1974 Legislative Session: 4th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

TUESDAY, MARCH 5, 1974

Afternoon Sitting

[ Page 797 ]

CONTENTS

Afternoon sitting Routine proceedings Oral questions Circulation of letters on ferry dining service.

Mr. McClelland — 797

Opening of UVic law faculty. Mr. Wallace — 798

Attendance of Minister at Vancouver mines meeting.

Mr. Gibson — 798

Restarting date for Can-Cel sulphite plant.

Mr. Curtis — 798

Progress on Skagit Valley negotiations.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 798

Reintroduction of emergency powers bill.

Mr. Wallace — 799

ICBC capital cost expenditure to date.

Mr. Gardom — 799

Status of Blakely Report. Mr. L.A. Williams — 799

Details of property tax deferral scheme.

Mr. Curtis — 799

Possibility of poultry plant for Spillimacheen.

Mrs. Jordan — 800

Reason for extension in 1973-74 hunting licences.

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 800

Allowances paid to select standing committee chairmen.

Mr. Chabot — 800

Experimental farm in Fort Nelson area.

Mr. Smith — 801

Hospital coverage re government employees.

Mr. Wallace — 801

Committee of Supply: Premier's estimates HON. Mr. Barrett — 801

Mr. Phillips — 801

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 809

Mr. Calder — 811

Mr. Gibson — 812

Mr. McClelland — 814

Mr. Gardom — 815

Mr. Lewis — 817

Mr. McGeer — 818

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 819

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 819

Mr. Fraser — 820

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 821

Mr. Smith — 823

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 826

Mr. Smith — 826

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 827

Mr. Morrison — 827

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 827

Mr. Curtis — 830

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 831

Mr. Bennett — 831

Mrs. Jordan — 831

Hon. Mr. Barrett — 833

Mrs. Jordan — 833

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, seated on the

floor of the House today are three very distinguished guests

from down under — two from Australia and one from New Zealand.

Our guest from Australia is Ms. Elizabeth Reid, who is a

special adviser to the Prime Minister of Australia in domestic

affairs and women's rights.

She is accompanied by Robin Geary and Molly Bradley from New

Zealand, both of whom have now chosen to make British Columbia

their home. I'd like this House to join me in welcoming

them.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of

the official opposition I would like to extend our warmest

welcome to Ms. Reid. I also would like to advise the Members of

this House that our luncheon today, at your generous

hospitality, Mr. Speaker, was well attended by men.

In case any of the male hearts are quivering in British

Columbia, I should advise you that Ms. Reid told us that the

women in Australia have rather a long way to go to meet

equality. But their legislature just passed a major bill

guaranteeing men liberation.

MRS. D. WEBSTER (Vancouver South): Mr. Speaker, I have the

honour today of introducing four distinguished guests from

Vancouver who are seated in the Members' gallery. There is Mr.

Roy Forester, who is the curator of the Van Dusen Botanical

Gardens. He is accompanied by Dr. Long, Mr. Bill Livingston and

Mrs. Edna Carter. I wish that this House would give them a warm

welcome.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, it's my pleasure to draw your

attention again to guests in the gallery. From that great

constituency of the North Okanagan, Mr. Jack Davis, a very

prominent and honest lawyer, and his friends Mr. and Mrs. Reed

Sparks. I'm sure the House will be very pleased to know that

they are all extremely fine citizens and hard-working

Liberals.

HON. W.L. HARTLEY (Minister of Public Works): Mr. Speaker, I

should like to point out to all assembled, particularly, our

friends from down under, that the tulips are blooming out next

to the Finance building. As you walk across Government street,

and along by the Finance building, you'll see about a dozen

tulips in bloom. I think this harbingers very well for the heat

generated in this precinct area.

MR. SPEAKER: Is that a point of privilege? (Laughter.)

HON. MR. HARTLEY: On my point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I

would like to mention that later in the afternoon there will be

a group of Hope secondary students in the gallery at 2:45 with

their teacher, Mr. Keith Lindstrom.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver-Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker,

I would like to advise the House that we have in the gallery

today Mr. Slim Fougberg, chairman of the Howe Sound School

District, together with Mr. Ross, the secretary, and Mr.

Cullis, the superintendent. I believe there are other Members

of the board here as well. Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House

to welcome them.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, I ask

leave of the House to present the annual report of the Health

Branch.

Leave granted.

AN HON. MEMBER: What year?

HON. MR. COCKE: 1973. That's my year.

Oral questions

CIRCULATION OF LETTERS

ON FERRY DINING SERVICE

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, my question is

to the Minister of Transport and Communications. I'd like to

ask the Minister if he has any knowledge of a form letter being

circulated aboard the B.C. Ferries asking patrons of the dining

rooms whether or not they approve of the dining room service,

and asking them to send a request along to you not to eliminate

the dining rooms on B.C. Ferries?

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): Yes,

I am aware of that.

MR. McCLELLAND: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In view of the

obvious concern expressed by the staff, by way of these

letters, do you plan any review of the position with regard to

dining rooms on the ferries?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Well, I haven't got a copy of the letter

with me. But, as I understand it, they're not expressing

concern. I think they are asking for opinions.

MR. McCLELLAND: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I would just

suggest that because they want the opinions they're suggesting

some concern. I wonder further, on the same subject, Mr.

Speaker, whether or not the Minister has a statement to

make

[ Page 798 ]

to the House with regard to the provision for job security

of the some 120 people who are in the catering department

aboard the ferries?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I think the Member will recall.... If he

doesn't recall I'll be happy to send him a copy of a press

release, which I think was made some months ago, in which I

stated, as I recollect it, that no dining rooms were being

eliminated from any of the present ferries.

I think I further stated in the press release ...

MR. McCLELLAND: What about the Nanaimo?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: ... that the ship that was being

extended, jumboized, would not have a dining room placed on it,

but that there would be a cafeteria on that one and a coffee

shop.

I also said at the time that no one would lose their job.

And that's basically the statement. If the Member wants to

check, he'll find it on the record, or if he wants I'll send

him a copy; and that is still the policy.

MR. SPEAKER: May we move on to another subject?

OPENING OF U VIC LAW FACULTY

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask

the Minister of Education a question with further reference to

the critical time shortage prior to opening the faculty of law

school at UVic. In view of the critical financial problems

facing the University of Victoria, could she tell the House if,

in light of my question last week, she has in fact had meetings

with the UVic authorities?

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): No, I haven't had

a meeting since you asked me, Mr. Member. But I'm planning to

be discussing it this afternoon.

ATTENDANCE OF MINISTER

AT VANCOUVER MINES MEETING

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Speaker, I

have a question for the Minister of Mines. I'd ask if he plans

to attend, or will consider attending, a very important meeting

being held in Vancouver next month by the B.C. and Yukon

Chamber of Mines, to which he has been invited.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources) ; Mr. Speaker,

first I'd like to thank the Hon. Member for North Vancouver-Capilano for notifying

me that he was going to ask me this question, just a few minutes ago.

Being a politician, I would appreciate getting up before

such a crowd as would be in Vancouver, but I think it would be

a breach of the privilege of this House if I went over there to

discuss the bill prior to debating it in this House on second

reading.

RESTARTING DATE FOR

CAN-CEL SULPHITE PLANT

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

of Lands, Forests and Water Resources: at the risk of appearing

persistent, on November 7 of last year and again on February

26, the Minister took as notice a question with respect to the

recovery plant at the sulphite mill, Can-Cel, in Prince Rupert.

I wonder if he has had an opportunity to get any information on

the restart date for that.

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

On the which date?

MR. CURTIS: Restart — the start-up date for the recovery

plant.

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I do have some material. Unfortunately,

I do not have it at hand so I'll make a point, Mr. Speaker, of

presenting it to the House this week.

PROGRESS ON SKAGIT

VALLEY NEGOTIATIONS

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Speaker, in view of the

commitment in Hansard of the Attorney-General to resign

if further flooding takes place in the Skagit Valley.... (Laughter.) There he goes.

May I ask the Minister of Lands, Forests and Water Resources

whether he is planning any steps to discuss with Seattle City

Light — officials of Seattle City Light — ways to terminate the

existing contract between that company and the provincial

government of British Columbia?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I might say that the matter is being

thoroughly reviewed at this time, Mr. Speaker. That's really

all I can say right now.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: In view of the reply of the Minister

yesterday to another question, which indicated that the

Attorney-General's department is now taking a keen and active

interest in this whole question, may I ask the Premier whether

or not responsibility for terminating this contract has been

shifted from the Minister who will not resign if the valley is

flooded to the Minister who apparently intends to?

[ Page

799 ]

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, let me put it this

way: we only have one set of water-wings over here.

(Laughter.)

MR. SPEAKER: I think we're getting into rather deep

water.

REINTRODUCTION OF

EMERGENCY POWERS BILL

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, could I ask a question, which I

asked last night and didn't get an answer to, regarding the

emergency powers bill which the Premier intended to introduce

at the last session of the Legislature? Could I ask if the

Premier is giving consideration to reintroducing that bill?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, that debate at that time

didn't exist because fortunately the problem we were faced

with, the shortage of gas, didn't appear. It appears that we've

solved the problems, and I don't think we need to consider the

legislation at this point. The emergency is over.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, well.... It certainly existed in our

mind. It might not have existed in somebody else's mind. But

certainly the problem was solved, and we're very happy that the

problem was solved.

MR. WALLACE: A supplemental, Mr. Speaker. The Premier is, if

I may say with respect, on record as saying that this kind of

provision is required and that in a calmer atmosphere, possibly

the next session of the House, it should be brought before the

House. Now has he changed his mind?

HON. MR. BARRETT: It's not calm enough, Mr. Speaker.

FURTHER NEGOTIATIONS

IN SKAGIT VALLEY ISSUE

MR. H.S. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): To the Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources: have any joint federal-provincial

negotiations taken place to settle the Skagit Valley issue

since June of 1973?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I think there's been a range of

correspondence, Mr. Speaker, but the last meeting I've had with

Mr. Davis was in June, and that may be just as well.

MR. SCHROEDER: Is there any indication of any

settlement?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I'm not sure what the Member means, Mr.

Speaker.

ICBC CAPITAL COST

EXPENDITURE TO DATE

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

Transport, Mr. Speaker: what are the capital cost expenditures

of ICBC to date?

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I think there's a question on the order

paper, isn't there, Mr. Member?

MR. GARDOM: There was one all last session and you didn't

answer it then either.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I did answer it, as I recollect.

MR. GARDOM: No, you didn't.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Is there one on the order paper?

STATUS OF BLAKELY REPORT

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Lands,

Forests and Water Resources: would the Minister indicate the

status of the Blakely Report centering around the Whistler

Mountain-Alta Lake area?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: The report, Mr. Speaker, has been

considered be the Environment and Land Use Committee of the

cabinet, and some steps have been taken, I believe, through

another Ministry.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS: Will the report be made public, Mr.

Minister?

HON. R.A. WILLIAMS: I think we would take that under

consideration. I offhand can think of no specific reason at

this time for withholding it.

DETAILS OF PROPERTY

TAX DEFERRAL SCHEME

MR. CURTIS: To the Premier, on the subject of property tax

deferral for senior citizens and small businessmen. As I

recall, the Premier indicated that details of this deferral

scheme would be released sometime after the NDP caucus meeting

in Nanaimo, January 19 and 20, and no information has been

released. May we expect it soon?

HON. MR. BARRETT: On the elderly citizens, there's a bill on

the order paper already, Mr. Member. On the deferral, I hope to

introduce the legislation

[ Page 800 ]

shortly.

MR. CURTIS: It's the deferral to which I refer.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Shortly — at the latest, early next

week.

MR. SPEAKER: I don't think we ask questions on matters that

are on the order paper already.

POSSIBILITY OF POULTRY

PLANT FOR SPILLIMACHEEN

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to address my question to

the Minister of Agriculture, in relation to the matter of the

poultry processing plant and the urgency of its establishment.

Have you dispatched anyone to examine the current site that I

suggested in the area of Spillimacheen?

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

several sites are currently being examined, including that one,

and then we're comparing them to see which would be the best

deal. But that one is being examined, yes.

MRS. JORDAN: A supplementary. My question really, Mr.

Minister, was whether anyone has examined this plant yet. In

your estimates you stated that it had been looked at, but my

understanding from council is that no one did actually examine

the physical facilities. What I'd like to see is someone up

there now to examine these facilities while they are available,

so that you may have a first hand report.

