citizen of the province without

consideration. I ask him to recognize that same announcement made it

abundantly clear that acquisition of 100 shares in the corporation

would be required in order to exercise voting rights. From the very

outset, the opportunity has been available to citizens of this province

to recognize precisely the conditions upon which the five free shares

were offered to them and their rights with respect to the exercising of

votes in the corporation's affairs. There was no misleading, unless the

misleading comes from those members who find it politically opportune

to leave the impression that somehow or other the citizens of the

province have been dealt with unfairly by their government.

offer another reason for opposing this amendment. Much has been said

about "not a dime without debate," and the rights of members of this

assembly. As the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) was

speaking, it occurred to me that two of the principal assets of BCRIC

are shares in Westcoast Transmission and Can-Cel, shares which were

acquired by the government of the province of British Columbia out of

taxpayers' money. Whether as a member of this assembly or a citizen of

this province, you had no say in the way in which those shares should

be voted, not any say at all.

The right to vote those shares

in the hands of the government was controlled by the cabinet of this

province. Never once was there the opportunity in this House to debate

how those shares should be voted. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Barrett) and his colleagues were the ones who decided if and when those

shares should be voted, and how. Not even the caucus was given the

opportunity to express its views as to how those shares should be

voted. Don't come in this House, Mr. Member, and suggest that when

60,000-plus citizens in the province are going to be given the

opportunity to vote in this corporation — in excess of 1.5 million

people in this province will exercise ownership rights with regard to

BCRIC — that the situation isn't massively changed from what it was in

the days when the New Democratic Party were the government of this

province. Don't talk to me about the way in which the people own these

shares. The people's money may have been used to acquire those assets,

but a small, select group who occupied seats in this House were the

ones who decided what the fortunes of those corporations would be, and

the manner in which those shares would be voted.

Interjections.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS:

That is the way it was done under the government which first acquired

those shares. Don't try to mislead the people of the province of

British Columbia that somehow or other there was the opportunity to

influence in any significant way the manner in which the cabinet of the

day would exercise its control over those two corporations.

[ Page 243 ]

Mr.

Chairman, the amendment which you have before you does not recognize

the fact of corporate organization, but it does clearly indicate the

very significant distinction between this side of the House and that

one concerning the rights of citizens. I urge you all to defeat this

amendment.

MR. HOWARD: I couldn't resist the

invitation extended to me by the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr.

Williams). While he is quite accurate and correct in saying that the

concept of non-voting shares is not new in this country, what he failed

to tell the House was that non-voting shares are almost invariably

confined to that class of shares called preferred or preference.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD:

The minister says: "Nonsense." Almost invariably, the class of shares

called preferred or preference are non-voting shares. The holder of

these shares is guaranteed, to the extent that earnings are available

to pay it, first crack at dividends. If there is any money left over,

the common shareholders or ordinary shareholders come next in line.

Because the holder of preference or preferred shares is guaranteed a

certain dividend, he forgoes the right to vote those shares, unless —

and this depends upon the way the incorporation took place — the

company falls in arrears of paying dividends on those preferred shares.

If arrearages do occur....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member,

perhaps I could read you the amendment, because we are now straying

quite a long way from the amendment. There was no previous reference

made to preferred shares. It's just another facet of corporate

organization which is not applicable in this particular amendment. It

may be applicable in another time and another debate, but we are

broadening the scope of the debate by getting into the various clauses

and types of preferred shares, which is a brand new debate which you

are just starting at this time. I find it difficult to find any

relevance to this particular amendment.

MR. HOWARD: I

accept that, Mr. Chairman. You did not find it so difficult in

listening to the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams), because he is

the one who made reference to non-voting shares and failed or refused

to take the next step and explain fully what it was he was talking

about.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the Chair will have

to point out that there is such a thing as non-voting common shares,

and I assumed that that was what the minister was talking about. The

reference in this bill has been always to common shares throughout. If

you want to widen that, I as the Chairman am duty-bound by this

committee to ensure that the debate does not become wider than is

absolutely necessary. By entering into discussion of various types of

preferred shares — and, hon. member, I know how extensive this debate

can be — I can inform you that this is beyond the scope of this

particular amendment.

MR. HOWARD: I gladly accede,

Mr. Chairman. All I was trying to do was put into balance the erroneous

impression left in the chamber by the Minister of Labour. He suggested

that the House might and I particularly — he was looking in my

direction when he said it — might look at the original statement made

by the Premier. The date of that, in case he has forgotten it, is

January 11 of this year.

I say to the hon. minister, through

you, Mr. Chairman, that I did in fact look at that, and I read it from

back to front. Let me just say in brief reference to it, again to clear

up an erroneous impression left by the minister, that in that statement

of the Premier, without going into great detail quoting from it, in

page after page, on the first page of it, he makes two references to

these five shares. On the next page, page 2, he makes another couple of

references to these five shares. On page 3 he makes four or five

references to these five shares. On page 4 he talks about how they're

going to get the shares from B.C. Resources Investment Corporation to

pay off the note that B.C. Resources Investment Corporation gave to the

government in return for the assets.

