1975 Legislative Session: 5th Session, 30th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes

only.

The printed version remains the official version.

Official Report of

DEBATES OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

(Hansard)

THURSDAY, JUNE 12, 1975

Night Sitting

[ Page

3459 ]

CONTENTS

Introduction

Presentation of M. Segard to the House — 3459

Privilege

Shareholdings of Mr. D.A. Scrivener. Mr. McClelland —

Hon. Mr. Strachan —

Mr. Speaker —

Mr. Smith —

Mr. Speaker —

Routine proceedings

Public Service Labour Relations Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill

135). Hon. Mr. Hall.

Introduction and first reading — 3462

Public Service Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 136). Hon. Mr. Hall.

Introduction and

first reading — 3462

Public Service Group Insurance Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 117). Hon. Mr. Hall.

Introduction

and first reading — 3462

Public Services Medical Plan Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 116). Hon. Mr. Hall.

Introduction

and first reading — 3462

Municipal Superannuation Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 113). Hon. Mr. Hall.

Introduction

and first reading — 3462

College Pension Amendment Act, 197 5 (Bill 115). Hon. Mr. Hall.

Introduction

and first reading — 3462

Teachers' Pensions Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 114). Hon. Mr. Hall.

Introduction

and first reading — 3462

Public Service Superannuation Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 112). Hon. Mr. Hall.

Introduction and first reading — 3462

British Columbia Railway Company Construction Loan Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill

27). Second reading.

Mr. McClelland — 3462

Mr. Barrett — 3468

Division on second reading — 3475

Provincial Court Act (Bill 100). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald —

Mr. Smith — 3476

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3476

Small Claims Amendment Act, 1975 (Bill 111). Second reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald

— 3477

Mr. Smith — 3477

Mr. Gardom — 3477

Hon. Mr. Macdonald

— 3478

National Cablevision Limited Transfer of Jurisdiction Act (Bill 133). Second

reading.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3478

Mr. Smith — 3478

Mr. D.A. Anderson — 3479

Mr. L.A. Williams — 3479

Hon. Mr. Macdonald

— 3479

Committee, report and third reading — 3479

Coroners Act (Bill 87). Committee stage.

section 1.

Hon. Mr. Macdonald — 3479

THURSDAY, JUNE 12, 1975

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

MR. SPEAKER: I would like the House to welcome the French

Minister of External Trade, His Excellency, M. Norbert Segard.

I would ask the House for leave to permit him to say a few

words to the assembly and to ask the Hon. Minister of Economic

Development (Hon. Mr. Lauk) to say words of welcome.

Leave granted.

HON. G.V. LAUK (Minister of Economic Development): Monsieur

l'Orateur, j'ai l'honneur de presenter l'assemblée Son

Excellence M. Norbert Segard, Ministre du Commerce Exterieur,

et Son Excellence M. Jacques Viot, ambassadeur de France au

Canada, M. Galabru, consul-général de France à Vancouver.

In the Speaker's gallery as well, Mr. Speaker, are M. Rupied

and M. Lecourtier, who are advisers to M. Segard. On the floor

of the House as an assistant to the Minister is M. Jean Trocmé,

commercial counsellor. I would ask the House to welcome

them.

MR. SPEAKER: I would ask the Hon. Monsieur to say a few

words at the desk of the Hon. Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr.

Hall).

MR. N. SEGARD: Mr. Speaker, c'est la première fois qu'un Ministre du

mesure l'honneur exceptionnel que vous faites à mon pays, à mon gouvernement, à ma personne en m'invitant à cette reunion de votre parlement. La France connait

la richesse et le dynamisme de votre pays. La France souhaite coopérer avec

vous. Je vous dis simplement ce soir l'amitié de mon pays pour le vôtre, pour

votre gouvernement et pour votre parlement. Merci beaucoup.

MR. SPEAKER: His Excellency, M. Jacques Viot.

MR J. VIOT : This is a translation of the Minister's speech.

This is the first time that a Minister of the French

government is officially present in British Columbia. I

appreciate the exceptional honour that you are paying to my

country, to its government and to myself in inviting me to this

meeting of your parliament. France knows the friendship and the

dynamism of your province, and wishes to cooperate in

friendship with this province.

MR. SPEAKER: The Hon. Premier.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the

government of the Province of British Columbia, we are

especially honoured that this is the first visit of a Minister

of the French government ever in the history of the Province of

British Columbia. It is a fact that Canada was peopled first by

from Europe came with our own native people to develop this

great country we have today. It has been 100 years of history

in our province of British Columbia and it has taken this long

to have a first Minister from a French government visit this

province. I hope, sir, that the gap between your visit and your

fellow Ministers is not near as long. You are most welcome. We

extend to you warmth and the generosity and appreciation of the

people of British Columbia on your visit and hope that we can

strengthen the bonds that are naturally ours between your

country and Canada.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): M. Segard, while my high

school French will not permit me to speak to you in your own

language, I would like to say on behalf of the official

opposition that we welcome you to the Province of British

Columbia. It is a province that all of us love, as you must

love France and Paris, the city that you come from. We hope

your stay in British Columbia will expose you to many pleasant

experiences and that you will go home to France with a better

understanding of Canada and the people that populate this great

dominion. Hopefully, as you go home you will take back to the

people of France a message from all of us that while all of us

are not bilingual, we share a respect for common objectives,

and that because of that Canada became a great nation. Whenever

we have an opportunity to visit your country, we will feel most

welcome as we hope we make you feel here.

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a

matter of privilege. On May 28 and 29, the Minister of

Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) accused me

both inside the House and outside the House of making what he

called "misleading and accusatory statements." In the Vancouver

Sun on Thursday, May 29, the Minister is quoted as saying:

"Every time I check that man out, he is wrong". May 29, in

Hansard , Mr. Speaker, the Minister is quoted as saying in

response to a question that I asked in the House regarding the

relationship to ICBC of one Mr. D.A. Scrivener, vice president

of claims:

Yesterday, the Member for Langley, (Mr. McClelland) asked me

a question about the affiliations of a Mr. Scrivener with certain companies

elsewhere in Canada. I am informed that the list he referred to was compiled

for the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia by the Canadian independent adjusters

conference

[ Page 3460 ]

around December, 1973, before Autoplan began operation.