HON. MR. STUPICH: Two members of my staff have just

completed their investigation of the Enderby site yesterday.

They've been asked to look now at the Coldstream site.

REASON FOR EXTENSION IN

1973-74 HUNTING LICENCES

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: May I ask the Minister of Recreation and

Conservation whether the extension in the validity of the

1973-74 hunting licences for an extra month is to permit a

revision of the new scheme for trophy fees, so that we can

return to last year's system and not go in with the present new

system, which apparently is meeting with a good deal of

resistance?

HON. J. RADFORD (Minister of Recreation and Conservation):

There's been no resistance to the new scheduling.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. RADFORD: The reason for the delay was a problem

with printing licences, it cetera, and we've expressed the

explanation of lengthening this by one month.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON: Supplementary. Mr. Speaker, may I take

from the Minister's reply that there has been no concern in

this matter; that he has not yet read the brief from the B.C.

Guides and Outfitters; and that he has forgotten the

hour-and-a-half that they spent in his office.

HON. MR. RADFORD: No, there's been some concern, especially

from the guides. I'm talking about the majority of people

interested in the licensing, such as the B.C. Wildlife

Federation, which makes up the majority of the licensed

sportsmen in B.C....

ALLOWANCES PAID TO SELECT

STANDING COMMITTEE CHAIRMEN

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): A question to the

Provincial Secretary, Mr. Speaker, regarding the

order-in-council, passed a couple or three weeks ago relative

to an additional $500 being granted to the chairman of the

agricultural select standing committee. I'm wondering, in view

of the fact that there's an annual allowance to each chairman

of committees of $1,000, on what basis was this additional $500

granted to the chairman of the agricultural committee, and will

equal treatment be given to the chairmen of all other select

standing committees?

HON. E. HALL (Provincial Secretary): Well, Mr. Speaker, I

reject the premise on which this question is based. First of

all, the Constitution Act simply states that allowances

may be made to chairmen of standing committees if the committee

works by order of the Lieutenant-Governor in Council. There's

no such word as "annual" used in the Constitution Act at

all.

Let me, however, advise the Member and say to him that when

a standing committee of this Legislature works as hard as the

agricultural committee and other committees work, all the

Members and all the chairmen receive full remuneration that's

been set by the orders-in-council.

The Select Standing Committee on Agriculture was the only

committee that met in the period between the fall session of

1973 and the spring session of 1974, and that was the only one

that was up for scrutiny, as it were. In this case, if motions

appear on the order paper and committees are activated in this

coming break following prorogation of this session, then they

will indeed by given the same kind of treatment that you refer

to in your question.

[ Page

801 ]

EXPERIMENTAL FARM

IN FORT NELSON AREA

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

Minister of Agriculture. Under the former Minister of

Agriculture, a pilot programme was contemplated in the Fort

Nelson area with respect to starting what you might call an

illustration farm in the Fort Nelson region, to determine the

type of crops that could be grown up there.

After the present administration took office, the pilot

programme was brought to an abrupt halt. Does the Minister

intend to continue such a programme in the Fort Nelson area, or

to reinstate it?

HON. MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, it has a relatively low

priority, but it's still being considered, low priority

relative to the other things that are going on right now.

MR. SMITH: Supplemental question to the Minister. Does the

Minister not consider that there is a potential for extensive

agriculture in the Fort Nelson region?

HON. MR. STUPICH: A potential, Mr. Speaker, but not

extensive — relative to the whole Peace River area.

HOSPITAL COVERAGE

RE GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Minister of Health

with respect to order-in-council 492 which appears to extend

hospital coverage to B.C. government employees outside of

British Columbia without any time limit: does this in effect

place B.C. government employees outside the province in a

privileged position compared to other citizens of B.C. who are

outside British Columbia for some extended period of time?

HON. MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, on this particular

order-in-council: we are the employer and as the employer, as

the government, we felt that it would be incumbent upon us to

see to it that they're served in the best way a good employer

can serve their employees. Many of the employees are away for a

longer period of time, therefore it's not part of Hospital

Insurance, nor is it part of Medicare; it's just administered

by those departments. It's a fringe benefit they have received

from this government.

MR. WALLACE: An important supplemental, Mr. Speaker, is that....

MR. SPEAKER: No, I think we can save it for tomorrow, please. We must

stick by the rules somehow.

Orders of the day

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

ESTIMATES: PREMIER'S OFFICE

(continued)

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

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to

say a couple of words related to our mother country, England,

on behalf of the Government of the Province of British

Columbia. I want to wish very good luck and great success to

the new socialist Prime Minister of Great Britain. He has a

very difficult task in front of him; if those of us here in

the Commonwealth can help, I'm sure we will. We hope that he

along with others, in a spirit of co-operation, will be able to

assist the country of Great Britain at a time when they need

all the help possible.

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): I would like to

indeed add my best wishes to Prime Minister Wilson and his new

socialist government. You know, Great Britain has hardly

recovered from the last socialist government, so he's going to

need a lot of help. I hope that the Premier and Minister of

Finance realizes that he's not walking into a bonanza like he

did — into a province so well financed, and so well run by the

previous administration that he had lots of dollars. Mr. Wilson

is going to have some problems.

HON. MR. BARRETT: How many Socreds in Britain?

(Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: One.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. PHILLIPS: All I can say to that is: if the country was

run as well as British Columbia was run under the Social Credit

government, they wouldn't be facing the problems that, indeed,

they are facing today.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'll send your fare over.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many Socreds in Russia?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I think they're running the government.

(Laughter.)

[ Page 802 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Your brothers are.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'd ask the Member to confine his remarks to

vote 2.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

You know, since we're discussing this, I just have to

realize how well off the people in British Columbia are after

20 years of good management. I have to think of the Province of

Quebec which has equally as many natural resources. Indeed, as

the Premier of Newfoundland is endorsed and blessed with many

natural resources, and yet there has been no development take

place.

Now, did all this just happen? I say, no. I say it was the

good administrative policies of the previous administration

which have made British Columbia the great province it is

today, and her people are so well blessed with the revenue from

the natural resources of this province due to the good

development.

But what really concerns me, and the subject I'd like to

speak upon this afternoon is: really, what good is it to have a

well-run province and to get the utmost financial return from

our natural resources if indeed we are going to waste the very

money we get out of our natural resources? If it is wasted...indeed, are the benefits going to be passed on to the people of

this province?

Now, when I was a boy growing up we had a saying in our

house "waste brings want." I have to think maybe that's what's

going to happen in British Columbia if we continue to waste, or

if we continue on the path of wasting the revenue we derive

from our natural resources. Indeed, what are the benefits going

to be to the residents of British Columbia, to the taxpayers of

British Columbia?

Another saying when I was growing up was "a dollar saved is

indeed a dollar earned." (Laughter.)

SOME HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear! (Laughter.)

MR. PHILLIPS: So indeed if....

AN HON. MEMBER: A stitch in time.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver-Point Grey): I thought we'd lost

that flag. (Laughter.)

MR. PHILLIPS: This is a fairly popular saying and it's so

popular, Mr. Member for Vancouver-Point Grey, and it's been

tested for so long that I'm surprised that our Minister of

Finance isn't ready and willing to take his advice. A dollar

saved is a dollar earned.

I have just one more little theory that I'd like to bring out while I'm on

this particular subject. Wasting of the taxpayers' dollar is indeed a sin: you

must not waste the taxpayers' dollar. The punishment for this sin is that you

will be expelled from government. So, I'd just like to leave that word of caution

with the Minister of Finance since he is the chief executive officer in the

province. He is, indeed, the man who looks after the spending in this province.

Today I feel, Mr. Chairman, that the taxpayers of British

Columbia are having millions of dollars wasted. And many of

these millions of dollars are being wasted on a civil service

bureaucracy that would rival the Roman Empire. Not only is this

a waste, so far as I am concerned, of the taxpayers' dollar but

it will be an invasion on the privacy of every taxpayer in

British Columbia, because pretty soon he won't be able to —

although I won't use that expression — but no matter what he

does he will have to get a permit from a civil servant.

So, not only is it a waste of taxpayers' dollars, but it

will grow to be a restrain on the individual private rights of

the taxpayers in British Columbia. A bureaucracy that could

check off and choke the very life-blood of this vibrant

province that we have in British Columbia. Choke off that

enterprise that has made this province so vibrant and, indeed,

has built up such an economy that our Premier is able to play

with these millions and millions of dollars that he has to play

with today.

I would hate to see this bureaucracy choke off the very

lifestream of this province. Now, we must realize that some

8,000 new civil servants have been hired since this government

came to office in August 1972 — 8,000 new civil servants that

the taxpayers of British Columbia have to pay for.

Nearly $5 million for 138 new employees in the department of

the Attorney-General. That's right, nearly $5 million

additional this year over last year. Look at it in the

estimates — $5 million, Mr. Attorney-General, for 138 new

employees in your department. I bet you didn't even realize

that, did you, Mr. Attorney-General?

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): What? Say that

again, I still don't....

MR. PHILLIPS: No, it's amazing! Did you look at your own

estimates? I thought you had to make up your own budget. Or did

you have one of these 138 new employees....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the Hon. Member please address the

chair?

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Over $1 million for increased staff in the Department of

Finance, the Minister's own department. $10 million more for

staff in the Department of Health. These are taxpayers'

dollars.

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): That's

[ Page

803 ]

right. Would you like us to cut it down and reduce health,

like you did?

MR. PHILLIPS: These are taxpayers' dollars that are going to

pay this increase in the civil service.

An 85 per cent increase in the cost of staff in the

Department of Human Resources.

I feel that this government is being run like a poorly run

business where there is the saying that if something goes

wrong, we must go out and hire more staff. Any time something

doesn't function properly or the right decisions aren't made,

somebody says: "Well, we need more staff." Eight thousand new

civil servants.

How many trees will it take, Mr. Attorney-General, to pay

for the increased staff in your office? That's right, in your

department. The royalties and taxes from how many tons of ore

would it take to pay for your increased staff?

Now, I have mentioned just a few departments, but I want to

take the entire government civil service. If you go through the

estimates for last year and add up the increased cost....

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's the Provincial Secretary's

department.

MR. PHILLIPS: You are the Minister of Finance, Mr. Minister

of Finance — it is you that has to pay for this. It's the

taxpayers of British Columbia that have to pay for this, Mr.

Chairman.

The total increased cost in 1974 over 1973 — and this is not

increases in salary, but just for the increase in the staff —

is $47,258,000. Nearly $50 million in one year it's costing the

taxpayers of British Columbia, Mr. Chairman.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, the 8,000 employees have come in over 18

months. I am just talking about the increase in one year, in a

12-month period. It's right here in the estimate book. Go

through and figure it out for yourself — 1973 versus 1974.

What bothers me, Mr. Chairman, is how much of this is absolutely necessary

and how much of it is waste. We have to add to this nearly $50 million for the

increase in staff the countless commissions and boards that have been appointed

by this government, and I would roughly estimate that to be in the neighbourhood

of $5 million — the Bremer commission, the Gaffney think tank commission (Institute

for Economic Policy Analysis), the Foulkes Report, the drug and alcohol task

force, the Pearse task force on forestry. You really didn't need it. All you

had to do was listen to the Member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly). He outlined this

government's entire forest policy. The Broom commission on recreation brings

the cost to approximately $55 million.

Add to this vote 70, under the Department of Finance, salary

contingencies and adjustments, $15 million. If my arithmetic

serves me right, we come up with a cost of $70 million in one

year for the increased cost of the civil service. How much more

benefit are the taxpayers of British Columbia going to derive

from this additional $70 million?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: You're 100 per cent out in my

department.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, I'll have to check my calculator, but I

went through it and added it up, Mr. Attorney General. I think

that if your arithmetic serves you right, you will find that

I'm right on.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: Well, you don't have to follow the budget very

closely, because it really doesn't give much of an idea of what

the spending is going to be.

Mr. Chairman, to the Minister of Finance....

HON. MR. BARRETT: Right! That's better.

MR. PHILLIPS: We are discussing the finances of the Province

of British Columbia under your vote. You are going to have to

sign the cheques. You are going to have to pay this $70 million

out of your department, Mr. Minister of Finance.

Now, if the same philosophy of an increase in one year holds

true, what is going to happen to the government-owned agencies

like Dunhill, ICBC, the Petroleum Corporation, B.C. Hydro, B.C.