And then at the end of

the fourth page — and this was a press statement by the Premier —

there's a "30" indicating in, as I understand it anyway, normal media

appreciation of these things, that that's the end of that statement. In

that formal statement embracing four pages, nowhere does the Premier

make one solitary single reference to these shares being non-voting.

Now

we get, attached to it, another thing called "Background," and it talks

about the background of B.C. Resources Investment Corporation, what its

assets are, how it was set up, who the officers are and so on and says

this, and this is the first intimation that maybe there is something

different involved. On page 3 of the background material in this

statement, it says: "On completion of the share issue at the next

annual meeting, the new shareholders of record will have the

opportunity to elect their own board of directors and so on, or expand

the board of directors." Only there, to anybody having any knowledge

about what a shareholder of record is, is the indication that maybe if

you wanted to read it, you would find that a shareholder of record

might not be the person who owned or had in his possession the

five-share certificate. But there is no direct statement.

Again,

at the end of that background material, there is another "30,"

indicating that's the end of that. Now we get some other pages called

"Highlights of Share Distribution." In those highlights on the first

page it says that each eligible resident may receive one unit of five

common shares. There's no reference to voting at all.

On the

next-to-the-last page of the whole document, down near the bottom, it

does say and I knew this before because I had read it: "In order to

significantly reduce registration costs, voting and registration rights

are restricted to shareholders of 100 shares or more." I want to point

out that in a whole range of conversation and discussion only at the

very end, almost hidden from public view, was the reference that a

person needed 100 shares in order to register them and have them vote.

It doesn't say anything but the five-share certificates. If the Premier

really wanted to disclose that in its full force, as it is a necessary

thing, he would have done so at the beginning.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hidden from public view.

MR. HOWARD:

Not hidden from public view, as my hon. friend opposite suggests. It

may have been hidden from his view— and that's perfectly, perfectly

understand-

[ Page 244 ]

able. It would not be the first thing that's been hidden from his view, even though it was right in front of him.

In that statement of January 11 — B.C. Government News

deals with the same subject matter in great detail later on — the

Premier treats the question of possession of the five-share

certificates in an offhand, cavalier way as if it just really didn't

mean anything to him that people who owned or held those shares in

their possession would not be able to vote. It meant nothing to the

government that the citizens of this province who just happened to want

to hold a five-share certificate would not have the right to have any

say in the operation of the corporation.

I want to express

my very, very extreme grateful thanks to the Minister of Labour (Hon.

Mr. Williams) for having underlined that particular matter.

Amendment defeated on the following division:

YEAS — 23

Barrett

King

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Lea

Nicolson

Hall

Leggatt

Howard

Levi

Sanford

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Gabelmann

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS — 27

Waterland

Nielsen

McClelland

Williams

Hewitt

Mair

Vander Zalm

Heinrich

Ritchie

Strachan

Brummet

Ree

Segarty

Curtis

McCarthy

Phillips

Gardom

Wolfe

McGeer

Fraser

Jordan

Kempf

Davis

Davidson

Smith

Mussallem

Hyndman

Mr. Barber requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

MR. BARBER:

Section 2 would repeal

section 4 of the 1977 Act which reads as

follows: "On any offering of shares of the company to the public at

large, preference shall be given to orders received from residents of

the province."

The government proposes in this amendment to abandon altogether even the pretence

that British Columbia comes first. How can you defend that? You ran around

this province during the campaign trying to persuade people that just because

you sold the Gray Line to the Americans, just because you sold Panco's processing

plant to Cargill, what you really meant all along was that B.C. wasn't for

sale and B.C. came first. Look at the bill in front of us, Mr. Chairman. They

propose to repeal the only guarantee that British Columbians ever did have:

"On any offering of shares of the company to the public at large, preference

shall be given to orders received from residents of the province."

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Well,

if the residents of B.C. no longer come first, who does? Your American

friends running Gray Line? Your American friends in Cargill

International? Your American friends who ship campaign donations up

here every election time? Who does come first if the residents of

British Columbia don't? What you're doing in

section 2 of this bill is

telling the people that they no longer come first at all.

What

kind of a pattern is unfolding here, Mr. Chairman? What they can sell,

they sell to Americans. What they give away, they give away to a

company that's going to fall into the hands of a very small number of

people and their corporations. What they can do they've done in this

section, and they've eliminated altogether any preferential treatment

for British Columbians. Now what's the point of that? Why would even

this group of opportunists abandon within two months of the election a

promise they made during the election? Even by the standards of those

Liberals, this is, to say the least, just a little weird. During the

campaign they said British Columbia would come first, and then the

Irish. Now it appears British Columbia doesn't come first at all.