Mr. Scrivener did not join ICBC until July 1st, 1974. Immediately

before that time, he had begun selling his interests in D.A. Scrivener Ltd.,

the parent company he owned in Regina, and also the associate companies, Scrivener,

Countryman and Westman Ltd. in Calgary and Saskatoon.

The Regina firm's sale to a new company was completed by him

before he arrived to take his post with the Insurance Corp. of British Columbia.

Negotiations on the Calgary and Saskatoon partnership interests took longer,

but they were completed within six months of his arrival in Vancouver with Mr.

Countryman buying out Mr. Scrivener's shares. From that time he has had no interest

in any of those companies.

Mr. Scrivener's name also appeared, and may still appear, in

the name of a fourth claims adjusting company operating in Yorkton, Saskatchewan,

under the title of Scrivener, Countryman Ltd., but Scrivener himself never had,

nor has now, any ownership in that firm. But at one time he had allowed his

name to be used for a fee in the title of that particular company. So Mr. Scrivener

has not any interest of any kind in any of those companies.

Mr. Speaker, dealing with the statements made in Hansard by

the Minister of Transport and Communications, the Minister said

the list in question was done by the Canadian independent

adjusters conference in December, 1973. I have information that

Mr. Scrivener discussed the preparation of that list with

certain adjusters in British Columbia at least six months after

Mr. Scrivener joined ICBC.

The Minister of Transport and Communications said Mr.

Scrivener joined ICBC July 1, 1974. In fact, Mr. Speaker,

according to information from the ICBC today, Mr. Scrivener

joined ICBC on July 2, 1973, one year before the Minister said

he joined.

Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that there is a preferred

list of out-of-province adjusters and that the firms that bear

the name of Mr. Scrivener are literally exclusive adjusters for

tourist ICBC business in Saskatchewan and Alberta. There seems

to be little doubt that Mr. Scrivener was largely responsible

for compiling that list.

Now we come, Mr. Speaker, to the most serious part of the

Minister's statements in defence of his accusations against me.

The Minister said that Mr. Scrivener had sold all of his

companies. I'm paraphrasing his words. He said that from that

time he has had no interest in any of these companies.

Mr. Speaker, following investigations in Saskatchewan and Alberta, it's been

determined that Scrivener, Countryman, Westman Ltd., was in fact sold. In 1974

there were 200 issued shares — 100 to Mr. Scrivener and 100 to Mr. W. Countryman

of Calgary. On the 1975 return, Mr. Scrivener was no longer recorded as a member.

Rather, there was a Mr. C.W. Lockwood, and I don't know who Mr. Lockwood was.

The Alberta regulations are far more lax than ours, so there's no way of knowing

what the dates of those sales were.

Scrivener, Countryman Ltd. was incorporated in Saskatchewan.

The Westman that the Minister referred to was scratched out in

June, 1974. Scrivener transferred four shares to Mr. Countryman

and one share to a Mr. Ellis, and at present owns no shares in

that company.

But, Mr. Speaker, D.A. Scrivener Co. Ltd., incorporated in

Saskatchewan, filed notice with the registrar of companies in

Regina on May 7, 1975 — May 7, 1975 — listing as the president

of that company Douglas A. Scrivener with 100 shares, Mildred

B. Scrivener with 99 shares, and H.A. Scrivener with one share.

That's May 7, 1975, Mr. Speaker.

It has been mentioned before in this House that the people

will believe that politicians are moral people, are honest,

trustworthy and deserving of respect only when the politicians

earn that trust. It's vital, Mr. Speaker, that the Members of

the executive council lead the way in building that attitude of

trust and confidence among the people.

Mr. Speaker, some time ago I was ejected from this House and

requested to take

part in a parliamentary inquiry dealing with

my charges at that time that the Minister of Transport and

Communications lied to this House. That was a very traumatic

experience for me since I still hold a great deal of awe in

being allowed to take my place in this chamber. I didn't enjoy

that experience at that time, Mr. Speaker.

Yet I find myself in a similar situation this evening. It's

clear to me, at least, that for at least the fourth time in

this House, in less than three years, the Minister of Transport

and Communications (Hon. Mr. Strachan) has shown contempt and

has deliberately lied to the people of this province.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. I think the Hon. Member is going

too far. You can put your position and have the matter

investigated, but to make assertions like that is going to

far.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I demand and ask for a complete

apology from that Minister. I demand that you do your duty and

appoint a legislative inquiry immediately to determine the

validity of the charges that have been made tonight in this

House, enabling that committee to call witnesses....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. May I interrupt the Hon. Member

to point out that you may state your matter of privilege, but

you cannot start making charges without first stating a matter

of privilege.

[ Page 3461 ]

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I have stated my matter of

privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: What is your matter of privilege.

MR. McCLELLAND: The matter of privilege, Mr. Speaker, is

that I was maligned in this House by that Minister.

MR. SPEAKER: Of what?

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, the Minister, both inside and

outside this House, accused me of misleading the House,

deliberately misleading the House, and of making accusatory

statements in the House. He told the press that I had lied...

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on.

MR. McCLELLAND: ...that I was always wrong. Mr. Speaker, I

now demand that you do your duty and appoint a legislative

inquiry to study the matters I've raised tonight, that will be

allowed to call witnesses from ICBC and other places and that

will restore faith in this whole parliamentary system, Mr.

Speaker.

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

of the kind of vendetta that Member wants to carry on against me...

MR. McCLELLAND: Oh, my God!

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): Oh, come off it!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: ...I want to tell you and that Member I

made one error in my statement to you the other day, and you'll

notice I preceded my statement by: "I am informed."

Interjections.

MR. McCLELLAND: You've got to be kidding!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: Just a minute, just a minute. Hear me

out.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, order.

Interjections.

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

River, preserve your silence!

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I listened to what that Member...

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Give the opportunity to the Minister to

answer without your intervention.