Rail, Ocean Falls, Can-Cel, Plateau Mills, Pan-Ready Poultry,

Kootenay Forest Products, Vancouver Island Coach Lines? I could

go on. If the same philosophy in the government-run

corporations holds true that the government is setting the

guidelines in its own hiring, the taxpayers of British Columbia

will never be able to pay the bill.

So we take in an additional $50 million resource revenue.

What do we do with it, Mr. Chairman? Do we return it to the

people? No! We spend it on building up a government

bureaucracy.

I would like to reveal to the House, so that it will be in

the records, some of the appointments of pals, cronies,

friends, associates and members of the NDP that have been

hired, Mr. Chairman, all by order-in-council.

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Name them!

MR. PHILLIPS: There is no reflection on these people who I

am going to mention, but what I am saying, Mr. Chairman, is

that it is the taxpayers of

[ Page 804 ]

British Columbia who have to foot the bill. I would like to

read into the record the names of people who have been hired —

not by the civil service, but by orders-in-council.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would presume the reading of

these names is directly relevant to the estimates that are

being discussed.

MR. PHILLIPS: Yes. As a matter of fact, it is very relevant,

because the wages for these people who were hired by

order-in-council have to come out of the taxpayers' pocket.

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce):

Dan Campbell.

AN HON. MEMBER: Grace McCarthy.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's two — keep on going! Come on! They are

two.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Have you read them on the list?

MR. PHILLIPS: The Department of the Attorney General — A.

Wong, Dr. R.S. Rodgers....

HON. MR. BARRETT: He's not there any more.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, he was hired. I'm talking about

orders-in-council that hired these people.

HON. MR. BARRETT: How long did he work?

MR. PHILLIPS: Department of Education...

HON. MR. BARRETT: Tell the whole truth.

MR. PHILLIPS: ...Mrs. H.M. Freeze. Was she not hired by

order-in-council?

Department of Health — Mr. C.E. Perry.

Department of Labour — D.L. Compton.

Department of Mines and Petroleum Resources — H. Horne.

Department of Human Resources — Mr. R.F. Wargo.

Department of Public Works — R.D. Collard.

Department of Transport and Communications — Mr. J. Mika, Mr.

P. Lawdon.

Municipal Affairs — Mr. D. Janson.

Premier's office — Mr. H. Beech, Mr. J.H. Wood, Mr. J.M.

Twigg.

Interjection.

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm coming to that!

Lands, Forests and Water Resources — Mr. William Boutilier, Norman Pearson.

Department of Agriculture — Alexander McLellan. Municipal

Affairs — Mr. V.J. Parker, Mr. B.E. Sullivan.

Department of Health — Dr. R.G. Foulkes, Hans J. Kieferle,

John E. Matters.

B.C. Hydro — David Cass-Beggs, James Wilson.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): Forty-two grand.

MR. PHILLIPS: Have you fired the Civil Service Commission?

All these are hired by order-in-council.

Labour — Kathleen Ruff, James Kinnaird.

Education — J.R. Fleming.

Legislative — M. Holtby.

Education — Dr. R. Parkinson, D. York, Jane Conway, A.J.

Gargreave and Dr. J. Bremer — that's Bremer as in

"dreamer."

AN HON. MEMBER: What happened to him?

MR. PHILLIPS: How much did he cost the taxpayers of British

Columbia?

Human Resources — J. Denofaer.

Johannessen.

Department of Labour — Mr. G. Kowbel.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much did he get? Does it say there?

MR. PHILLIPS: Eh, what's that? No, I've already revealed how

much it's costing.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would remind the Hon. Members that we should

refrain from the practice of asking questions or making

comments from our seat. Those Members who are on the floor

speaking should not respond because they will not be recorded

in Hansard .

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for bringing the

House to order so that I can continue.

Attorney-General — Mr. J. Rhodes.

Health — Mr. W. Ross.

B.C. Railway — T. Roland.

Health — Ms. H. Thomas.

Premier's Office — A. VanCampen.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's not order-in-council.

MR. PHILLIPS: Order-in-council, Mr. ....

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, he was a transfer in

[ Page

805 ]

the civil service.

MR. PHILLIPS: No, he was taken off, Mr. Chairman.... It was

taken off an order-in-council.

HON. MR. BARRETT: These people should get protection.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Hon. Member for South Peace

River has the floor.

MR. PHILLIPS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If there was an error

in that, I stand corrected, and I'll scratch his name from the

list.

Department of Highways — Mr. D. Miller.

Industrial Development, Trade and Commerce — Mr. E.

Green.

Housing — Mr. A. Petter.

Consumer Affairs — Mrs. R. Lalik.

Municipal Affairs — R. Prittie.

Recreation and Conservation — G. Reamsbottom. Finance —

Peter McNelly.

AN HON. MEMBER: Boo!

AN HON. MEMBER: Who?

MR. PHILLIPS: Labour — J.B. Paradis...

AN HON. MEMBER: I think he's related to McNelly.

MR. PHILLIPS: ...A.B. Abramson, J. Squire, D.C. Fraser, J.

Moore, J. McKenzie.

You know, the question I am asking myself — and I'm sure the

taxpayers of British Columbia are asking — is, what increased

benefits are they deriving from these orders-in-council?

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many extra houses are we getting?

MR. PHILLIPS: Human Resources — Mr. B. Leach.

Transport and Communications — N. Bortnick.

Human Resources — Mr. B. Leach — well, the Minister of Human

Resources (Hon. Mr. Levi) has hired so many men by

order-in-council he can't even remember them all.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Agriculture — Ms. M. Rawson, Mr. T. Barsby,

Mr. W. Lane.

Attorney-General — Mr. L. Nimsick, Jr.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. PHILLIPS: Health — J. Corsbie. I remember him. He used

to be up in the Peace River area. He ran under the CCF banner

years ago. That was before I even arrived in the area. Now he's

gone to his final reward. As some of these men have said, "I've

waited a long time."

Health — Pat Tidball.

And now I'll go through some of these. These are all Health

unless I say something different: I. Sandberg, W.P.M. Robinson,

D.S. Simson, T.J.S. Hewison, E.A. McFayden, A.A. Hussey, M.L.

Smith, E.B. MacLatchy, C.P. Paul, D.A. McRae, CW. Tucker, A.F.

Shirran, F.A. Biss, K.N. Wocknitz, M.D. MacDonald, W.K. Smith,

T. Bandstra, W.S. Ross, D.E, Mackay.

Municipal Affairs — R.M. Alexander.

Health — H.J. Kieferle, J. Levy, W.S. Ross.

Education — B. Kelly.

Health — H.K. Villumsen, W.H. Janzen, F.G. Harry, W. Behn,

H.A. Kerpan, H. Thomas, E.K. Graham, A. Yates.

Municipal Affairs — M. Hoffman.

Health — W.D. Black.

Municipal Affairs — B.A. Aabjerg, W.L. Fedewa, J.H. Thomas,

S. Dobie, P.J. Bedford.

Health — D.C. Cocking, A.J. Roscoe, J. Allert, H.A. Furnes,

W.J. Dennison.

Municipal Affairs — D.A. McEwan, P, Perkins, S.M. Wood, E.S.

Jorgenson, R.O.I. Repen.

Health — Hans G. Myhre, Anne Dubois, J.L. Jonsson, Leonard

H. Mack.

Municipal Affairs — P.F. Haverstock.

Health — E.M. McAllister.

Municipal Affairs — L.M. Garrison, G.E. Truax, R.B. Jones,

W.R. Thurn, G.R. Silver.

Health — E.M. McNey.

Municipal Affairs — G.E. McCallum.

Health — D.F. Mulroney, R.L. Gardiner, A. Wood, D.T.

Conrow.

How much is this costing the taxpayers of British Columbia,

and why are so many of these hired all by order-in-council when

we have a civil service commission? Are they friends of the

government? Are they card-carrying NDPers? Are they pals" Are

they ex-NDP?

You know, it is amazing. So we take a few extra million from

the resources of this province — and do we pass it back to the

taxpayers in form of benefits?

AN HON. MEMBER: No way!

MR. PHILLIPS: No, Mr. Chairman, we build up a bureaucracy

like the Roman Empire.

[ Page 806 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Roman Empire?

MR. PHILLIPS: It is unbelievable. But I must continue

on.

Department of Health — D.H. Lawson, G.L. Hall, H.E. Mathias,

L. Vandergrift, D.L. Frogbrook Read, M. Moody.

Municipal Affairs — J.R. Evans, D.L.W. Stronge.

Travel — F. Colthorpe.

Highways — W. Harding.

Health — R. Kaczor.

Housing — M.J. Audain.

Labour — D.B. Adair.

Health — Ronald A. Sward, James Wilson McLeod, Monica M.

Davis.

Mr. Chairman, as I continue this list I can hardly believe

myself that so many people would be hired all by

order-in-council.

Department of Labour — W. Black — and that's not Wes

Black.

Labour — Larry Ryan.

Provincial Secretary — Mrs. Allison, Ms. Anne Crozier.

Labour — William Ivor Beeby.

Attorney-General — Joy-Ann Lee, E.L. Beyer.

Education — R. Faris.

Health — and the Department of Health has really hired a lot

of people by order-in-council — J.D.R. Farr, J. Winters, H.K.

Villumsen, J,C. Wilson, T. Hutchison.

Department of Travel — R.L. Colby.

Department of Health — K. Paulsen, R.T. Reynolds.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Colby — Dick Colby's the Deputy Minister.

Are you attacking him?

MR. PHILLIPS: No, I'm not attacking him at all. I'm merely

saying he was hired by order-in-council.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, oh!

MR. PHILLIPS: What does the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr.

Hall) say about these?

HON. MR. BARRETT: All Deputies are hired by

order-in-council.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Order! I would ask the Hon.

Member whether it is necessary to read further names in order

to make his point?

MR. PHILLIPS: I would say it is, Mr. Chairman, because of

the very fact that the taxpayers of British Columbia are paying

for the wages of these people who were appointed by

order-in-council, and who should have been hired through the

normal channels of the civil service.

AN HON. MEMBER: Through competition.

MR. PHILLIPS: From competition! These were appointments.

So, Mr. Chairman, I will continue on.

In the Department of Municipal Affairs — A.M, Reine, L.A.

Nilson.

Department of Highways — A.D. Miller.

Transport and Communications — ...

HON. MR. BARRETT: It was all done by order-in-council

before.

MR. PHILLIPS: ...J. Mika.

Health — T.L. Sturgess.

Municipal Affairs — A. Dalgleish.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): You read him once,

you're repeating yourself.

MR. PHILLIPS: McNally — Transport and Communications? No, J.

Mika, Transport and Communications.

R.P. Fraser — Education.

I'm sure that some of the backbenchers, when they go back to

their constituencies, are going to be asked similar questions.

They are the taxpayers who are going to pay for this increased

civil service. And what benefits? Name the benefits to your

constituents that you are going to derive from this $70 million

bill that it is going to cost in one year for this increase in

civil servants.

MR. D.E. LEWIS (Shuswap): Lyle Wicks.

MR. PHILLIPS: I.B. Goodman, R. Repen — 20 and 20 years, 301

years.... Do you still want to discuss it?

HON. MR. BARRETT: How did you appoint the Board of Variance

members before? Order-in-council.

MR. PHILLIPS: P. Doherty — Municipal Affairs.

D.C. Morton — Education.

B.G. Errington....

Interjections.

AN HON. MEMBER: How many changes do you make in the Court of

Revision?

HON. MR. BARRETT: How many changes did you make when you

were a government?

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't be stupid.

HON. G.R. LEA (Minister of Highways): I didn't know that you

had that many friends.

[ Page

807 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, the consensus of opinion is that

these are the people who were appointed and they either live or

fall with the government. Is that right?

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: A lot of people appointed by order-in-council.

I thought we had a civil service in this province which was

free from politics.

HON. MR. BARRETT: And it still is.

HON. R.M. STRACHAN (Minister of Transport and Communications): The Board

of Variance isn't civil service.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The Board of Variance doesn't go through

the civil service, neither does the Deputy Minister, and you

know it.

AN HON. MEMBER: All right, we'll take two off.

HON. MR. BARRETT: You have just thrown in everything. You've

never even done your research.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The Hon. Member for South Peace

River has the floor.

HON. MR. BARRETT: He's got the floor; wish he had a

head.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Who's on the Board of Variance for North

Cowichan?

MR. PHILLIPS: M.G. Anderson — Health.

Municipal Affairs — MR. MacPherson, A.E. Graham.

Health — O.O. Wallin, W.E.M. Beaudin, B.G. MacKay, W.E.