Now

when this kind of change is made and when such magnitude is at hand

during the making of it, you have to ask who stands to benefit. Why

would they expose themselves to obvious and expected criticism? Why

would they stand up and admit that they're repealing all preferential

treatment for British Columbians? Because that's what the burden of

this amendment does. They're not replacing it with something new or

better; they've repealed it altogether.

Well, maybe you have

to ask whose interests are served, and when you ask that, you have to

ask whose interests are always served by Social Credit. What are those

interests? They are corporate interests. And those corporate interests,

it would appear, prefer not to have to deal with a

section of a bill

that gives preferential treatment to British Columbians, because their

loyalties are centred in another part of the country, or in some other

country altogether. Why would any government, even this group, abandon

the only guarantee that British Columbians come first? Presumably they

have to do it because their friends come firster. There's no other

explanation. There's no other defence. There's no other way to

interpret this wholesale abandonment of a commitment made by a Premier

who was presumably supposed to be believed when he told us British

Columbia would come first and British Columbians would get preference.

May

I say it again?

Section 2 of this bill reads: "Section 4 is repealed."

When you read

section 4, it says: "On any offering of shares of the

company to the public at large, preference shall be given to orders

received from residents of the province." Why would they do such a

thing? Who asked them to do it? Who prompted them to do it? Who will

obtain benefit from it having been done?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Can I explain it, Charlie?

MR. BARBER: In a moment. I have more questions. You may have more answers.

[ Page 245 ]

I'm

asking who stands to benefit from a repudiation of your own promise

that British Columbians would come first. Now I presume that what the

minister will tell us is that, because they got the five free shares,

which are worthless in terms of votes, they had already gotten all that

the people of British Columbia could reasonably expect and they

shouldn’t ask for more — it's not polite to ask for more. He will also

go on to tell us that the share offering with the up-to-5,000 limit,

which expired on June 15, somehow compensates those who took them at

their word, and somehow explains why the original

section 4 of the 1977

Act has been repealed. I presume that will be their defence. If it is,

let me tell you in advance: you needn't waste your breath. It's a

wholly inadequate defence. No matter what you did by June 15, the

corporation continues thereafter.

In subsequent offerings

residents of British Columbia should come first, period — not second or

third or last, but first. That's what the bill originally said. We

liked that part of the bill and back in 1977 we said so. Now it's 1979.

You've barely survived a provincial election. One of the reasons you

just barely survived it was that a lot of people have become very

cynical about Socred promises. Before and during the election the

Premier told us the province wasn't for sale and that British

Columbians came first. What does he do? As soon as he's back in office

he's repealing the only guarantee that British Columbians ever had that

they would come first.

Now I can only presume that's an

accident. I can only presume that the Premier has been listening to the

wrong folks and that he didn't really mean it. I couldn't believe for a

moment that the Premier was fibbing; no one could persuade me of that.

I couldn't believe for a moment that the Premier was trying to persuade

people of a false premise. Not even the articulate member for Omineca

(Mr. Kempf) could persuade me of that.

I can't believe for a

moment that the Premier would have attempted to deceive the people of

British Columbia — not this Premier, surely. So in order to perfect the

legislation in front of us, in order to ascertain for once and for all

that the Premier meant what he said when he said that British

Columbians came first, I would move that

section 2, line 1, be amended

by adding after the word "repealed": "and the following substituted:

'On any offering of shares of the company to the public at large,

orders shall only be received from residents of the province'." The

legislation, as amended, would read as follows: "Section 4 is repealed

and the following substituted: 'On any offering of shares of the

company to the public at large, orders shall only be received from

residents of the province'." I am sure the government would not object.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please continue.

MR. BARBER: Do you find the amendment in order, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: We are just deciding that, so would you like to continue while we do that?

MR. BARBER: Is that in order for me to do so?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, please continue.

MR. BARBER: While you are considering that, you might refer to Hansard ,

April 5, 1977, page 2560, in a decision of Gibson versus the

government, in which an amendment proposed by Mr. Gibson was found in

order. I think there are, to say the least, parallels between his and

my own. Knowing that you will find it in order, I will continue to tell

you that I can't see any reasonable grounds why you would oppose this

amendment. It's your own Premier who made the promise; it's your own

party that promoted it during the campaign; it's your own government

that passed the 1977 legislation. If these guarantees were good enough

in 1977, why aren't they good enough today? What is the matter with

British Columbians coming first today? What objection do you have to

that? What reasonable objection can you make to that?

The

principle is very simple. Many of us will speak on it, but I won't

speak much longer, because it is so simple it only needs to be said

once. They should come first; they did come first in your own Act.

Accept our amendment and let British Columbians come first again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment is in order, Mr. Member.

On the amendment.