HON. MR. STRACHAN: I listened to what that Member had to say

in silence. I was told today that when I said 1974, I should

have said 1973. In my opinion, that point made it even more

clear that Mr. Scrivener was out of — now just a minute, let me

finish — all relation to those companies one year earlier than

I had been informed he was out. Now you've just told me a piece

of information that I had not been given. I apologize for

making the error of 1974 and 1973, but I tell you that that

made it clear that he'd been out one year earlier than I had

been told.

But I tell you this: If Mr. Scrivener has lied to me and

still owns shares in any of those companies, he'll be fired

tomorrow. He'll be fired tomorrow.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Hon. Members know....

HON. MR. STRACHAN: And I want to tell that Member I have

never lied in this House — never! Your vendetta is what was

bothering you.

MR. SPEAKER: I think the Hon. Members know that when a

matter of this kind comes up, it is for the parties concerned

to clarify what the truth is and notify this House.

I cannot make any ruling until I know what the facts are

upon which the matter is determined.

Interjections.

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River): The Member rose on a

matter of privilege, which he has a right to do in this House.

He stated his case to this House. I think now it is time for

him to present that information to you, as Speaker of this

House. And because of the transcript that will be available, I

hope, to all of us concerning words that have been spoken in

this House — well, not outside of it because they're not in

Hansard — but words that have been spoken in this House, you'll

review what has been said by the Hon. Member for Langley (Mr.

McClelland) in his own defence on a matter of privilege, as

compared to the castigations that have been made against him,

and in due course bring in your ruling.

MR. SPEAKER: I certainly will. I'll look at the problem.

I'll listen to the evidence. Whatever is submitted to me I will

examine, and I will report to the House at the earliest moment.

Thank you, Hon. Members.

[ Page 3462 ]

Introduction of bills.

PUBLIC SERVICE LABOUR RELATIONS

AMENDMENT ACT, 1975.

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

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Public Service Labour

Relations Amendment Act, 1975.

Bill 135 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

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

sitting of the House after today.

PUBLIC SERVICE AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

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

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Public Service Amendment

Act, 1975.

Bill 136 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

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

sitting of the House after today.

PUBLIC SERVICE GROUP INSURANCE

AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

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

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Public Service Group

Insurance Amendment Act, 1975.

Bill 117 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

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

sitting of the House after today.

PUBLIC SERVICES MEDICAL PLAN

AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

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

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Public Services Medical

Plan Amendment Act, 1975.

Bill 116 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

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

sitting of the House after today.

MUNICIPAL SUPERANNUATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

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

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Municipal Superannuation

Amendment Act, 1975.

Bill 113 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

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

sitting of the House after today.

COLLEGE PENSION AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

Hon. Mr. Hall presents a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a

bill intituled College Pension Amendment Act, 1975.

Bill 115 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

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

sitting of the House after today.

TEACHERS' PENSIONS

AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

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

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Teachers' Pensions

Amendment Act, 1975.

Bill 114 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

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

sitting of the House after today.

PUBLIC SERVICE SUPERANNUATION

AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

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

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Public Service

Superannuation Amendment Act, 1975.

Bill 112 introduced, read a first time and ordered to be

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

sitting of the House after today.

MR. SPEAKER: That's it.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): On a point of order,

Mr. Speaker. After the very arduous evening experienced by the

Provincial Secretary tonight, I wonder if all Members by

unanimous consent could grant him a half-holiday tomorrow?

MR. SPEAKER: Which half? (Laughter.)

Orders of the day.

HON. E.E. DAILLY (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, I ask

leave of the House to proceed with public bills and orders.

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, adjourned debate on second

reading of Bill 27.

BRITISH COLUMBIA RAILWAY COMPANY

CONSTRUCTION LOAN AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

(continued)

MR. R.H. McCLELLAND (Langley): We were talking earlier, before supper,

about the effects upon the railroad and particularly on staff morale, that this

government has had over the two-and-a-half, close to

[ Page

3463 ]

three years in government by the NDP. We pointed out that in a relatively

short time morale in the BCR went from what was termed in an investigative report

by a firm of auditors as "very high" to what was termed to be "very low." In

fact members of this railway said publicly they had lost complete confidence

in the management of that railroad, particularly because of the incompetence

of the government and the political interference which was being experienced.

Then, Mr. Speaker, we heard from various Members of

government such as the Minister of Economic Development (Hon.

Mr. Lauk) and the Premier himself that we were going to be

treated — if that is the right word — to an exposé, a scandal

of monumental proportions regarding the British Columbia

Railway.

The Premier and many of his Ministers have been crowing —

and that's about the best word you can use — about his

so-called "scandal" for many, many months, both inside this

House and outside it. Everybody in British Columbia has been

waiting for the other shoe to drop. Well, it was supposed to

have dropped on Friday, but it never dropped. It never dropped,

Mr. Speaker, and it never will.

MR. W.R. BENNETT (Leader of the Opposition): It wasn't a

shoe; it was a slipper.

MR. McCLELLAND: It wasn't a shoe; it was a clinker. It never

will drop. It's like the Columbia River scandal that was

supposed to have come forward by the Minister of Lands, Forests

and Water Resources (Hon. R.A. Williams): even with the aid of

a borrowed typewriter he couldn't make that one fly, Mr.

Speaker.

MR. BENNETT: It was the wrong type.

MR. McCLELLAND: It was the wrong type at the wrong place in

the wrong province by the wrong Minister by the wrong

government, Mr. Speaker. No, it never dropped.

The Premier on Friday hung his whole case on two or three

items — first of all, accounting procedures, which we all know

vary from firm to firm, from company to company, and from

situation to situation, We also heard about harangues, about upgrading of the

railway. That's normal practice in all railways, Mr. Speaker.

I'm sure that this government would not want to see that

railway not upgraded on a continuing basis.

Then we heard evidence from the Price Waterhouse report contrary to the picture

that was painted by the Premier's selective reading to this House. The Price

Waterhouse report of August, 1973, gives the management of the railroad a clean

bill of health.

It is interesting too, Mr. Speaker, that it has turned up in

the evidence that Mr. Swanson, who is now a director of B.C.

Rail, turns out to be a study in contradictions. In 1970, Mr.