Dyer.

Labour — A. Macdonald.

Municipal Affairs — L. Davies, M.E. Elliot-Hurst.

Labour — R.S. Azad.

Health — C.F. Christoffersen.

Municipal Affairs — J. Lillbeck.

Health...my gracious, most of the Department of Health

must have been appointed by order-in-council — J.L. McKinnon,

W.D. Taylor, C.A. Tonge, G.J. Dale, G.L. Claman.

Municipal Affairs — R.S. Cribb, E. Wissman, J.G. Matkin.

Health — D.N. Gow.

Municipal Affairs — R.J. Hill, M.M. Beduz, R.E. Mulvilhill

H. Ramsden, J.L. Adams, T.A. Timbrell.

Health — T.A. Myers, R.W. McClurg, M.A. Weger, J.W.

Groves.

Municipal Affairs — J.F. Lackner, D.J. Andow, R.S. Brophy,

G.G. Bergen.

Education — M.B. Gurnstein.

Health — J.H. Tyner.

Municipal Affairs — E.J. Brooke, R.D. Swan, M.E. Egan, J.

Carlin, A.D. Lewis.

Health — H.M. Hicks.

Municipal Affairs — W. Ratzlaff, D,L. Goodman, H.T. Allen,

A.E. Epp.

Health — W. Halyk, U.G. Burman.

Municipal Affairs — C.W. Pringle, J.A. Foord.

Health — R.A. Sward, J.W. McLeod, M.M. Davis.

Municipal

Affairs — J.E. Reeves, D.A. Robertson.

Highways — D.M.

Korbin.

Labour — John Brown, Mike Kramer.

Housing — Glen Haddrell, L.C. Minchin.

Municipal Affairs — W.A. Priest.

Education — Walter Young...

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Pity.

Health — John Latham Allen, Marvin Elliot Cope, Esther

Jones, George L. Brodie.

Municipal Affairs. — James Philip Fawcett, Richard H.

Morrison.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I would ask the question of the

Hon. Member: are these paid civil servants, or are these

government appointments?

MR. PHILLIPS: I'm saying, Mr. Chairman, these are

appointments by order-in-council.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I would draw your attention to

standing order 61 (2), which says that speeches in committee of

the Whole must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under

consideration. I believe that some of the names referred to are

appointments to hospital boards and boards of variance and so

on. Therefore, I fail to see that they're strictly relevant to

the estimates before the House. I would ask the Hon. Member to

confine his list to those who are paid civil servants.

MR. PHILLIPS: Certainly many of them are appointments to

boards, but they were all appointed.

HON. L.T. NIMSICK (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Yeah,

but they get no money out of it.

MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, not very many of them, Not very many of

them. The point is that you have changed the entire tenure of

civil service in British Columbia.

[ Page 808 ]

MR. LEWIS: Oh, but that's false.

MR. PHILLIPS: And it's the taxpayers of British Columbia who

are going to have to pay the bill.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Excuse me, Mr. Member, will you tell me

what Mr. George Brodie does? — the name you read out in the

list — so that we know?

MR. PHILLIPS: You tell us!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. PHILLIPS: You tell us; I'm asking the questions. It's

your estimates.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! The Hon. Member for South Peace

River has the chair. (Laughter.) The floor — pardon me!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Who's George Brodie? Tell us.

MR. PHILLIPS: They're not my estimates, Mr. Chairman. It's

up to the Minister of Finance to tell me what these people do,

and why it's necessary to hire them and why it's necessary for

the taxpayers to pay them.

Interjections.

MR. PHILLIPS: Municipal Affairs — James Philip Fawcett,

Richard H. Morrison, Harold Roy David, Robert Forsythe, Heinz

Hieber, Edna L. Bowden, Edward Slotylak.

Provincial Secretary — Ivor Williams.

Health — John Douglas Watt, Arthur J. Saunders.

Finance —

Mrs. Margaret Hobbs.

Municipal Affairs — Julian. E. Fry.

MR. CHABOT: Margaret Hobbs, who is she?

MR. PHILLIPS: Henry A.L. Fanthorpe, Laddie Pavlis, Keith R.

Lacey.

Finance — Mr. Peter Jenewein, Mr. J.Y. Gardner.

Lands,

Forests and Water Resources — Dr. Peter Pearse.

Health — Marilyn J. Webb, Sylvia Clemso

Labour — Arnold Smith.

Municipal Affairs — Roger M. Robichaud, R.D. Nanaimo, Minnie

M. Proteau, Kenneth W, McRae, Ian C. Schierbeck.

Health — Orlando M. Pecora.

Education — Mrs. Virginia Biernes, Rev. Phillip Hewett, Dr.

Peter Oberlander, Mrs. H. Fergusson, Mr. Ron Tweedie.

Municipal Affairs — Teresa A. Reksten.

Education — Mrs. Margaret Kird, Mrs. D. Baigent, Mr. Harry

Greene, Mr. Phillip Joe, Mrs. Catherine S. Bergmann, Mrs.

Evelyn Souster, Mr. Roger Schmidt, Mrs. Phyllis Cribb, Jean

Pierre Daem, Mrs. Nancy A. Kirk, Mrs. Hazel Lestpange, Mr. John

Sutherland.

Health — Walter S. Ross, John L. Desjardins, Mabel C.

Mcrory.

Municipal Affairs — Robert Neilsen Pedersen.

Health — John L. Desjardins.

MR. G.H. ANDERSON (Kamloops): This is disgusting.

MR. PHILLIPS: Finance — Isaac Plecash; Attorney-General ...

one duplication in 300.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Who wrote that for you?

MR. PHILLIPS: Jeanette Stark, William Smalley.

Health — Joseph Ling-Kwan Kwong ...

AN HON. MEMBER: You'd better read the order-in-council.

MR. PHILLIPS: ...Robert Brian Mould...

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't have to read the order-in-council.

MR. PHILLIPS: Housing — John Northy.

Education — Lonnie Hindle, Dr. Harvey Richardson, Bernard

Gillie, Mrs. Margaret Vickers.

Labour — James Stewart Don.

Education — Severen Morin, Mrs. Lynn Lathan.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Is that all?

MR. PHILLIPS: Is that all? Is that all! (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that one month?

MR. PHILLIPS: How many trees? How many tons of ore?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Carry on, carry on.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! It is within the knowledge of

the chair that there are certain names that have been mentioned

that are simply hospital appointments in Skeena, and I would

draw attention to standing order 61. I'm not taking direction

from either side of the House in this case.

MR. CHABOT: It's quite obvious where you're taking your

directions.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Go back to court.

[ Page

809 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would the Hon. Member for South Peace River

proceed with his list?

MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, did you recognize some familiar

names in there, maybe in your constituency?

The whole point is that we're discussing today the Minister

of Finance's estimates. It is his department that is in the end

responsible for signing the cheques for this bureaucracy that

has been built up. It is the taxpayers of British Columbia who

are going to have to pay the bill. A $70 million increase in

one year, twice the entire cost for the Department of

Agriculture including $20 million special appropriations;

nearly 1 times the amount of money being put out for

housing and land servicing.

They used to be saying in Ottawa: "What's a million here or

there?" This government, I believe, and this Minister of

Finance is adopting the same philosophy. "What's a million here

or there?" A measly $13 million for tax removal from property

in this budget, one of the promises of this government, but

nearly five times that amount to pay for the increase in the

civil service in one year. A measly $1 million for intermediate

care; 70 times that amount to pay for the bureaucracy this

government is building up. Per capita grants to the

municipalities: $66 million. Add $4 million to that and you've

got the amount of the cost of the increase in the civil service

in this province in one year.

But the question we must ask is: what does this $70 million

provide for the taxpayers of the Province of British

Columbia?

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you state your point of order?

MR. R.T. CUMMINGS (Vancouver-Little Mountain): Mr. Chairman,

it's an unwritten law in this House that you shouldn't

criticize a civil servant or appointment or a person who can't

fight back. The Hon. Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland)

protested when a civil servant struck back at him when he

pulled a trick. I suggest the Hon. Member for South Peace River

established a new price: about 9 cents.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. There's no point of order.

Would the Hon. Member for South Peace River continue?

MR. PHILLIPS: As I said at the outset, I am attacking no

individual in the civil service; I am attacking the bureaucracy

this government is building up and that the taxpayers of this

province have to pay for.

This $70 million is nearly four times the anticipated revenue from land taxes

this year. What services and how much extra benefits are the taxpayers of British

Columbia going to derive from this increase of $70 million in one year? Six

thousand civil servants in 18 months.

I look at the Province of British Columbia with its wealth

of resources and the benefit it has been able to extend to its

people over the last two decades. I look at the Province of

Quebec with equal resources, and I look at the Province of

Newfoundland. I look at many other countries throughout the

world equally endowed with the natural resources we have here

in British Columbia. Why are the people of those provinces not

endowed with the same standard of living as we are here in the

Province of British Columbia? Why do we take from the "have"

Province of British Columbia and give to the "have-not"

Province of Quebec that is endowed with more natural resources

than we have here in the Province of British Columbia? It has

been good management of the money in British Columbia that has

made it a "have" province; good management of the natural

resources and a tight rein on expenses. Taxpayers in British

Columbia were saying during the past two decades that we had

too many civil servants, but in the long run it's the taxpayers

of British Columbia who have to pay the bill.

Mr. Chairman, to the Minister of Finance, who is responsible

for spending the taxpayers' dollars, I would like to say again

that wasting taxpayers' dollars is a sin, and it's a sin

punishable by being expelled from office.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I've been sitting here

thinking what kind of words can I use to describe that

disgraceful performance? But then I have to remember where it

comes from.

The first two things we did was hire that outfit some

research staff. You want to talk about a waste of tax dollars.

We've obviously wasted it on the research staff because he

didn't do a single lick of work to find out what he was talking

about.

Who has he attacked when he has read those lists? I refuse

to send out a copy of his speech to all these people because I

don't want them to think his speech was politically motivated.

I think his speech was purely based on ignorance.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Far be it from me to accuse that Member of

playing cheap politics. If he was playing cheap politics he

would at least check out his facts before he made the most

coherent speech he has ever made since he's been in the House.

He was reading from a list.

Who did he attack? All the police commissions, all the

boards of variance, the PGE board, two Deputy Ministers, the

Petroleum Corporation board, all the

[ Page 810 ]

hospital boards, all the boards appointed by

order-in-council by that government and governments before

it.

Well, did anybody work on the boards before we arrived?

Certainly they did. And how were they appointed? By the former

government. And what did we do? We reappointed some of them.

Guess who they were? Shame! Some of them are Socreds, Mr.

Chairman.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh! You can't believe it? Mr. Member, it

is true. They are public-spirited, good citizens who want to

serve their community, only to find they're attacked by that

Member who read not one single order-in-council to find out who

he was attacking. He just read the list.

Mr. Morton, who ran against the Member for Cowichan-Malahat

(Hon. Mr. Strachan), is on the hospital board. He ran under the

Social Credit colours.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: He's on the board of variance.

HON. MR. BARRETT: He's on the board of variance. He gets a

small remuneration for serving the community, and that heavy

odour is cast. I hope he doesn't hear that one of his fellow

party members attacked him in the House today.

AN HON. MEMBER: We won't tell him.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Don't tell him. I don't want anybody to

tell them that they're attacking their own kind. I'm glad their

leader (Mr. Bennett) isn't here with them today, because he'd

be embarrassed at the new level of inadequacy they've presented

us today. Considering all the problems that new leader has got,

why burden him with this inadequacy on top of it? Let's keep

this to ourselves. I ask the press gallery to put their pencils

down and keep the secret that he read the list today attacking

Social Credit flacks.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Order! The Hon. Premier has the

floor.

HON. MR. BARRETT: For the children here in the gallery, may

their ears never hear again such a list of attacks against good

citizens of this province, some of whom publicly admit — and

this takes courage — that they're Social Credit members.

AN HON. MEMBER: I can't believe it!

HON. MR. BARRETT: I can't believe it either. That dying party still has

adherents, and some of them have been reappointed to boards and councils only

to be attacked by the Member for South Peace River.

Who else did he attack? He named one George Brody? Guess who

George Brody is? He's a government agent in Nelson, and George

Brody has been working for the government for 33 years. Some

reward! Instead of a gold watch he got attacked by the Member

today.

I don't want George to hear about this. Don't anybody send

him a letter and tell poor George what happened. You stay in

the House, Mr. Member for Nelson-Creston (Hon. Mr. Nicolson). I

don't want any phone calls; I don't want George's heart broken

— after 33 years in government service to find that he's

attacked on the floor today.