MR. LEGGATT:

Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to comment on a couple of things briefly. I

won't add to the argument presented by the mover of the amendment, but

I think we should inquire as to why the Premier decided to repeal

section 4. I think it is worthwhile to look into the logic of this

particular change from the old bill. During the course of the

introduction of this amending bill by the Premier, he took me to task

for suggesting that these shares could wind up in Zurich or in London

or New York, and suggested that I hadn't done very much in the way of

homework in examining the contents of the bill to see whether there

wasn't some provision which prevented sales of these shares abroad.

fact, I had looked at the bill. I am aware that the bill, as presently

written, does provide restrictions upon transfers or sales of those

shares outside of Canada. But when you examine the rationale for

amending

section 4 of the original bill, why would you take away the

B.C. preference? Well, it's pretty clear you want a wider market. It is

pretty clear, Mr. Chairman, that David Helliwell has said: "You've only

got about 60,000 people buying these things, now we want to get out to

the rest of the country to buy these things. We need to raise funds,

and it's clearly more marketable to get into the rest of the country."

What

is the next step, Mr. Chairman? What is the next step for the Premier?

The next step is very clearly to further amend this bill and remove the

restrictions on foreign ownership, with regard to these shares. There

is just no other logic to the reason that this particular

section was

amended in the first place. Now if you want to demonstrate to the

citizens of British Columbia that you are serious about keeping this

corporation owned and controlled in British Columbia, it's simple.

We'll quit debating right now if the Minister of Finance would just

stand up and say: "We accept the amendment; we accept the logic behind

it. It seems perfectly reasonable that we should try to keep the

promises that we made to the people of the province of British

Columbia. It is perfectly reasonable. We don't want

[ Page 246 ]

you fellows raising this scare of foreign ownership; we can solve it right now. We'll go back to where we started."

But,

Mr. Chairman, the people of this province have every right to examine

the rationale behind this particular amendment, and the rationale is

exactly the same one that will be on the floor of this House next year

when the minister comes back with another amendment to remove the

restrictions on the purchase of these shares by foreign investors.

Then, Mr. Chairman, we will not only lose control of these shares in

Canada, but the share ownership will be abroad. The assets themselves

can now be transferred. There's no restriction on foreign investors to

transfer these assets to buy the company. The only restriction is on

the sale of the shares. I predict right now that restriction is going

to come off next year anyway. So show your sincerity and accept the

amendment.

MR. BARRETT: I regret that business

circumstances have compelled the Premier not to be present in the House

tonight. I appreciate that there are other pressing matters. I think it

would be worthwhile on this particular

section to hold the debate over

until the Premier comes back. He's the one who expounded the theory

that you as a government and a party tried to sell across this province

that B.C. is not for sale.

We've offered an amendment to the

legislation to ensure that the Premier's word is kept. All the minister

has to do is nod and say he agrees, or get on the phone and call the

Premier and tell him about the amendment, and we can get on with the

business of the House. I don't think it's fair for us to debate this

when the Premier is not here or at least have some signal from the

minister that the Premier would reject this amendment. The minister has

to carry the can all around this province for the fact that the Premier

made one statement, but the legislation is going in an absolutely

contradictory direction from the Premier's statement.

Do you

know what could happen if we don't have this amendment, Mr. Minister?

The Americans will be able to buy shares eventually; the Japanese will

be able to buy shares; and something even worse, Ian Sinclair may be

able to buy shares. What do you think of that — an eastern Canadian

buying shares? You talk about foreign ownership. That's going too far.

Who in this province defined that Ian Sinclair was not wanted with

Canadian investment? I know who it was; it was the Premier of this

province who said to the CPR, a Canadian company: "You stay out of

British Columbia. B.C.'s not for sale." IBM is okay; IT&T is okay;

so are Rayonier, Crown, or any other international organization. But

I'm telling you that unless you pass this amendment, Ian Sinclair is

going to buy shares in BCRIC and make the Premier look foolish. We

cannot afford to have the Premier of this province made to look foolish

so frequently.

I know that Ian Sinclair is sitting back

there in Montreal right now monitoring this debate, and will go rushing

down, and he'll buy shares in BCRIC and he'll stand up publicly in

Vancouver and call a press conference and say: "Hey, Bill, I outfoxed

you."

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: No, he just turned his monitor off.

MR. BARRETT: No, you're thinking about what's happening in the hospitals because of lack of staff. You've got it mixed up.

saw the performance by the Premier: "This province is not for sale. I

told Ian to head back to Montreal." Beat it, Big Julie. We saw him

waving his hands around and doing the television number and saying:

"I'm protecting the interests of this province."

We've

offered an amendment tonight that challenges this government to prove

they mean B.C.'s not for sale. If there was ever an opening for a

monstrous sell-out of the resources of the province of British

Columbia, we begin to see the story unfold step by step by the way

you've handled the BCRIC shares.