Swanson, in a public statement said in a report prepared for

the Department of Transport that the management was efficient

and far-sighted. He complimented them in a very high degree in

1970. He said the construction of the railroad was safe and to

a high standard. But now, in 1975, at least according to the

Premier, and we don't have any proof of this yet, Mr. Swanson

has apparently completely reversed his position.

Well, I think the question that should be asked first, Mr.

Speaker, is: did the Premier order Mr. Swanson to file a report

that would be uncomplimentary to BCR, particularly after he

had, just a few years ago, had nothing but high praise for the

operation, management and construction standards of that

railroad? Or did the Premier just make the whole thing up? The

Premier plays politics with the British Columbia Railway.

MR. BENNETT: They used it to revive their sagging

fortunes.

MR. McCLELLAND: Well, maybe the Premier just made all this

up. I don't think he's filed the latest report. He certainly

hasn't filed the report yet. It would be interesting to see

it.

Let's go back to those two or three major points in

question, Mr. Speaker.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're a master of innuendo.

MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, that doesn't require any

comment and I won't give it any.

Mr. Speaker, we go back to those couple or three major

points in question. First of all I would like to deal with the

Swanson situation contradictions. In a letter on November 9,

1973, from Mr. J.S. Broadbent, vice-president of the British

Columbia Railway, to the Premier of British Columbia, Mr.

Broadbent terms the Swanson report of 1973 to be misleading,

incorrect and damaging to the railway and its staff.

Mr. Broadbent goes on to say that official reports from the

BCR for many years have given that railroad a clean bill of

health. In 1970, for one for instance, Mr. Swanson himself

again — the man who is apparently being credited with the most

damaging statements about the construction of this railroad — in

his 1970 report ends with this observation:

"It can be reported that the Pacific Great Eastern

Railway is being properly maintained and properly operated,

commensurate with serving the public in a safe and proper manner.

[ Page 3464 ]

It can also be reported that the extensions of this railway

are being located and constructed" — located and constructed —

"in a proper and efficient manner."

Another report by the same man concludes by saying:

"It is to be noted that capital work done over the past few

years, with the work completed during 1968, has upgraded the

main track of this railway to transcontinental standards."

Later on in the same report he says:

"It can be reported that the dispatch and communications

system is working well and entirely satisfactory."

In fact, every report up until 1973, when the Premier quoted

this special report from Mr. Swanson, concluded with the

general terms that the railway was constructed in a safe

manner, construction was of a relatively high standard, and

that the railway was being operated in an efficient manner —

every report, Mr. Speaker, until that one that the Premier

refers to in 1973.

Mr. Broadbent in his letter of November 9, 1973, concludes

saying this — and remember that Mr. Broadbent was the

vice-president of research and development for the railway: "On

reading the Swanson report in detail, it will be noted that

when criticisms were leveled corrective actions were taken."

What else? In general he finds the railway in excellent

condition. "In conclusion, I feel that Mr. Swanson, in

submitting misleading statements to you" — meaning the Premier — "has violated his trust as an engineer." The Premier also

makes much of the allusion that there was no pre-engineering

done on the extension. Well that's baloney. There was

pre-engineering done. There was one study done — the

Wenner-Gren study. At the same time that study of the BCR

extension was made, there was a study made of the Peace River

dam by the same people. I would say that the quality of that

study has been proven by the events at the Peace River which

came almost dead on to what the study said.

AN HON. MEMBER: It was perfect.

MR. McCLELLAND: It was perfect. So the quality of that study

was certainly well-proven.

The Wakeley report that's been referred to in this House

said on page 1 that there's no evidence that the Wenner-Gren

study was used.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: I say that's baloney, too. Is it a complete coincidence,

Mr. Speaker, that the route that was finally chosen is virtually the exact route

that was outlined in the Wenner-Gren study? Could that be a complete coincidence?

I hardly think so. There is no doubt that that study was used as a precondition

of the extension of the British Columbia Railway.

Colonel S.H. Bingham of New York, who was the consulting

engineer on the Wenner-Gren study, gave a very detailed example

of the kind of exhaustive, wide-ranging study that was done

into the selection of the route for that extension of the

railroad, and the pre-construction requirements as well — a

most exhaustive study by a very highly-placed consulting

engineer. The head of that study was Bingham; his chief

assistant was a man named Minchell, and who went on later to

become the chief engineer of the British Columbia Railway.

Somebody must have placed some trust in that man, Mr. Speaker.

He went on to become the chief engineer prior to Mr. Wakeley, I

believe.

Not only was this study in depth, but it was high quality as

well, and used. By all means, it was used as a precondition of

the extension of that railroad. That same chief assistant, Mr.

Minchell, also became responsible for the extension, so he was

very closely involved from the beginning of that study, right

through the study and then in the extension as well. So how can

anybody say that there was no pre-engineering done. It doesn't

make any sense; it's completely false.

The comments that have been made on a number of occasions

about overruns...sure there were overruns. The size of the

project that that was, it would be utterly incomprehensible to

me that there wouldn't be any overruns. There had to be

overruns. But let me just refer to....

MR. D.M. PHILLIPS (South Peace River): There were overruns

in opening up ICBC.

MR. McCLELLAND: Did they have some overruns opening up

ICBC?

MR. PHILLIPS: Capital costs — originally.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, I suppose that's true. I don't want to

say too much more about that Minister tonight. He has enough on

his mind.

Well, I have to mention him once more this evening because I

refer to a Hansard report of the standing committee on public

accounts and printing, dated Wednesday, March 21, 1973. The

committee at that time had before it: Mr. J.S. Broadbent

vice-president of the B.C. Railway; Mr. Norris, the general

manager; Mr. Miller, the comptroller; and Mr. Wakeley, the

chief engineer.

MR. PHILLIPS: They're all gone now.

MR. McCLELLAND: They're all gone now. Where

[ Page 3465 ]

are those people, Mr. Speaker? I thought there was no

shuttle of proper middle management. Those people are all gone:

Broadbent, Norris, Miller and Wakeley.