Dick Colby, who worked faithfully under the former

administration, received his reward and is now appointed Deputy

only to be attacked.

Now, Mr. Member, aside from the fun you were having, the

fact is: you have put on a very low, shallow performance,

attacking many dedicated citizens who serve this province by

law through order-in-council.

Order-in-council appointments have been a practice for

boards, for commissions, for hospital service, for civil

servants who give of their voluntary time to work evenings on

these boards — like Brody and like others. I disassociate

myself completely with remarks made by that Member. We are

fortunate in this province to have many, many people who are

civil servants who volunteer their time, and do so at the great

service to all of us British Columbians.

Mr. Member, you should hang your head in shame. You should

go back and reconsider some of your intemperate statements

attacking these good people in this province. I find it very

disgraceful that he would read a list of order-in-council

appointments without referring to what their tasks were or what

their jobs were.

In terms of the B.C. Petroleum Corporation board members:

certainly it's true we appointed them through order-in-council;

certainly it's true it's related to the resources of this

province, Mr. Member. And if we didn't have that petroleum

corporation, we wouldn't be getting the fair share of natural

gas we are now getting. We'd still be giving it away as we did

under the former administration.

Mr. Chairman, the order-in-council appointments of administrative assistants

to the cabinet Ministers are there for the length of the service of that cabinet

Minister. At no time will we use the civil service procedures to manipulate

the appointment of order-in-council people. That should be openly order-in-council,

just as Deputy Ministers always will by order-in-council appointments, so will

[ Page

811 ]

Ministerial assistants.

Mr. Member, there will no longer be the pork barrel

alliance, commonly known as the Businessmen's Alliance of the

former P.A. Gaglardi. You have smeared people on that list who

are serving on boards; you've smeared Deputy Ministers; you've

smeared civil servants. You are so incompetent in your research

that you have not made an attempt to separate the straight

appointments by the cabinet Ministers, but you've gone on to

attack, in the one case, a civil servant who's been on staff

for 33 years.

You can't get much lower, but I'm waiting for it to

happen.

MR. F.A. CALDER (Atlin): Mr. Chairman, I would like to take

part in this debate in the Premier's estimates by registering

my protests from what he said yesterday. Of course, I'll stand

corrected if I'm wrong, but in the heat of his debate, his

presentation yesterday, he said that in the event of this lack

of co-operation from the federal government, in terms of

northern development, that the province would go it alone.

MR. AN. FRASER (Cariboo): Sure, he's backing out, Frank.

You've the guts to speak up!

MR. CALDER: As a northern Member I stand on my feet as a

Member of this government, and one who has fought a long time

and seen what happens in the north. I feel, being fair, that

I'm not afraid to hit my boss in this respect because I've

always believed that the key to northern development is

co-operation with the federal government. Particularly with one

development that we've been talking about, and that is railroad

building. You know, we took over because of necessity and I

mentioned this in my contribution to the budget debate. We had

no choice. To save the economy we had to take over the Columbia

Cellulose of America. A great thing, one of the most fantastic

moves the government ever made.

Other than that, we're talking about railway building. So

help me, right from Terrace all the way up to Groundhog, — Mr.

Chairman, this involves your riding — there's got to be federal

money involved in this construction. There's no way out of it.

And we go to Dease Lake — partner, what the heck are we going

to Dease Lake for? What are we going to take out of there?

When the previous administration went up to Fort Nelson...what are we taking out of there? So we're going to Dease Lake.

What are we taking out? Are we going to take out trees? Hang

it; the Minister of trees (Hon. R.A. Williams) hasn't even

completed SYUs up there, you know. So what are we going to take

out in commodity to make that railway pay?

As I said very briefly in my contribution to the budget

debate, there is one company that is already producing — the only one in the whole area — and they're

shipping every ounce of asbestos through Whitehorse down to

Skagway. That company has said that the minute the railway is

completed to Dease Lake, they're going to divert every ounce of

asbestos to Dease Lake and they're going to start shipping it

by railway down to North Vancouver.

From where I'm standing that is the one and only commodity

that's going to make the railway pay.

But beyond that, where the heck do we go? Northern

development, friends, does not mean far northern British

Columbia — and we're going to throw up our hats and say,

"Hurray!" Beans to that noise. We've got to go beyond the

bounds of the B.C.-Yukon boundary. We have to go up there where

the black stuff is, you know. As a matter of fact, the Premier

and the Provincial Secretary had to fly to Washington a year

ago and say,"We'll build the railway and we'll take this black

stuff down by rail."

Anyway, that's northern development, if it materializes. So

we've got to go beyond that. But who the heck is going to go

beyond that? The B.C. government? Like hell! It's the CNR that

has to. By the British North America Act , they are the

only ones that can go beyond the bounds of the province — so

we've got to co-operate with that CNR.

Now, I realize that the CNR is giving us one lousy heck

right now. I know. I've talked to the Premier and I know. But,

my golly, if we're going to get anywhere, we've got to keep

pushing and let those guys in the east know that we'd like to

co-operate. So why kick them? We don't want to kick them in the

bum. We've got to make them realize that this is it.

You know, I'm glad that the Leader of the Conservative Party

is in his seat. The Liberals may not be in power forever. Guess

who introduced the Road to Resources programme? It was

Diefenbaker. And because Art Laing hated the guts of W.A.C., he

cut it off. Look, you ask me about it; I'll tell you. And

Diefenbaker had the guts to go and introduce that Road to

Resources programme. That was cut off — $15 million into us, and

we ended up.... Because of the interference, when Diefenbaker

went down, we only received $7 million of it.

Why did we take so lousy long in building the Stewart-Watson

Lake Highway? Because we ended up doing our own bag. We did.

W.A.C. did it. I take my hat off to him. But there was an

interference — there was supposed to be $15 million for it.

Now, the same thing with the construction of the railway.

It's now going in through my country. The old Nass River bit —

you know, up to Groundhog. Mr. Premier, through you, Mr.

Chairman, I couldn't see any way out. You've got to co-operate

with the federal because this is all northern development, and

northern development does not end up at the boundary line of

B.C. and the Yukon. It goes beyond that. Federal participation

is a must! I don't give a

[ Page 812 ]

hoot how rough a time they give us. I think it's the

responsibility of this government to see that there is a

co-operation. This is what I'd like to point out at this

time.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): How do you do it, Frank? How do

you do it? Tell us how?

MR. CALDER: I just finished telling you; by way of

co-operation between the two governments. Let's not one

government kick the other. And that's the answer to your

question. Now don't ask me such a silly question.

MR. WALLACE: It's a two-way street. We're not getting

co-operation! How do you expect to get it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. CALDER: You weren't even listening, buster! I'm saying

that if we're going to get anywhere, there must be co-operation

between two governments. So what the hell are you kicking

about?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. CALDER: Look, I'm in a bloody ugly mood, and you....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! I'd ask the Hon. Member to

address the Chair.

MR. CALDER: Okay. Just hold it. I just want to say this: I

got up on my feet for one specific reason — northern

development.

I want to end up my talk by now asking the Premier. This is

a preliminary — a mere introduction to what I was saying. I'm

thinking of this Groundhog-to-Stewart River — the railway

building. I can speak on behalf of the lower half of my

constituency.

I got the information from the CNR. I didn't get it from the

B.C. government. I had to get all the dope about this railway

building from the CN — out of your city, Mr. Chairman, the City

of Terrace. I got the maps and all the information from the CN.

There has to be co-operation. This is my bag. This is what I am

telling you, okay?

So I start fighting on behalf of my constituency and say there must be a BCR

feasibility survey to find out whether or not the seaport of Stewart could be

a reality. It's only 70 miles from the Groundhog down to Stewart. During the

election, one of the people who assisted me in the campaigns was the Premier

himself. I got him to stand up on the height of land and I said, look, there

is the old Bear Glacier receding. Right now you can see away back. And we looked

at the forest road down below — which is level, baby, you know. A railway is

possible to Stewart. Well, I don't give a hoot if it costs $50,000 or $100,000.

Why couldn't we survey that possibility on whether or not we can go into Stewart?

And this is the reason I am on my feet. I would like to ask the Premier if that

is possible. At least survey it. I think this is in all fairness to our old

big talk about northern development.

[Mr. Liden in the chair.]

MR. G.F. GIBSON (North Vancouver-Capilano): Mr. Chairman, I

would like at the outset, on behalf of my party, to come back

to the kindly words of the Premier with respect to the victory

of Mr. Wilson in the British elections. I say that the Liberal

Party would wish to associate itself with all good wishes to

Mr. Wilson. Even a very rich province like British, Columbia

has difficulty, you know, Mr. Chairman, affording a socialist

government, and Britain will really need luck to do that.

The bright spot, I might point out to the Premier, through

you, Mr. Chairman, is that at least in Britain the Liberals

hold the balance of power. So we will hope for good things.

MR. WALLACE: The Scottish Nationalists hold the balance of

power.

MR. GIBSON: The committee, Mr. Chairman, has covered a lot

of ground on these estimates so far. We've talked about the

British Columbia Railway in some depth. The Premier raised the

question of B.C. Telephone. Perhaps I might ask the Premier,

through you, Mr. Chairman: you said you would table a

memorandum of share transactions with respect to B.C.

Telephones. Perhaps that could be done.

We talked about natural resources and the size of the civil

service and discussion of order-in-council appointments and

energy. But, Mr. Chairman, there has been a common thread

through almost every speech that has been given on these

estimates, and that common thread is honesty in government, as

evidenced by affidavits...

Interjection.

MR. GIBSON: We're hanging on till we get answers, Mr.

Member.

...affidavits filed by members of the Egg and Broiler

Marketing Boards. It's natural that there should be this common

thread because without honesty in government, none of these

other things matter — B.C. Railway, the natural resources, the

civil service — none of these things are important without that

fundamental thing of honesty in government.

While I and other Members of my party will be speaking on other questions later

on in the Premier's

[ Page

813 ]

estimates, on this occasion I want to stick strictly to this

question of government integrity.

I can't believe, Mr. Chairman, that the Premier would want

to leave these questions on record without some very specific

answers. Who is telling the truth about the Egg Marketing

Board? Who is telling the truth about the Broiler Marketing

Board? That is the question.

It is either the Premier's good name, or it is the good name

of four other men who had the guts to brave the wrath of the

government and come out and say some things that were very

disagreeable for the government to hear, and attest to them and

swear to them in this province. It is a reflection on those

civil servants at those meetings if these things are left on

the record without clarification.

The image has been presented of a government that operates

in the backroom with muscle; and that's a government that in

the long run will muscle every citizen in British Columbia.

It has been a long debate. The Premier had a lot to say

about marketing boards, about the policy of marketing boards,

and that's important. It was discussed at length in the

agricultural estimates.

He read from the Garrish report, which was an interesting

report, about trading in quotas and we all disagree with that;

about dumping in various parts of the province, and that's

wrong; about cozy little arrangements with producers in various

parts of the province. All of these things are wrong.

Again, Mr. Chairman, they are not the issue. What about Mr.

Kovachich? I didn't hear the Premier say anything about that.

And what about the questions asked by the Member for

Vancouver-Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) — that I am going to come

back to later on? And what about broilers?

You know, the Premier has made a lot about these words "or

similar words to the same effect." I want to refer him to the

affidavit filed by Mr. McAninch, points 11 and 12. Point 11

says that the Deputy Minister of Agriculture said that the

Premier of British Columbia had ordered certain allocations;

and there is no "similar words to the same effect" there, Mr.

Premier, through the Chairman — no similar words to the same

effect. It's a straight statement.

In point 12 Mr. McAninch swore that "I was further informed

by the said Mr. Peterson that Mr. Barrett had directed that a

committee of three be appointed to determine allocation of

broiler permits on the basis ordered by Mr. Barrett." No

"similar words to the same effect" there; it's a straight

statement. It is a statement about the word of a senior civil

servant in the Province of British Columbia.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The Premier wasn't at that meeting.

MR. GIBSON: No, the Premier wasn't at that meeting, Mr.

Attorney-General, that's correct. A Deputy Minister was at that

meeting who was quoting the Premier. I think that's important,

Mr. Attorney-General, because it directly contradicts words

that the Premier said in this House. That's why I think it's

important.