My colleague, the member

for Victoria (Mr. Barber), has put forward amendments that are in

order. You can't dodge behind a question of upholding the Chairman. The

issue is clear: it's not a ruling of the House; it's simply accepting

these amendments to avoid any loss of control by the people of British

Columbia, Canadian citizens residing in this province, of those assets

that were bought in the first place by the people of British Columbia

through their tax funds.

Do you think it was ever the

intention of the taxpayers of this province to buy those assets, to

have a government come into power and create a device to allow those

assets to slip out of the control of the people of British Columbia

into international hands?

Although I've referred to the

exchange between the Premier and Ian Sinclair with some jest, it is a

fact that the Premier did clearly say in all seriousness, in his

sweatsuit, that B.C. was not for sale. Now we have an opportunity of

taking shares of Westcoast Transmission, Plateau Mills, Kootenay Forest

Products and unnamed gas leases, and we're going to hand them over,

holus-bolus to anybody who appears in the marketplace, regardless of

where they reside, their nationality, or the language they speak. And

they with their money can take control of assets that 18 months ago

were completely in the hands of the people of British Columbia.

During

the election campaign I asked the Premier to come on television with me

and we'd discuss these things. He wouldn't do it. Some people went

around saying the Premier was afraid to do it. I never said he was

afraid; I just kept on wondering why he didn't show up.

colleague, the former Minister of Finance, the member for Nanaimo (Mr.

Stupich), challenged the Minister of Finance to have a debate to

discuss these issues and, at the last minute, the Minister of Finance

didn't show up for a debate with my colleague. But by law they have to

have a debate here in this House, and the questions that were not put

in a public debate during the election campaign must now be put in this

House. Those questions are: will you guarantee us that these assets

will stay in the control of people who live and work and earn their

life's bread in this province, or are you prepared to defeat these

amendments and allow another massive sellout to take place in the

province of British Columbia?

The government of the day is

elected to defend the interests of the taxpayers of the jurisdiction

they represent. You don't represent the taxpayers in New York; you

don't represent the taxpayers in Tokyo or London. Can you tell me why

we should leave a loophole to allow those taxpayers in another

jurisdiction to reap the benefits of the profits of the resources of

this province, while the people of this province are burdened with the

debts of B.C. Hydro and B.C. Rail, inspired by previous Social Credit

governments?

[ Page 247 ]

So,

Mr. Minister, the challenge is very clear. You have two choices: one is

to ask the committee chairman, who's an amiable person and who has my

complete respect in all of his rulings — those that are supported by a

vote of this House especially — to withdraw this particular bill and

hold it over until the man who announced this whole scheme to the

people of British Columbia is here in the House to defend it.

There

is no reason why any person representing any jurisdiction or any

constituency in this House should be asked to debate this particular

section without the author of this whole idea being present in the

House defending his position in front of the only court that he's

forced to come to a debate in — not television he can run away from,

not a committee meeting.

The Premier has a duty to the

people of this province, and to this House, to be present when this

debate takes place. Unless the bill is pulled suspicion is going to be

around that the bill was deliberately called while the Premier was

absent so he wouldn't have to face the heat on this bill.

Far

be it from me to spread that suspicion around this province, but there

are two great newspapers in Vancouver, who, once they begin to publish,

may raise the question: why was it that when Big Julie was in town a

skiing trip was interrupted, but when the chips were down and the bill

was debated in the forum where even the Premier couldn't run away, the

bill wasn't held over until the Premier came back? Shame! Just nod your

head and tell me you are pulling the bill and waiting for the other

Bill to come back.

MR. COCKE: If he nodded his head, it would fall off!

MR. BARRETT:

It's very easy for us to make little jests. The opening is there for us

to jibe the government a little bit, to tweak the minister's nose. We

can't quite reach over there but we could, nonetheless, figuratively if

not literally. The opportunity is here to remind the House of Big Julie

and that charade.

In all seriousness, the question of the

Premier's own word to the people of British Columbia is at stake right

here in this particular amendment offered by my colleague for Victoria.

We should not debate this without him being here. This House shouldn't

be asked to pass this amendment or deal with it at 10:30 of an evening

when the Premier is not here.

Who was it who bore the whole

brunt of the inspirational birth of the BCRIC share concept but the

Premier himself? Who was it who told the people of this province that

this was an instrument for the people of British Columbia to have a

direct ownership say in their own resources? Who was it who used as a

campaign theme that B.C. was not for sale and BCRIC was a method of

guaranteeing control of those assets? It was the Premier. And now, when

my colleague for Victoria calls the crunch in the debate that the

Premier deliberately avoided during the election campaign, that the

Minister of Finance deliberately avoided during the campaign, a device

is found to bring the bill forward when the Premier again avoids his

direct face-to-face responsibility in this House to explain to us why

he won't give this guarantee.