In referring again to this Minister at this public accounts

meeting, the subject under discussion were the exact same

overruns that we are talking about in the BCR, and, as I

mentioned, there were four of the senior officials of BCR at

this meeting. The Hon. Mr. Strachan is commenting on a

statement, I think, or a question made by the secretary, I

believe he was the secretary, of that committee, Mr. Cummings,

the Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain — the Dairy Queen

Member for Vancouver–Little Mountain. He said something about

there being a need for more prior engineering to get the

yardages closer so that there's less borrowing. Mr. Strachan

comes to the defence of the BCR. Do you believe that, Mr.

Speaker? Mr. Strachan comes to the defence of the BCR, and he

says:

"Related to that, you could spend considerably more money on

prior engineering to get your quantities exact. That wouldn't

alter the fact one bit that when the time came, you would still

have to move X yards of gravel to do the job.

"You would be spending money so that the contract, when it

finally came out, would show $4 million, and that's about what

it would cost, no matter whether you did the engineering ahead

of time or not. This way you come in with a contract that

amounts to $3 million, but you find that once you're on the

job, actually working on it, there's more quantity that has to

be moved, and you could have found this out ahead of time by

spending another $1 million on engineering. But you still have

to move exactly the same amount. Is that right?"

And Mr. Broadbent said: "Yes, that's right."

Mr. Strachan in defence of the BCR, Mr. Speaker.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, that's before the Premier's orders went

out.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's before the vendetta flags.

MR. McCLELLAND: This, as it's been pointed out on a number of occasions

— this, meaning the British Columbia Railway — is a resource railroad. It's

always been a resource railroad. It was started as a resource railroad; the

government of the province today and yesterday considered it to be a resource

railroad. As a resource railroad it has certain different characteristics from

what might be considered to be a passenger railroad. For instance, it doesn't

matter whether the train goes five miles an hour, or 20 miles an hour, or 50

miles an hour; it's not a high-speed vehicle to move people from one place to

another. Its job is to open up parts of a country, and make sure that the resources

of that part of the country can be moved as efficiently and as cheaply as possible.

Particularly in the beginning years, as cheaply as possible. You build the line

to build the country.

MR. PHILLIPS: Right on.

MR. McCLELLAND: That's the idea of a resource railroad. As

traffic increases, as we hope it does....

MR. PHILLIPS: Like a road.

MR. McCLELLAND: Sure. As traffic increases and — perhaps

more importantly — as the revenue improves, then you upgrade

the railway. Right? You upgrade the railway. Doesn't that make

sense, Mr. Speaker?

MR. J.R. CHABOT (Columbia River): Just a common railroad

practice.

MR. McCLELLAND: That's what that government is telling us is

wrong with the railway; it's been upgraded over the past few

years.

MR. CHABOT: It's a common railroad practice.

MR. McCLELLAND: As the former Minister of Labour and the

former employee of one of the great railroads of this country

can tell you, it's common practice of every railroad in the

world — at least if that railroad is to be operated

successfully. As traffic increases and revenue improves, you

upgrade the railroad.

Interjections.

MR. McCLELLAND: There's a party on downstairs for Ho Chi

Minh City, and I think you're invited.

Mr. Speaker, you can have all the pre-engineering in the

world, and you couldn't guarantee that everything to be taken

into account which needs to be taken into account because you

can't predict what nature will do once you alter nature.

MR. PHILLIPS: Hart Highway, Rogers Pass.

MR. McCLELLAND: Nature has to take its course because what

you're doing when you put that kind of railway or major

construction project through is changing the face of nature,

and it has to be allowed to balance itself out before you can

take corrective measures. That's just good common sense.

Changing watercourses, land fills, geology, geography, snowfall — my God, Mr. Speaker, you've got to recognize that,

[ Page 3466 ]

and that's the reason you don't build a railroad to its top

standard when you don't have the top freight on it at the

moment.

What would we do? Do you suppose, Mr. Speaker, although we

have had some serious doubts about this in the last couple of

days with the Highways Minister's (Hon. Mr. Lea'

s) estimates

up, that we should stop upgrading the Fraser Canyon

highway?

AN HON. MEMBER: They're working on it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did they have no engineering studies?

MR. McCLELLAND: Did they have no engineering studies on the

Fraser Canyon? If they did, how come they have to keep

rebuilding pieces of it?

MR. BENNETT: How come they're not rebuilding anything?

MR. McCLELLAND: How come they're not rebuilding

anything?

Mr. Speaker, the national government put a road through the

national park called Rogers Pass with the extreme help of

British Columbians. Were there no pre-engineering studies done

on that road? If there were, why do we still build in that

area? Why do we continue to upgrade that road?

[Mr. Dent in the chair.]

AN HON. MEMBER: It's going on right now, too.

MR. McCLELLAND: It is going on today — far more than the

Fraser Canyon, that's for sure.

MR. BENNETT: Because it's the federal government.

MR. McCLELLAND: Because it's the federal government doing it — that's right. But, Mr. Speaker, it makes the same kind of

sense to say that you don't upgrade the BCR as it does say you

don't upgrade the Fraser Canyon highway or the Hope-Princeton

Highway of the Rogers Pass or anything else.

MR. PHILLIPS: He wouldn't know that.

MR. McCLELLAND: No engineering in the world can be absolute,

and we must remember that.

Mr. Speaker, the final spike upon which the Premier

attempted to hang his story had to do with accounting

practices.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): A plastic spike.

MR. McCLELLAND: Charges that the accountants weren't allowed

to do a full job — there is no substantiation for that

anywhere.

MR. BENNETT: Who was the director of the railroad when it

happened — 1972?

MR. McCLELLAND: That's true, 1972 is the year that is

mentioned. During the audit the present Premier was the

president of the railroad. That's correct. The Minister of

Labour (Hon. Mr. King) was an executive vice-president of the

railroad. That government was responsible for the railroad at

the time. Nevertheless, in any of the documents that we have

been delivered, there is no substantiation for most of the

charges that this government has made. If they have other

reports, they had better tell us about them. The Minty report —

yes, we have a copy of the Minty report. He is the one who

charged, for instance, that the accountants weren't allowed to

do the whole job. I am not going to repeat everything in this

Price Waterhouse report again, because basically what it does

is give the railroad and its management a clean bill of health.