What about this question of interfering with the boards? The

problem to me is the interfering secretly rather than directly

under the Natural Products Marketing British Columbia

Act . Because the government has all the powers it could

ever want under the Natural Products Marketing British

Columbia Act . In

section 4, subsection 2:

"The Lieutenant-Governor in Council may from time to time establish, amend and revoke schemes for

the promotion and control and regulation within the province of

the transportation, packing, storage and marketing of any

natural products, and may constitute marketing boards to

administer such schemes and may vest in those boards

respectively any powers considered necessary, advisable to

enable them...." and so on.

By order-in-council the law provides that if the government

doesn't like the way these boards are operating, the government

can disband the board. The government can set up a new board

with new powers, but it has to take responsibility if it does

it that way — openly, through order-in-council. It has to be

registered rather than applying muscle in the back room.

Yesterday the Second Member for Vancouver-Point Grey (Mr.

Gardom) asked the Premier in question period whether he had

read the material that was tabled in the House last week and

the affidavits of Messrs. McAninch and Stafford and Brunsdon

and Unger of the broiler and egg boards respectively. The

Premier replied, "Yes, I have read the material and I know of

its contents, which I disagree with."

I ask, which statements in those affidavits does the Premier

disagree with — which statements? I'm sure he has studied them

carefully.

Does the Premier agree that the people Mr. Brunsdon said

were present were, in fact, at the meeting? Because those

people might have something to say about the meetings too.

Did the Premier, Mr. Chairman, tell Mr. Brunsdon that there

would not be any court case against Mr. Kovachich — tell him,

inform him, advise him — that that was not going to happen?

Did the Premier, Mr. Chairman, say that the charges against

Mr. Kovachich, the fines, levies, must be substantially

reduced? We have the testimony of the Minister of Agriculture

that in due course he approved the exact amount of the

reduction — a reduction by two-thirds.

[ Page 814 ]

Was he following out the Premier's orders as sworn by these

affidavits?

Did the Premier indicate to Mr. Brunsdon that the Kovachich

order was not to be a precedent and that if any other producers

got out of line, they were to be stepped on?

Did the Premier inform the board that it had to draft an

agreement that day?

Had the Premier before met or had discussions with Mr.

Kovachich? And was he aware of the politics of Mr.

Kovachich?

Did the Premier inform Mr. Morgan, in response to his

question as to what assurance the board would have that Mr.

Kovachich would abide by the dictated agreement: "If he does

not abide by his part of the agreement I will kick the crap out

of him, and if the egg board does not abide by their part of

the agreement I will kick the crap out of you "?

Did the Premier say to Mr. Brunsdon at the meeting: "If

anything is said outside of this office I will deny every word

I said "?

Mr. Chairman, we've got a two act tragedy here. Act I was in

the Premier's office on October 26, 1972. Act II was in Mr.

Maurice King's office on February 5, 1974.

The cast of characters in this two act tragedy is quite

short. It's not as long as the cast of characters the Hon.

Member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) read us. There were

only 16 people at those meetings.

Out of those 16 people, Mr. Chairman, four have sworn

affidavits. A quarter of the people at those meetings have

sworn affidavits as to what happened at those meetings. One

person has said that he has a memory that is faulty about those

meetings. That's the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Stupich)

— he can't remember very well what happened.

Five of the people at those meetings have been muzzled. The

civil servants at those meetings have been as much as

instructed by the Minister of Agriculture, speaking in this

House, that they had better not talk to the press. Five out of

that 16 were muzzled.

There are five other people who were outsiders who have not

as yet given their sworn testimony, and might welcome a chance

to talk, Mr. Chairman.

Finally, out of the 16 there's been one denial on the floor

of this House by the Premier that he ordered people to do

things either with respect to the Egg Marketing Board in 1972,

or with respect to the Broiler Marketing Board in 1974.

Mr. Chairman, the Premier's estimates are an occasion to

discuss many things of importance to this province. I will

return to other subjects later on in the Premier's estimates.

But this is the fundamental one, and this is one that we have

to keep asking questions on until we get answers. The Hon.

Member for Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) asked them yesterday and got

no answers. I'll ask them now.

The Premier, earlier on today, called across the floor to a Member who was

speaking in this debate: "Tell the whole truth." I say that to the Premier.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Chairman, it's

characteristic that we're still refused the answers to the

questions that are being asked.

The Premier referred to a "disgraceful performance." Well,

I'd say that if there is any disgraceful performance in this

House it's the Premier's performance with regard to the basic

questions that are facing this House in British Columbia

today.

The question is simply one of truth: who is telling the

truth? The people of British Columbia want to know the answers

to those questions and many others.

I want to refer just briefly to the speaker previous to the

Hon. Member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) because

there were a couple of points there that were, mentioned, and

the Premier conveniently forgot about the figures of $70 million for

additional civil service — and most of that at the top

levels.

There aren't any public health inspectors in that $70

million. There's a million dollars for intermediate care.

There's $70 million of money wasted on an operation of

machinery itself that this government has set up.

It's interesting that the Premier in his knee-jerk reactions

had to pick out the Provincial Alliance of Businessmen to talk

about. I'd like to ask the Premier where those people are from

the Provincial Alliance of Businessmen that were fired. I'm not

talking about political appointments — I'm talking about 20 or

30 people who were ordinary civil servants who were fired by

your welfare Minister (Hon. Mr. Levi) and are still, some of

them, walking the streets because they can't find other work.

What about that, Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Chairman?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Can you give me names?

MR. McCLELLAND: I've given you names. I've given you names

over and over again — and your welfare Minister as well. And I

got no answers to that question either.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Send me a letter naming names.

MR. McCLELLAND: You've got the names. I sent them to you a

year ago! What's the matter with you?

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: No, they haven't been placed in the government service.

They were fired by

[ Page

815 ]

your department and your welfare Minister was upset....

Interjections.

MR. McCLELLAND: You've got the names! They wouldn't answer

last year, and I don't expect an answer this year. Those people

are still walking the streets, thanks to your government.

Interjections.

MR. McCLELLAND: Clear off your desk for a change, and look

in your files. Civil servants are walking the streets because

of the actions of this government. That's the kind of

government we're faced with.

I have a couple of other questions that I'd like to ask

about this whole question of truth in government, honesty in

government, integrity in government. Again it relates to the

problems that the people involved with the British Columbia Egg

Marketing Board have found themselves in.

The former chairman of the British Columbia Egg Marketing

Board has now made it very clear that he resigned from the Egg

Marketing Board because of government interference. Now, he's

made that extremely clear, in answer to the questions raised by

the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Macdonald) in the House. He has

said he resigned because of government interference, He wanted

you to know that, Mr. Attorney-General.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: A year later.

MR. McCLELLAND: Doesn't that change the situation slightly,

Mr. Premier? Doesn't that make it even more important that you

get up on the floor of the House and begin to answer some

questions?

The former chairman of the British Columbia Egg Marketing

Board has said publicly that in his estimation the Premier has

not been telling the truth. Here's a citizen of British

Columbia who has gone to the trouble of signing and swearing to

an affidavit to state his position. Nobody else in government

has gone that far. He has said that in his estimation the

Premier has not been telling the truth.

Mr. Chairman, I suggest that that kind of changes things a little. It's about

time, in the light of these kinds of statements, that the Premier stood up and

began to tell the truth, The former chairman of the Egg Marketing Board has

said publicly: "I want the Premier to stand up and say those things." What he

is saying, Mr. Chairman, is that he wants the Premier to stand up and level

with the people of British Columbia and tell us the whole story. Tell us what

happened; tell us what threats were made; tell us what intervention came from

the Premier's office.

One of the other people who signed those affidavits, Mr.

John Unger, a member of the British Columbia Egg Marketing

Board, said publicly: "The people have the right to the truth."

We agree that the people have a right to the truth. And the

time is over-ripe for the people to get at the truth.

Mr. Unger has also said yesterday: "I challenge the Premier to come forward

now and tell the public exactly what went on inside his office." That's fair

enough. That's all we want — we want the Premier to come forward now and tell

the people of British Columbia exactly the kind of threats that went on inside

his office.

Further, that same member of the British Columbia Egg

Marketing Board has said that several civil servants suggested

to members of the board that they resign. I don't recall that

being brought up before, but he says now that several civil

servants suggested to members of the board that they resign.

What civil servants, Mr. Chairman? By what right did they make

those suggestions? All the more reason for the Premier to get

up in this House and promise the people of British Columbia

that he will have a full and open public inquiry into this

whole question, and that he will allow civil servants who were

involved in these meetings to testify at this public hearing,

and that the light be let into the proceedings of the Premier's

interference in matters concerning the British Columbia Egg

Marketing Board and the British Columbia Broiler Marketing

Board.

The Premier gave a stirring performance on the floor of this

House yesterday. He was at his very best. Unfortunately he

never hit the point once.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): That's his

best.

MR. McCLELLAND: His absolute best — that's right.

In the light of the developments which have been placed on

file with Members of this House and have since been placed in

public, I think it's really time that the Premier started with

Members of this House and the public of British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, if the Premier can't see the need for a public

inquiry yet, I'd say he's blind. It's about time you took the

blinkers off, Mr. Premier. The time is now.

MR. GARDOM: It was looking as though the Hon. Premier was

starting to maybe get a little vertical, and having got

vertical, open his mouth and give us some answers, Mr.

Chairman, but if that's not the case I indeed have to also put

some questions to the Premier.

Did you, Mr. Premier, tell Mr. Brunsdon there would not be

any court case against Mr. Kovachich?

[ Page 816 ]

Yes or no.

Did you say the charges against Mr. Kovachich must be

substantially reduced?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I said they were acting like children.

MR. GARDOM: That's the only words you used. Did you say that

to them specifically? Did you say: "You are acting like

children "? or are you just reconstructing that today?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I'm not referring to you today.

MR. GARDOM: I wasn't at the meeting. I tell you, if I'd been

at the meeting, I perhaps would have had a far better and

clearer recollection of what happened there than you've had,

Mr. Premier, because you've not answered the questions. I asked

you questions yesterday, the Member for North

Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) asked you questions, my

colleague for Langley (Mr. McClelland) asked you questions,

you've heard questions from the First Member for

Vancouver-Point Grey (Mr. McGeer) and the Member for West

Vancouver-Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams), and you've not

answered any of those questions. You've not responded even to

the statements of these four gentlemen, and they want you to

clear the air for them.

Did you indicate to Mr. Brunsdon that the Kovachich order

was not to be a precedent, and that if any other producers got

out of line they were to be stepped on? Did you say that?

Maybe the Hon. Premier didn't hear me. I'll repeat the

question to him. Did you indicate to Mr. Brunsdon that the

Kovachich order was not to be a precedent, and that if any

other producers got out of line they were to be stepped

upon?

HON. MR. BARRETT: I don't have the floor.

MR. GARDOM: Are you prepared to take the floor and answer

these questions? I'm happy to sit down.

HON. MR. BARRETT: We're not in a courtroom, Mr. Member. I

made my statements.

MR. GARDOM: I appreciate that you're not in a courtroom.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will you address the Chair and continue with

your speech?

MR. GARDOM: Yes, indeed, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Hon. Premier.

Are you therefore prepared to stand up and answer these questions now? If you

are, I'm delighted to sit down.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I've answered them as far as I'm going to.

I've answered those questions.

MR. GARDOM: You're not going to answer any more questions at

all. That's your position.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I've answered those questions.

MR. GARDOM: Did you inform the board that it would have to

draft an agreement that day? Yes or no.

Did Mr. Ed Morgan say this to you: "Mr. Premier, what

assurance does the board have that Sy will abide by the

agreement? Did he ask you that? Do you remember that? Are you

denying it? Or are you not denying it? Or are you just going to

stand by one simplistic, generalistic statement that they were

acting like children?

Was Mr. Kovachich acting like a child, too? Is he included

in that, or is this just the board?

Did you know Mr. Kovachich before this particular meeting?

Was he at it? He doesn't appear to have been at it, but was he

at it?

Did you inform Mr. Morgan, in response to his question as

to what assurance the board will have, that Mr. Kovachich would

abide by the dictated agreement, and that if he didn't abide by

his part of the agreement: "I will kick the crap out of him and

if the egg board does not abide by their part of the agreement,

I will kick the crap out of you "? Did you or did you not say

those words? Or are you saying today you don't remember them?

Are you denying them? Are you saying you're not remembering

them?

Interjection.

MR. GARDOM: He hasn't said that, Mr. Minister. One of the

Ministers in the background is suggesting you say you don't

recall, but he's not gone that far. He hasn't said that. You're

not saying you don't remember saying that, are you? Eh?