I've made the point very

clear, and I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to

sit again, with the understanding that this should be put over until

the Premier comes back and sits in here and tells us why he's not

protecting the people of this province.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 23

Barrett

King

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Lea

Nicolson

Hall

Leggatt

Howard

Levi

Sanford

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Wallace

Gabelmann

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

Barber

NAYS — 27

Waterland

Nielsen

McClelland

Williams

Hewitt

Mair

Vander Zalm

Ritchie

Strachan

Brummet

Segarty

Curtis

McCarthy

Phillips

Gardom

Wolfe

McGeer

Fraser

Jordan

Davis

Davidson

Smith

Mussallem

Hyndman

Kempf

Heinrich

Ree

MR. BARRETT:

Mr. Chairman. now that the government House Leader (Hon. Mr. Gardom) is

back in the House, let me share with him my opinion that on this

important debate it would be appropriate to stand this bill over and go

on to other business, so that the Premier is back when this very

important issue is being debated. It is the Premier who made the point

that B.C. is not for sale, and this amendment makes that promise a

reality. I suggest that if the government does not wish to carry over

this bill, it will be interpreted as a deliberate attempt to protect

the Premier from defending his position on this legislation and, on

this bill, from accountability to this House.

There's lots

of other legislation on the order paper, lots of other work that can be

done. I'm sure that the opposition could find legislative devices to

keep this going until the Premier comes back, which would only mean a

useless waste of time. I have known it to happen in the past when

Social Credit was in opposition and when there were some Liberals in

this House.

I am suggesting to the government House Leader

that the Premier himself should be here for the debate on this

amendment. He should say that we will call the bill back when the

Premier comes back.

Maybe he's not coming back. There are a

couple of them who don't want him back. There is the first member — or

is he the second member for Surrey....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Could the hon. member please relate this to the amendment?

MR. BARRETT:

His other ambitions are just temporarily bridled until the last cabinet

posts are filled. You'll see them explode — tick, tick, tick.

[ Page 248 ]

is obvious that the government has been instructed to protect the

Premier from the delicacies of this kind of debate. Oh, yes, it's

coming through because you know and I know that in committee stage of a

bill it can be delayed and delayed and delayed until the Premier comes

back. Bill 9 was ahead of it, and Bill 11 was ahead on the order paper.

I've been waiting for three days to get my amendments on Bill 11.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: "Phooey," he says. I'm not interested in your stomach problems. I want some leadership in this House.

AN HON. MEMBER: You always make me sick!

MR. BARRETT:

Shame on you for saying things like that. You don't mean that. The

Premier of this province is accountable to this House. He runs away

from television debates; he runs away from public statements, but he

can't run away from his accountability in this House. I am suggesting

that the bill be pulled, and we debate it when the Premier comes back.

It was he who said: "B.C.'s not for sale." Here is an opportunity for

us to record his vote on whether or not he meant that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, while I have your attention, we are on an amendment.

MR. BARRETT: That's correct, and the amendment's in order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The amendment's in order, and standing orders do make reference to it being strictly relevant.

MR. BARRETT: Yes. Could you read it again so we understand how relevant I am, please?

MR. CHAIRMAN:

I believe, hon. member, this amendment has been read before: "...by

adding after the word 'repealed': 'and the following substituted: 'on

any offering of shares by the company to the public at large, orders

shall only be received from residents of the province'. "

MR. BARRETT:

That is correct. Orders shall only be received from residents of the

province. That means that we say that by passing this amendment, B.C.

is not for sale. And if — quoting the Premier's words — "B.C. is not

for sale," is not in order, I don't know what else is in order in this

House.

The question I raise around this amendment is that

the Premier should be here in the House, not protected by a new

backbench whose ambitions may get in the way of understanding the

responsibility of accountability in this statement, not protected by a

House Leader who puts a list of bills in front of us and then pops out

with number 12 before numbers 9 and 11 are available.

MR. HALL: Like bingo.

MR. BARRETT: It's worse than bingo: it's political manoeuvring.

Friday

we didn't know that the Premier was going to Ottawa. Did you know it?

The last to hear about it were the backbenchers. They never get to

caucus because they're ordered not to leave their seats in case there's

a vote. They're riveted to their seats.

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Chairman do now leave the chair.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 23

Barrett

King

Stupich

Dailly

Cocke

Lea

Nicolson

Hall

Leggatt

Howard

Levi

Sanford

Skelly

D'Arcy

Lockstead

Barnes

Brown

Barber

Wallace

Gabelmann

Hanson

Mitchell

Passarell

NAYS — 27

Waterland

Nielsen

McClelland

Williams

Hewitt

Mair

Vander Zalm

Heinrich

Ritchie

Strachan

Brummet

Ree

Segarty

Curtis

McCarthy

Phillips

Gardom

Wolfe

McGeer

Fraser

Jordan

Kempf

Davis

Davidson

Smith

Mussallem

Hyndman

MS. BROWN:

Mr. Chairman, I believe that we are really witnessing a coup. I believe

that the Premier has been overthrown. I believe that the Premier really

believes that British Columbia should not be sold, and because he

disagrees with everyone over there who believes that it should be sold

and should be given away, they got rid of him. What we are witnessing

is the emergence of a new generalissimo from Vancouver–Little Mountain,

the new leader. That, I believe, is the reason why he is not here.

all seriousness, Mr. Chairman, I think this is much too serious an

issue to be debated in the absence of the Premier. We should start out

by reminding ourselves who these assets belonged to in the first place.