And how long can we say that? How many times do we have to say

that before it becomes clear what they have said in this whole

report?

I think a couple of things in this report bear repeating,

however.

MR. BENNETT: How about the financial statement in New

York?

MR. McCLELLAND: One that is stated briefly is:

"Our principle conclusion is that financial control and

reporting of capital expenditures on the BCR is inadequate and

should be improved as soon as possible. This is not meant to

imply there has been an improper use of railway funds in the

past."

That is pretty clear, Mr. Speaker. That is pretty clear.

MR. BENNETT: Does it say anything about having one financial

report in New York to get money for the province and another

one...

AN HON. MEMBER: Double standard.

M R. BENNETT: ...done, hatched, in the Legislature to get B.C. votes?

MR. McCLELLAND: No, I couldn't find that.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member address

the Chair, please?

AN HON. MEMBER: Charlie McCarthy and Edgar Bergen for

B.C.

[ Page 3467 ]

MR. McCLELLAND: The Price Waterhouse report, in one of its

final recommendations, says: "We recommend that the company

determine and define the objectives that it wishes to achieve

through depreciation practices."

Mr. Speaker, I would like to repeat that for your benefit,

because one of the final recommendations is that "the company

determine and define the objectives that it wishes to achieve

through depreciation practices." How do they achieve those

objectives? Where can you find something derogatory in that

kind of reporting? It just isn't there. There is no

substantiation.

Mr. Speaker, the other day the Member for West

Vancouver-Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams) castigated the

official opposition to some degree for the comments that were

made about Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. in relation to a

case in the United States in which there is a class action suit

by shareholders of Penn Central against that company which has

not yet been settled. I suggest that that matter has been

distorted by that Member and by the Premier by suggesting that

there was any intention to impugn the integrity of Peat,

Marwick. What was intended was clearly to demonstrate the

subjectivity of judgments by accountants which, while made with

the best of intentions, are subject to challenge at any

time.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: That's right.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Langley

has the floor.

Interjections.

MR. McCLELLAND: You have a nerve talking about facts.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I would ask the Hon. Member

for Langley to address the Chair, and I would ask the Hon.

Members not to interrupt his speech. This includes all Members

of the House, not just the opposition Members.

MR. McCLELLAND: A question should be asked, Mr. Speaker, and

that question should be: why did Mr. Minty prepare the report

that he did? Was he threatened? We he told by the Premier that

he must bring in that kind of report?

Mr. Speaker, the Premier of this province later asked Price

Waterhouse to do an exposé on the BCR, and when Price

Waterhouse refused to do that exposé and couldn't find anything

wrong, then the Premier went looking for someone else who was

willing to play his game. That's why we have the Minty

report.

HON. L. NICOLSON (Minister of Housing): Say that outside the

House.

MR. McCLELLAND: Price Waterhouse, the people who gave the

railway a clean bill of health, Mr. Speaker, must have gained

quite a great degree of trust by that Premier for one reason or

another, because they were trusted enough later to do the

prospectus that was sent to New York in an attempt to raise

money for the BCR.

Just in closing, I would like to refer to that.

Interjection.

MR. McCLELLAND: The British Columbia Hydro and Power

Authority, Mr. Speaker. I apologize for the slip of the

tongue.

Mr. Speaker, speaking of that, just in closing, two weeks

ago the government sent this prospectus to New York regarding a

$125 million series for British Columbia Hydro and Power

Authority, and it was updated later to $150 million on May 22,

1975 — at the same time, the very same time that the Premier

was bringing forward his so-called "great scandal." Yet the

Premier is using the same figures which he says are false,

which he said last Friday in this House are false, to help sell

debentures through American financial houses.

Now, Mr. Speaker, either the Premier's Friday speech is a

complete sham, or he has deliberately made false information

available in direct contravention of U.S. Securities &

Exchange Commission regulations. One of the two. You have to

have it one way or the other, Mr. Speaker.

No mention in this prospectus of the Premier's great

scandal. No mention in this.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I would draw the attention of

the Hon. Member to the green light.

MR. McCLELLAND: No mention, Mr. Speaker, about the serious

charges the Premier made in this House last Friday. The Premier

has been hinting about accounting scandals for months.

AN HON. MEMBER: Months!

MR. McCLELLAND: The Economic Development Minister (Hon. Mr.

Lauk) mentioned this in the House on April 8. Lauk leaked, and

he couldn't contain his glee at the time of the leaking,

either.

So it is completely irresponsible for the Premier to have

allowed this prospectus to go forward when he knew the nature

of the charges he was about to make. No doubt, Mr. Speaker, the

Premier's performance doesn't befit the dignity of his

office.

He has stained the reputation of this province for fiscal

responsibility, and as a Finance Minister he is a

[ Page 3468 ]

total failure. I just hope, Mr. Speaker, that he was a

better social worker, or I feel sorry for some of the people

who were in his charge in those days.

The Premier, Mr. Speaker, should be ashamed of himself for attempting to build

a political war chest by deliberately discrediting the management of this resource

railway that means so much to the people of British Columbia. When it should

be building this province, the government has mired itself instead of political

trickery. And that Premier talks about fraud, he talks about chicanery, he talks

about book-cooking. Mr. Speaker, those charges apply not only to British Columbia

Railway, but to that government,

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. D. BARRETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, it is very difficult

to know just exactly where to start and, point by point, deal

with some of the matters raised by the various Members during

the second debate on this bill. I will try as quickly as

possible to go over some of the points raised by the

Members.

MR. SPEAKER: Just before the Hon. Premier makes his remarks,

I would make the point that the Hon. Premier is closing the

debate on second reading.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, thank you. I will try to

respond, as well as I can recollect, along with my notes, to

the comments and questions and suggestions made by the various

Members during this rather prolonged and interesting and

sometimes emotional debate. I would first of all like to deal

with the statements made by the Hon. Member for West

Vancouver-Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams).