How did you do it? Did you do it in the friendly Dave

Barrett style — "Hey, fellas, if you don't do this I'm going to

kick the crap out of you "?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will you address the Chair?

MR. GARDOM: Did he do it this way, Mr. Chairman, or did he

threaten these people? Did he threaten these people?

The Minister of Agriculture said that this was no doubt one of — not the finest

hours — but certainly one of the hours that these people would never ever have

forgotten. That certainly seems to be true. It's very strange that the Premier

seems to take the position that he will not give a statement. He's not saying

[ Page

817 ]

he doesn't remember.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I gave a statement.

MR. GARDOM: Oh, Mr. Premier!

HON. MR. BARRETT: I can't help it if you're not happy with

it, but I gave a statement. I can't help that.

MR. GARDOM: Well, in 45 minutes, are you suggesting to this

House and to the people of British Columbia that the only thing

you suggested was: "Hey, you fellas are acting like children "?

In 45 minutes of meeting in your office? That's a little tough

for anybody to believe.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, I said I did not order

anything or threaten anyone, and I said they acted like

children. I've said that statement over and over and over

again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. The Second Member for Vancouver-Point

Grey has the floor. Continue your speech.

MR. GARDOM: It's not a speech — these are questions.

Did the Premier inform the board: "I don't want to see you

again until you have problems with Ottawa and I will help

you?” Did you or did you not say that?

And here's the most important quotation of all from the

sworn affidavit of Mr. Brunsdon. Just shortly prior to the

termination of the meeting where the members of the Egg

Marketing Board were sitting on a settee in front of you, and

you were standing or leaning against your desk, or sitting on

the front of your desk, and they were about 10 feet in front of

you, with your Minister of Agriculture on your right hand side,

did you say to Mr. Brunsdon: "If anything is said outside of

this office, I will deny every word I said "?

Did you say that or not? If you did, that's a disgraceful

statement. And if you didn't say it, I tend to think you've got

a responsibility to your office, if not to yourself, to deny it

— if not to yourself, certainly to your office. Both ways.

Mr. Premier, it appears from this material that you did

dictate orders to the board. It appears from this material that

you did threaten these people in the way in which they would

handle their duties.

You know, Mr. Unger said: "The people have a right to the

truth." I would say, Mr. Premier, don't you think that you've

got the solemn responsibility to tell the truth and give your

total account of what happened at the meeting?

Mr. Premier, you said you're not in a court of law.

That's correct. But then again, this Legislature is perhaps

the highest court in this land, and it should not be on a lower

standard, There's a responsibility in giving evidence in the

court of law, as you well know, to tell not just the truth, but

the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Mr. Premier, I

regret to have to say that insofar as your responses are

concerned, the only conclusion that one can make is that we

still have about five-sixths of this story, as far as you're

concerned, under the water.

I think you owe it to the people of B.C., and you certainly

owe it to these gentlemen, to say whether or not you agree or

disagree with their statements.

If you disagree with them, are they libeling you? If they're

telling lies, Mr. Premier, you should get hold of your lawyer —

you'd have a good case against them, if they're telling lies.

Make no mistake of that. If these gentlemen are lying in their

affidavits, they're libeling you, and they're libeling your

office. And you should take action upon it.

MR. LEWIS: It is indeed an honour for me to get back into

this debate again. It's not common for the Liberals and the

Socreds to spend so much time discussing agriculture.

Interjections.

MR. LEWIS: No, I don't think they're discussing agriculture

either. I think they're still trying to protect a monopoly that

was created in the Fraser Valley years ago and is still there.

We've referred to marketing boards — the Broiler Marketing

Board and the Egg Marketing Board.

As I've said before, I, as an elected Member from an

Interior riding in the Province of British Columbia, feel that

I have a responsibility to this House to see that agriculture

has the right to grow in all parts of the province.

MR. McCLELLAND: Go turn thy sod on your new processing

plant.

MR. LEWIS: I say that the Premier and the Minister of

Agriculture also have that same responsibility, I say that if a

meeting was held in their office and some steps were taken to

see that this was carried out throughout the province, so be

it. It should have happened under the past government. But they

didn't have the intestinal fortitude to go ahead with it

because really very much of their contributions for their

election campaigns came out of that rich Socred area from the

Clearbrook area.

We've heard all kinds of charges about affidavits and this

type of thing going on in this province. I try to stay away

from being personal.

There was an affidavit sworn up north this day in the Peace

River. We have two Members here from the

[ Page 818 ]

Peace River and it seems very strange to me that they

haven't stood up and defended farming in the Peace River of

this province. This is the Canadian Press for today. Prince

George, B.C.

AN HON. MEMBER: Prince George is not up north.

MR. LEWIS: Just wait till I read it all out.

"Northern British Columbia egg producers, pushed aside by

the current legislative furor over affidavits accusing Premier

Dave Barrett of threatening the Egg Marketing Board, have

counter-attacked with a sworn accusation of their own. A Peace

River feedmill" — a feedmill, not even an egg producer; listen

to that — "...manager who supplies feed to a Prince George

egg producer, Savo Kovachich, swore an affidavit accusing the

Egg Marketing Board's former executive secretary, Ed Morgan, of

attempting to get Mr. Kovachich's feed supply stopped.

"Gerald Randall, manager of National Grain Company Limited,

a Dawson Creek feedmill, swore that Morgan met with him in

Dawson Creek in late October or early November of 1971 and

advised him that it would be in the best interests of the

National Grain Company to refuse to supply the egg producer who

refused to comply with the B.C. Egg Marketing Board's

demand.

"Mr. Randall swears that Mr. Morgan said Mr. Kovachich had

not complied with the marketing board's demands and it would be

in the best interests of his company to cut off his feed

supply. Mr. Randall did not stop supplying feed to Mr.

Kovachich."

You're talking about people using force. If that isn't force.... I say the Premier and the Minister of Agriculture for this

province had a responsibility to see that this type of thing

was stopped.

MR. H.W. SCHROEDER (Chilliwack): Did you ever hear of a

strike?

MR. LEWIS: There has been a lot of referring to Mr.

Brunsdon's statements. The latest thing that came out in the

press today was that Mr. Brunsdon resigned because he was

unhappy with interference by the government.

I would like the press and I would like the opposition to

ask the Vancouver Island egg producers if they sent a letter to

Mr. Brunsdon asking that he resign because he wasn't

representing them. Ask the egg producers if three of their

directors did not travel to Mr. Brunsdon's home and ask him in

person that he resign. I think you better do a little more

research on that.

I say that the Premier and the Minister of Agriculture in this province have

the responsibility to all parts of the province. The marketing boards are a

creature of the province, and if they're working to the detriment of any part

of the province they have a responsibility to the citizens in this province

to see that it's stopped. Thank you very much.

MR. P.L. McGEER Vancouver-Point Grey): Mr. Chairman it's

always interesting to hear the Member for Shuswap (Mr. Lewis)

make his presentation in the Legislative Assembly. One can

understand what a forceful influence he has been on the Premier

and the Minister of Agriculture and the NDP backbenchers.

While we don't disagree with any of the statements he has

made regarding the need to distribute the agricultural industry

all around the province in a completely fair manner, we say to

him and the Premier and the Minister of Agriculture and the NDP

backbenchers that the end does not justify the means. Every

Member of this House, whether he's a government Member for

Shuswap or an opposition Member for the North Peace River or

any other constituency in British Columbia, has the

responsibility to see that the political process is

scrupulously fair.

The word you hear again and again in politics is image. I

don't like the word because it implies that there can be a

difference between how things seem to be and how they really

are. The Premier is a master of image. But we've got down to

something pretty substantive, Mr. Chairman. If you trade on

image, sooner or later you have to face cold, stark truth.

There are affidavits placed against the Premier and the

government which accuse the man and the office which are No. 1

in British Columbia with lying. As the second Member for

Vancouver-Point Grey (Mr. Gardom) said, if those affidavits

aren't telling the truth the Premier should take action against

the people who libeled him. The Premier's statements not given

under oath are discrepant with the statements of the two former

members of the Egg Marketing Board.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to ask the Premier only one question

now. Will you, Mr. Premier, through you Mr. Chairman, swear an

affidavit before a law officer, outside of the protection of

this chamber, saying the statements of Mr. Brunsdon were untrue

when he said,"If you don't do what I say" — or words to that

effect — "I will kick the 'censored' out of you," and,

"If you say anything about this outside my office I'll deny

every word of it."? I think that's really the operative phrase

— your promise to deny the substance of your conversation to

Mr. Brunsdon if he talked outside your office. According to the

affidavit, Mr. Chairman, that's the one promise the Premier

kept: to deny outside the office that he said those words.

[ Page

819 ]

But I don't care how good the image may be, how many

smiling pictures there are on the front pages of the newspaper.

In the final analysis, when all is said and done, truth in

government must stand above all. If there cannot be truth in

government and truth in the highest office in this province,

then we can never believe the statements of our government. If

we cannot believe the statements of our government, then there

can be no credible leadership, no willingness of people to

follow words and policies that may not be true. Truth and

credibility have to be established in the highest office in

British Columbia, and we have to stay here until they are

established. The Premier has not established truth. He stands

accused of lying, not by us but by sworn affidavits.

Is the Premier willing to meet truth with truth under sworn

testimony? Will he swear an affidavit?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I don't know what purpose

the Hon. Member has in mind. I'm sure it's an honourable

purpose. I have made my statement and I made it very

clearly.

This is a very emotional issue involving a lot of very

strong opinions and points of view. The Garrish report

indicates the history of this matter. There are now affidavits

and counter affidavits.

I have made it very clear that I did not threaten the board

nor did I order a solution. I said they were acting like

children. Now, that is my statement and my statement stands. I

hope to use my office in a way somehow to be able to solve

long-standing problems in this province. Some I may be able to

assist; others I may not be able to find a solution to.

However, I will ask you as a Member to consider the history

of this particular problem. Put it in the context in terms of

where we are now, and ask yourself whether or not a solution

can be arrived at out of this problem in terms of the

personalities and the history of the problem as it stands. I'm

here to do my duty as I see it. My statement stands and I will

continue to do my duty as I see it until the electorate decide

otherwise.

MR. D.A. ANDERSON (Victoria): Mr. Chairman, we have heard a

great deal of new material last night in the Garrish report,

and it is mentioned again today as justification for something

which apparently did not take place. Funnily enough, I didn't

hear last night or today the quote from the conclusions of the

Garrish report that:

"It is generally agreed that the board has done a very

credible job in stabilizing egg marketing in British Columbia

and has put money in the pockets of the producers. The value of orderly

marketing based on a quota system has been demonstrated, and

the evidence presented at the hearings generally confirms

this."

I am surprised, Mr. Chairman, that that was not referred to

by the Premier in his statements last night. The Garrish report

supports the Egg Marketing Board, While it has criticisms,

certainly, in parts of it, it in no way is the indictment put

forward yesterday by the Premier.

But where are we turning? We have gone through the egg

marketing question. We've gone through the broiler question

itself time after time. We do not wish to rehash the two

questions in terms of agriculture. The opportunity was present

but the Premier chose not to take

part in it during the

Minister of Agriculture's estimates.

The issue in the Minister of Finance's and the Premier's

estimates is something else. The issue, as has been indicated,

is truth in government. We have asked questions in this House —

Members of this party and Members of other parties in

opposition. We have had answers from the Minister, from the

Premier, and I read the questions and answers on this subject

out yesterday.

Now, these answers have been denied by sworn affidavits. We

then went to the Minister of Agriculture in his estimates.

First of all he pleaded amnesia. He didn't support the

Premier's statements but he could not remember what had been

said. He was willing to say that the people who swore the

affidavits probably had a better memory of what was said than

he had, but he simply could not remember. After three days, as

a result of much prodding, his memory improved slightly, but

not very much.

We did — and I think this is most significant — get a

statement from him on the last day with respect to the other

people present at the meetings in question who could have given

evidence as to the truth of the Premier's statements and could

have cleared the matter up at once. These, of course, were the

civil servants.

At this stage, I would just like to quote from the Minister

of Agriculture's speech on Friday last. He stated:

My Deputy has not asked me whether he should or should not

say anything to the press. If he were to ask me, I would advise

him that it would probably be in his own interest

— mark those

words —

and the interests of the industry as a whole, if he

declined to comment on what is obviously a political attempt to

bring disfavour on the Minister of Agriculture.