Who purchased them? British Columbians purchased them. They belong to

British Columbians. Although it is really strange to sell to people

something that they already own, if we are going to sell something that

we already own, I think we should start out by selling it to ourselves.

In any event, we should give ourselves preference when we are selling

it. I am quite sure that if the Premier were here he would be able to

understand the logic of that illogical statement, that he would agree

with us and he would accept the amendment.

I think that

enough of these assets are being taken away from the people of British

Columbia, simply by depriving those who only had the five shares which

were allotted to them of their right to vote — as

section 1 of this

bill did. I think that it would be a travesty — if this particular

section were allowed to go through, and if this amendment were lost —

to add deprivation of their preferential position in terms of selling

the shares.

[ Page 249 ]

So,

Mr. Chairman, I would like to speak in support of this amendment. I

would like to speak in support of the first member for Victoria (Mr.

Barber), who suggested that when these shares are being sold they

should be sold first of all to British Columbians; they should be sold

first of all to Canadians.

Nobody has any control over the

shares once they are sold. The five shares that each British Columbian

has who applied for can be sold to anybody, so even if the shares which

were still in the government's hands for sale were sold on a

preferential basis to British Columbians, we still wouldn't be able to

guarantee that we would have control of these assets.

But it

would indeed be a travesty and we would be adding insult to injury if,

having lost control once those five shares were given out to each

person who has applied, we then turned around and sold the shares, Mr.

Chairman, to anyone who wanted to purchase them, regardless of their

place of residence, regardless of their place of birth, regardless of

their inclination.

So I want to speak in support of this

amendment, but most importantly, I don't believe that any of us should

vote on this amendment, neither government or opposition, without the

Premier being present.

It is my hope, Mr. Chairman, that the

opposition is not going to have to be placed in the position of having

to protect the Premier against his own colleagues by keeping this

particular amendment going until the Premier returns. We don't want to

find ourselves in a position of having to protect the Premier against

himself and his friends and colleagues over there. We would just as

soon see that coup succeed if that is the case.

But, Mr.

Chairman, in the meantime I would like to move that the committee rise,

report progress and ask leave to sit again, while the Chairman

seriously considers pulling this amendment until the Premier returns to

the chambers.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion is out of order.

MS. BROWN: No it's not.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps I, for the benefit of all the members of the House, could read standing order 44:

"If

Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman of a Committee of the Whole House, shall

be of opinion that a motion for the adjournment of a debate, or of the

House, during any debate, or that the Chairman, do report progress, or

do leave the chair, is an abuse of the Rules and Privileges of the

House, he may forthwith put the question thereupon from the chair, or

he may decline to propose the question to the House." It is now four

minutes prior to the normal hour of adjournment. We have within the

last ten minutes had a similar motion.

MS. BROWN: Mr.

Chairman, this is a very serious issue. What the opposition is trying

to do is to give the Premier of this province an opportunity to listen

to this amendment, to listen to the discussion of this amendment and

for once in his life to make a decision on behalf of the people of

British Columbia instead of against them. Am I to understand that the

Chairman is going to deprive the Premier of this province of that

opportunity? Is that what your ruling means, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, hon. member. That is an attack on the Chair, which is out of order.

MS. BROWN: I wouldn't dream of attacking the Chair.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, you would.

MS. BROWN: The hon. member for Peace River knows much more about my dreams than I do, obviously.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Don't hide behind your fancy clothes.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

AN HON. MEMBER: You know what he's suggesting.

MS. BROWN: Don't tell him, please. Mr. Chairman, I ask for the protection of the Chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Those who ask for the protection of the Chair should first ensure that they are in order.

MS. BROWN: I am in order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please proceed.

MS. BROWN:

Mr. Chairman, this is too serious a decision for us to make in the

absence of the Premier. It is not fair to the Premier, and it is not

fair to the people of British Columbia for us to make this decision in

his absence. For that reason and that reason only, I'm asking you, Mr.

Chairman — through you to the House Leader or the minister involved —

to withdraw this piece of legislation until the Premier returns, and we

can debate this amendment and debate this issue while he is present in

his chair.

Having been part of some intervening business, I now move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, it's not really a matter of intervening business. It's a question of the matter dealt with before.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

Hon. Mr. Hewitt filed answers to questions 2, 3 and 4 on the order paper.

MR. KING: On a point of order, I wanted to ask the House leader what the order of business would be tomorrow. I'm sure that's in order.

MR. SPEAKER: Presumably that's something that can be handled by the Whips.