In raising the specific question he did, and suffering

personal abuse for so doing tonight, and raising the question

he did about the statements related to the firm of Peat,

Marwick. Peat, Marwick was engaged as the accounting firm for

the B.C. Railway in mid-December, 1974. That was a consequence

of the original Minty Report which I deny categorically was in

any way influenced by me with any instruction to Mr. Minty. I

find the whole catalogue of suggestions and innuendoes made,

especially by the last speaker, to be frivolous, because there

is a pattern of his statements, his innuendo and his attacks

that are framed in questions that actually beg any application

of responsibility to those statements.

He has dared to suggest tonight that I ordered Mr. Minty to prepare that report

in the manner that it was delivered to the government. He is suggesting — not

so much the attack on me is disgraceful — but his is suggesting that Mr. Minty,

who was responsible to this Legislature as the Comptroller-General, would take

such an instruction from a politician. That, Mr. Speaker, is a personal attack

on Mr. Minty, not on me, and the Member should be absolutely ashamed of that

attack.

To hit and run, to leave this House after making those

statements, I find somewhat despicable. Mr. Speaker, I have

been in this House for almost all of the debate, as those

Members who have been through the debate will attest to. Also,

I was very quiet. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Bennett)

asked for quiet, you will recall, so we gave him quiet. Now,

Mr. Speaker, we find along with those statements attacking Mr.

Minty by the Member for Langley (Mr. McClelland).... If that's

the style of the official opposition and they hope to be

government, then you talk about a civil service that would be

threatened and barracked by a political party; they have given

demonstration tonight of how low they will sink to invent any

argument to protect their position.

Now, if I may go on, there is absolutely no truth to the

statement that Mr. Minty was given any orders other than to

give us a report on the B.C. Rail based on his professional

competence. Let that stand. And if the Member has a shred of

responsibility, he will come back into this House and apologize

to the House for the suggestion that Mr. Minty was following

orders to prepare a report that was something other than his

professional opinion.

Now we go on to other statements made against the Member for

West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr. L.A. Williams). I don't share

the political philosophy of the Member for West Vancouver-Howe

Sound, whatever that may be on any given day.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): How do you know,

then?

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, because he's never shown an

indication to join this party.

MR. GARDOM: Well, that's good sense. (Laughter.)

HON. MR. BARRETT: Well, I don't know. It may be a question

of good sense considering West Vancouver, but I don't think

it's good sense in terms of the eventual result of the election

when it comes.

At no time in my years in this House in terms of the kind of

smears and attacks and everything else, has that Member been a

part of that style of politics. And I confess that I've been in

the rough and tumble of this House with the best of them.

But when that Member gets up in this House and makes

suggestions that Peat, Marwick was attacked; that the innuendo

was planted, deliberately or otherwise, and to have the

opposition deny this, then I ask you, Mr. Speaker, why did the

official opposition raise the Penn Central case in the first

place? It was obvious — an attempt to

[ Page 3469 ]

smear Peat, Marwick from a distance. The Member for West

Vancouver-Howe Sound was absolutely correct in his assumption

because I recall reading one

article by a columnist who

actually came to the conclusion that that, in effect, was the

official leader's proposition all along.

The Member asked me some questions about Peat, Marwick. He

said: was the government aware of the Penn Central case? Was

the government aware, Mr. Speaker, that the CNR had engaged

Peat, Marwick as well, as their auditors? Peat, Marwick are the

auditors for the Canadian National Railway. We asked for

submissions from auditors prior to hiring a new auditor as a

result of the resignation of Buttar and Chiene, which I will

come back to in a moment.

When the statement was made by the official Leader of the

Opposition I immediately contacted the chief financial officer

of the B.C. Railway, and I will file this letter with the House

and the information. We asked whether or not the Penn Central

case had been considered prior to hiring Peat, Marwick. I want

the House to know that, indeed, that was the fact.

Peat, Marwick at no time attempted to hide the fact that

there was some action in the United States, but it has

absolutely nothing to do with their function here as auditors

in the Province of British Columbia. To leave the impression in

the House that a firm like Peat, Marwick would submit an

audited statement to the Government of British Columbia based

on what the government wanted rather than their own

professional confidence, I think is little short of scandalous

as a defence by the official Leader of the Opposition (Mr.

Bennett).

Mr. Speaker, the Member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Mr.

L.A. Williams) raises a very important point above politics: if

that kind of attack is continued through suggestion, what

government will be able to hire anybody if they are prepared to

put their professional name on an audited statement only to

find that they come under attack by innuendo here in this House

by an official opposition party? Without conscience and without

any real understanding — I think perhaps that is the only

excuse for the statement by the official Leader of the

Opposition — I don't think he really realized the impact of the

grasping defence that he took on that case.

I will file with the House, with leave, the letter I

received from Mr. Marshall plus the outline of qualifications

submitted by Peat, Marwick before they were hired for the B.C.

Railway. The letter is dated June 11; the outline of

qualifications was December 2, 1974, before they were

hired.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I don't have a copy of the letter commissioning them

but I can get it for you.

After the statement by the official Leader of the

Opposition, we contacted the chief financial officer. He wrote

back as follows:

"In our telephone conversation you asked for information

that I might have relative to the action pending against Peat,

Marwick, Mitchell and Co. In connection with its previous audit

of Penn Central Railway.

"I am enclosing for your information the submission of Peat,

Marwick dated December 2, 1974, outlining their qualifications

prior to their appointment as auditors of the B.C. Railway. I

would refer you particularly to appendix D setting forth a

partial list of their railroad audit clients in the United

States, and appendix E setting forth their qualifications in

transportation and railway consulting.

"Prior to their appointment" — listen to this — "as auditors

of the British Columbia Railway, we requested of Peat, Marwick

a written submission dealing with the unfavourable publicity

received in regard to Penn Central. A copy of this submission

is attached.

"I trust this will give you the information you

require."

It is a detailed statement showing the situation to be

exactly as described in this House by the Member for West

Vancouver-Howe Sound. All the Member for West Vancouver-Howe

Sound got for his pains was a personal attack from the Member

for Langley (Mr. McClelland). I'll come to that when I ask

leave to file it with the House.

Along with that, Mr. Speaker, let us deal with the latest

"deliberate false statements" or otherwise of the Securities

& Exchange Commission. Let us deal with that in some

detail; let us give a little history of the last 24 hours.