That's a clear muzzling of the other people present who

could have made clear what actually took place. I might add,

Mr. Chairman, that the Deputy Minister of Agriculture figured

prominently in the McAninch affidavit where it is stated in

paragraph 11:

"That I was there and then informed by the said Mr. Peterson

that the Hon. Dave Barrett, Premier of the Province of British

Columbia,

[ Page 820 ]

had ordered that instead of the broiler permit policy

contained in

schedule "A," that two of the 11

Kamloops-Okanagan broiler producers be allotted 20,000 birds

per cycle and that the remaining 9 broiler producers be

allocated 5,000 per cycle."

Said paragraph 12:

"That I was further informed by the said Mr. Peterson that Mr. Barrett had directed...."

Paragraph 14:

"Mr. Stupich informed me that the Department of Agriculture

in the matter of the Kamloops-Okanagan broiler permit policy

was acting on orders from Mr. Barrett, and Mr. Stupich informed

me....”

In other words, those who could shed light on this, those

who could clear up the matter, were told that it would not be

in their interests and it would not be in the interests of the

industry for them to speak — to tell the truth, indeed, as to

what took place. So that I found it to be a very regrettable

statement by the Minister of Agriculture because along with his

own refusal to comment and his own refusal to remember, it

prevented us at that time from getting to the bottom of

this.

We have asked for a judicial inquiry. We have asked time

after time for a judicial inquiry and an impartial,

non-partisan, non-political judge to go into the truth or

otherwise of these allegations of these four affidavits.

These affidavits raise questions which can only be answered

by some sort of an inquiry — questions such as:

Did the Premier tell Mr. Brunsdon that there would not be

any court case against Mr. Kovachich?

Did the Premier say charges against Mr. Kovachich must be

substantially reduced?

Did the Premier indicate to Mr. Brunsdon that the Kovachich

order was not to be a precedent and that if any other producers

got out of line, they were to be stepped on?

Did the Premier inform the board it had to draft an

agreement with Kovachich that day?

Was the Premier aware that Kovachich was a supporter of the

Hon. Member for Prince George and a member of the NDP?

We would like to know whether the Premier informed Mr.

Morgan, present at that meeting, in response to his question as

to what assurance the board would have that Mr. Kovachich would

abide by the dictated agreement, that "if he does not abide by

his part of the agreement, I will kick the crap out of him, and

if the egg board does not abide by their part of the agreement

I will kick the crap out of you."

Did the Premier say to Mr. Brunsdon at the meeting: "If

anything is said outside of this office I will deny every word

I said "?

Mr. Chairman, these are real questions that we have raised time after time.

They are real questions that we have tried to have answered by civil servants,

by the Minister of Agriculture and by way of a judicial inquiry. It has been

said earlier today by the Premier — "Tell the whole truth" were the words used.

Mr. Unger said: "People have a right to the truth." Well, people do have a right

to the truth and the citizens of British Columbia have a right to know whether

their Premier was libeled or whether, indeed, their Premier told the truth.

Yesterday in my office, Mr. Chairman, I met Mr. Brunsdon. It

was the first and only time I have met with any of the four

people involved in these affidavits — the only contact I have

had with them apart from one telephone call to Mr. Brunsdon's

wife setting up the meeting in my office yesterday

afternoon.

I spoke to him, Mr. Chairman, and there was one thing that I

became convinced of. That was that Brunsdon is an honest man

and that he is telling the truth. As it is impossible, Mr.

Chairman, to on the one hand believe Brunsdon and on the other

believe the Minister of Agriculture and the Premier, and as it

has been impossible by any other means to get some sort of

inquiry into the truth of this, in this position I have no

alternative but to accuse the Premier and Minister of

Agriculture of lying to this House.

Mr. Chairman, it's with regret that we take this step. Every

opportunity over the last 10 days has been taken by us. Every

attempt by us has been made to get a proper inquiry into this,

but without a proper inquiry there is no alternative but to

believe that we have been lied to — lied to by the Premier and

by the Minister of Agriculture.

MR. FRASER: Mr. Chairman, we'll change the subject here

slightly. I want to go back to the operation of B.C. Rail that

I spoke on last night. The Premier, as president, replied. I

was quite happy with some of the replies made by the president

of the railroad, but it still doesn't get us any cars for the

Interior of the province, any railcars for the shipment of

manufactured products that are sitting there waiting for these

cars.

I would like, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Premier, to

see if he would contact the Minister of Transport, the Hon. Mr.

Marchand, and insist that things are desperate and get some of

these rail cars channeled into the BCR system.

The Member for Atlin (Mr. Calder) rose in the debate, and I

know that he's concerned about northern development. He insists

that we must get the co-operation of the federal government. I

agree, but I wonder how long, Mr. Chairman, we have to wait to

find out whether they are going to co-operate. In the meantime,

northern development, of course, stands still. I think this is

really where we are today on this subject.

[ Page

821 ]

It's obvious that we're not getting the co-operation of the

federal government. Again, I think the Premier, as the

president of the B.C. Rail, should bring these decisions to a

final point in the next few months. As he said last night, if

it is obvious that we're not going to get the co-operation, the

BCR should go ahead on their own with the northern railroad

development.

In the meantime, until we get some definite answers on

co-operation from Ottawa, our economy is suffering and has for

the last 12 months — and will continue to suffer. So I think

it's quite urgent.

Regarding the rail development programme, I'd just like to

read a few things into the record here, Mr. Chairman, that are

in that programme — things that the two governments agree in

principle on.

"The two governments agree to provide and finance jointly a rail system in northwest British Columbia

consisting of lines designated as follows:

A) The British Columbia Railway line now under construction from Fort St. James to Dease Lake;

B) A new British Columbia Railway line to be built from the above line at Klappan to Telegraph

Creek;

C) A new Canadian National Railway line to be built from Terrace to a point of connection at or near

Groundhog on the BCR Dease Lake line — and the future extension

of the British Columbia railway line from Dease Lake to a point

at or near Lower Post.

"The federal and provincial governments will share a total capital cost including surveying, engineering,

construction and interest during construction of these lines on

the following basis: Fort St. James to connection — federal

share 25 per cent, provincial share 75 per cent. Connection to

Dease Lake — 50 per cent federal, 50 per cent provincial.

Klappan to Telegraph Creek — 50 per cent federal, 50 per cent

provincial. Terrace to connection — 75 per cent federal, 25 per

cent provincial.

Now I'm not too sure, Mr. Chairman, to the present that this

shouldn't be 100 per cent, in my opinion, instead of 75-25;

that's an observation I'd like to make on that formula. The

last one is from Dease Lake to Lower Post — federal share 50

per cent, provincial share 50 per cent.

There's another connection that I think is more vital than

anything, and I'd like, Mr. Chairman, to have some few words on

it. It is probably the most important link of all — regarding

the overcoming of rail car shortage. I refer to the

part in

this agreement where:

"...the two governments will share equally the capital cost of constructing

a railway line between the CN transcontinental line at Ashcroft and the BCR

line at Clinton, such line to be operated by the Canadian National with British

Columbia Railway to have equal traffic rights and perpetual running rights to

operate trains over this line. The Government of British Columbia in Canada

will be subject to the repayment of their capital contribution from the operating

profits generated by this line."

I think, Mr. Chairman, to the president of the railroad,

that regardless of whether we're going to get co-operation or

not, I'd like to hear the president say that this connector is

going ahead, and whether an agreement is reached and whether it

is going ahead this year. It's been talked about for 40 years,

and it's now a dire necessity, I feel, for both the BCR and the

CN and CP because, from the information I have, it indicates

the Fraser Canyon might close up on us and then we're in

serious trouble. It cuts off the main artery of the CN and CP

and of course, the highway.

If there's a calamity there, and there are indications there

might be — I repeat, might be...I don't think we should wait

any longer on getting this connector. Then the CN and CP would

have this connection to come over on the BCR and come down

through Lillooet, Pemberton and Squamish to get to seaboard. It

will definitely help.

I don't like the

section in this agreement where it says, as

I understand it, that this will be operated by the Canadian

National. I'm not too sure that maybe they'll be sidetracking

BCR cars and they'll sidetrack all the time and create another

problem. I would like to see the BCR with the hammer in their

hand rather than the CNR as regarding the operation of this

connecting line.

Just a few observations I have and, as I say, after speaking

last evening on this, I realize it's difficult for the

president, Mr. Chairman, to say. But I repeat that we have a

situation that's desperate. It has been for 12 months and it

has become more acute than ever.

I think I said last night that there is a buoyant lumber

market; it's advanced in the last three weeks $30 to $40. This

affects all the citizens of our province because the citizens

of the province are affected. As the lumber market goes up, so

goes the stumpage to the Crown and it certainly affects the

revenue of the province.

I would like to hear a few more words from the Premier on

this situation, particularly some comments on the Clint

on-Ashcroft connector, and the overall northern development

deal. How long, in other words, Mr. Chairman, are we going to

wait to find out whether we are getting co-operation from the

federal government? Thank you.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, first of all I want to thank

you for your remarks, and I'll try to answer as concisely as I

can. I can understand the anger of the Member for Atlin (Mr.

Calder). I can also

[ Page 822 ]

understand his desire to have co-operation of the federal

government. I think that's shared by all of us, in terms of the

agreement in principle.

As a matter of fact, things were going very well with the

federal government up until just a few months ago. Now I have a

report here from Mr. Norris regarding the CNR and cars supplied

to BCR for loading lumber. I made it clear last night that I

don't believe that this is a deliberate policy of Mr. Marchand,

and I say that again.

In the BCR opinion the CNR has organized five connecting

carriers in an effort to act collectively to reduce the BCR

Vancouver divisions on transcontinental lumber traffic. The CNR

has shown a distinct desire to become a rather vicious

competitor rather than follow through on the arrangements that

existed in the past.

I don't profess to know all the history of the rivalries

between the BCR and the CNR, but we had hoped that that had

been put aside with the signing of the agreement. But our hopes

haven't borne fruit in terms of their behaviour.

The first demand the CNR made was a 50 per cent reduction in

our lumber traffic on those divisions, which would amount to a

$10 million loss of revenue per year to the BCR. We said "No,

we couldn't go on that basis." That was the demand for

supplying cars.

Then they later revised the demand with a 25 per cent

reduction amounting to a $5 million loss of revenue for the

BCR, and again the vice-president said "No.

Now a third demand was just being processed around these

divisions. In support of these demands the CNR commenced

withholding cars, thereby forcing shippers of the BCR to truck

lumber to CN lines in order to obtain cars. Our first reports

of this action commenced in May and June of last year. We

complained to Mr. Marchand at that time, as well as the MLA

from that area, and you publicly raised it from the

Cariboo.

So the federal government was aware that something was

happening last summer about the boxcars. In an effort to get

the flow of empties that were used by CNR once again to BCR,

BCR commenced negotiations directly with the CNR. During these

latter negotiations the BCR met all the CNR requirements for

reduction in BCR revenues, vis--vis CNR, on the basis

of CNR supplying a needed 10,000 railcars over this year. We

made an arrangement on the divisions.

Now as to the divisions, the CNR apparently felt pressure

because of bad feeling between the two railroads in the

past.

I had a report as of February 28 this year that despite the assurances from

the CN that this deal would be made, the CN has now informed BCR that they will

not supply BCR cars on the base of 10,000 per year, nor will they even supply

cars on a pro rata basis with their own customers. And they don't consider the

BCR to be one of their customers, in the sense that we do have a source of cars

from other railways. That's a change of policy.

This latter statement is ludicrous in view of the fact that

the five connecting carriers have been organized by CN to

collectively force us to reduce Vancouver division.

Now because of that statement, I believe that this decision

was not made with the blessing of the federal Minister. I

cannot believe that any federal Minister of Transport, if he

knew that this was going on, would give his blessing to it.

It is also gross discrimination on the part of the CN to

withhold cars from the shippers of lumber to BCR lines. It's

damaging to the B.C. economy, and it's got absolutely nothing

to do with the northern agreement — absolutely nothing. But the

fact that we wish to enter a northern agreement with them makes

us doubt, if they're going to behave this way outside an

agreement, whether it's worthwhile to pursue the agreement.

Their behaviour has not come about because of the northern

agreement; it has come in spite of it. I don't have any

explanation for it other than perhaps there are some people at

the CNR who are beginning to feel that the CNR is their

railroad — that is, personally — rather than a publicly-owned

railroad as the BCR is.

I'm prepared to ask the BCR staff to file all the memoranda

and all the letters of exchange related to this dispute if the

CNR is prepared to do the same. That is a commo