[ Page 250 ]

HON. MR. GARDOM:

I can assure the hon. House Leader he's received every courtesy this

session. He will continue to receive every courtesy. We'll have a

discussion with him in the morning.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:02 p.m.

ERRATUM

June 6, 1979, Hansard report — Page 4, col. 1. Report presented by Hon. H.A. Curtis reads:

Pacific National Exhibition, financial statements for the year

ended November 30, 1978 — not 1931 as observed on the cover.

Should read:

Pacific National Exhibition, financial statements for the year

ended November 30, 1978 — not November 31 as observed on the cover.

APPENDIX

2 Mr. D'Arcy asked the Hon. the Minister of Energy, Mines

and Petroleum Resources the following questions:

1. Do the Directors of British Columbia Hydro Corporation receive any form of remuneration and/or expenses or per diem rates?

2. If the answer to No. 1 is yes, (

a) in what form and in what amount and (

b) in the case of each director what is their name and the total amount paid them in 1976, 1977, and 1978?

The Hon. J. J. Hewitt replied as follows:

"1. Yes.

"2. (

a) The Directors, with the exception of Mr. Bonner and the Ministers,

are paid $5,000 each per annum and all are entitled to be reimbursed for travel

costs incurred on official business. Mr. Bonner does not receive payment as

a Director but, by Order in Council, receives $48,000 per annum as Director

and Chairman.

(

b) Aggregate of amounts paid in 1976, 1977, and 1978:

C. W. Brazier

$15,009

R. M. Hungerford (resigned January 1977)

5,417

J. H. Steede

14,384

Hon. J. Davis

Nil

Hon. E. M. Wolfe

Nil"

3 Mr. D'Arcy asked the Hon. Minister of Energy, Mines

and Petroleum Resources the following questions:

Do the Directors of the British Columbia Petroleum Corporation receive

any form of remuneration and/or expenses or per diem rates?

2. If the answer to No. 1 is yes, (

a) in what form and in what amount and (

b) in the case of each director what is their name and the total amount paid them

in 1976, 1977, and 1978?

The Hon. J. J. Hewitt replied as follows:

"Directors of British Columbia Petroleum Corporation, details of remuneration:

"1976 — G.R. Lechner, no remuneration as Director¹; J. Caplette

(terminated in May), no remuneration as Director²; T. Waterland (terminated

in November), no remuneration; J. Davis, no remuneration; J. Chabot (started

in November), no remuneration; L. Mulholland (started in December), $200 per

day for each day devoted to B.C.P.C. business plus reasonable travelling and

out-of-pocket expenses, in accordance with

section 3 (4)³ of the Petroleum

Corporation Act .

"Total for 1976 — $400 per diem, $90.60 expenses.

"1977 — G. R. Lechner, no remuneration; J. Davis, no

remuneration; J. Chabot, no remuneration; L. Mulholland, same as 1976.

[ Page

251 ]

"Total for 1977 — $3,600 per diem, $998.25 expenses.

"1978 — G. R. Lechner, no remuneration; J. Davis (terminated in April),

no remuneration; J. Chabot (terminated in December), no remuneration; James

J. Hewitt (started in December), no remuneration; L. Mulholland, same as 1976.

"Total for 1978 — $1,400 per diem, $131.20 expenses.

4 Mr. D'Arcy asked the Hon. the Minister of Energy, Mines

and Petroleum Resources the following questions:

With reference to coal mined in 1978—

1. What was the total tonnage of coal mined?

2. What was the total amount of royalty or land tax in lieu of royalty paid on coal mined?

The Hon. J. J. Hewitt replied as follows:

"1. The tonnage of coal subject to royalty payments or land tax in 1978

was 8 460 752.68 tonnes.

"2. The total amount of royalty or land tax paid on this amount was $11,885,375.97."

"¹ Mr. Lechner receives a salary of $44,000 per annum as Chairman

(effective February 1976), and as General Manager and President and Chief Executive

Officer. For the month of January and up to February 19, 1976, Mr. Lechner's

salary as General Manager and President and Chief Executive Officer was $41,000 per annum.

"The above is in accordance with

section 6 (1) of the Petroleum Corporation

Act : 'Subject to the approval of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council, the

board may, notwithstanding the Public Service Act , appoint a person, who may

be a director, as manager of the corporation, and fix the remuneration and other

expenses to be paid to him by the corporation."

"² Mr. Caplette received a salary of $16,672.50 as Vice-Chairman and

full time employee for the period from January to May 1976.

Section 3 (4) of the Petroleum Corporation Act : 'Each director

shall be reimbursed by the corporation for any reasonable travelling and out-of-pocket

expenses necessarily incurred by him in the discharge of his duties as a director,

and, in addition, he may be paid such remuneration as the Lieutenant-Governor

in Council may prescribe.' "

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1979,2001: Hansard Services, Victoria, B.C., Canada