First I was asked a question in the corridor about it. I

made a statement and then I was confronted this morning with a

front-page newspaper story setting out details of the so-called

perhaps "misleading" SEC situation. Then, I understand, in my

absence in the House this morning the official Leader of the

Opposition got on his feet and demanded a judicial inquiry into

the matter of the SEC having audited statements from the

British Columbia Railway up to December 31, 1974, leaving the

impression that we had not complied with SEC regulations.

I received a call from Deputy Minister of Finance, who

wanted to clear with me a request from the official Leader of

the Opposition to meet with him. I said, "certainly, "

but I was a little curious about the request. The request was

that the Deputy Minister come up to the Leader of the

Opposition's office. I said to him: "You certainly can meet

with any Member of the Legislature, but I suggest that the

meeting take place in your office. You are a servant of

[ Page 3470 ]

MLAs, but you do not run to MLAs' offices at their order or

request." You must go and meet the civil servants in their own

offices.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Big deal. Personal discussion takes place

in the Deputy Minister's office; you don't call people to your

office. You don't call people to your office.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I said to the Deputy Minister: "You must

meet with the official Leader of the Opposition and answer

every question as honestly as you can for him." The meeting did

take place; it's my understanding that the Leader of the

Opposition had every answer to his questions. You were given

every answer to your questions. Is that correct?

MR. BENNETT: The answers all say you were wrong.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Are you suggesting that the Deputy

Minister told you that the position of this government was

wrong?

MR. BENNETT: I have personal confirmation that the Minister

of Finance of this province knew that a rewrite of the

financial statement was going on at the same time that he

authorized this statement to New York.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That's right. Exactly. And he was also

told that the Securities & Exchange Commission requires

audited statements to be filed with the Securities &

Exchange Commission, not new statements. Now semantics is the

word being used — the more he talks, the more he gets in

trouble.

MR. PHILLIPS: You are in trouble. You are talking about

yourself.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, before the SEC material was

filed, it was required that all the material go through the

underwriting firm and through the underwriting firm's lawyers.

The report was originally filed on March 13, 1975. The selling

was delayed because of adverse market conditions. The

prospectus was revived on May 15, 1975. The B.C. Railway

financial people were unable to give economists a prospectus on

more recent audited figures, required by SEC, than December 31,

1973, the date of the last audited statement.

The New York managers, Kuhn, Loeb & Co. and lawyers Micer, Mestres and

Budd, of the firm of Sullivan & Cromwell, were well aware that a review

of the railway accounts was in progress. Knowing this, they considered the report

not to be final and did not request anything more than the SEC regulations,

although they were aware that a new audit was in process.

AN HON. MEMBER: Well, you're trying hard.

HON. MR. BARRETT: We'll come to more.

AN HON. MEMBER: Trying to get out of it.

HON. MR. BARRETT: In mid-May the managers advised market

conditions were good and advised to go ahead with the borrowing

post-haste to take advantage of the conditions. Hydro did so,

and the final prospectus of May 22 was filed and the railway

still did not have new figures.

Mr. Mestres is one of the leading financial lawyers in the

City of New York. Even today, had the Leader of the Opposition

(Mr. Bennett) done his homework, he could have phoned Mr.

Mestres in New York and received the following statement of Mr.

Mestres, who is of the firm of Sullivan & Cromwell, saying

to the Deputy Minister of Finance in this government that he

represents the underwriters Kuhn, Loeb & Co., and it is his

duty to scrutinize all prospectuses before they go to the SEC.

Even today he said that the SEC deals only in facts; only the

final figures can be filed. No new figures could be filed from

the BCR at the time because there were no audited figures

around. If you don't want to take my word, Mr. official Leader

of the Opposition, they you are attacking the very lawyer who

represents the underwriters who put this prospectus forward to

the SEC.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Member, explanatory notes were the

obligation of the firm. They knew about it.

MR. BENNETT: Oh, he is blaming the firm. Blaming the

firm.

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, I'm not blaming the firm. Mr. Speaker,

every regulation of the SEC was followed. You cannot deny the

facts.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. You are entitled to be heard if

you are speaking in this debate.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, you cannot deny the

facts.

To end this

section of my closing debate, I will make the

following statement:

[ Page 3471 ]

I will make this statement and give a sworn statement of

exactly what I have said in this House. If there is a proof

whatsoever that we did not comply with SEC regulations, I will

resign my seat. But I would ask any other Member who makes

these accusations that we did not give the SEC the information,

to do the same thing on the same challenge.

Mr. Speaker, all the chirping and yelling made in this House

by the official opposition will not wash away the fact that

every step of the way.... If we have broken any SEC

regulation, then why are there not criminal charges against the

government of British Columbia or me?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I find it very interesting.

Statements are made, not backed up by fact — attacks on Peat,

Marwick, attacks on the SEC regulations — all in an attempt to

cover up the fact.... What about the original problems with

this railway?

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, they can all yell, they can

all interrupt and all holler, but that will not change one word

of the fact that the SEC regulations were completely followed,

that Peat, Marwick and its position with Penn Central was known

to the government.

If we have a judicial inquiry, will you stake your seat on

the outcome of that judicial inquiry? Will you stake your seat

if you're wrong? Will you resign as a Member of this House if

there was absolutely nothing wrong in our application with SEC?

Will you? I'll finish; you'll have a chance at the end of my

speech to consider that.

AN HON. MEMBER: Just nod your head.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the charge was made that....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, the charge was made that we

were not complying with SEC. The challenge is that we have a

judicial inquiry. If the charge is proven false, will the

official Leader of the Opposition resign his seat for making

such a false charge?

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Okay, Mr. Speaker....

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh, Mr. Speaker....

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, let us now deal with other

statements made by the official opposition.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Order!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Let us deal now with other statements made

by the official opposition. The official opposition came in and

said that all the mistakes made by Mr. Walker were when I

signed the annual report. That's absolutely correct. We were

sworn in on September 15; we were given statements. At no time

did we have any information or indication that Mr. Walker was

not complying with proper procedures. I was not warned or

cautioned or told by anyone that anything was wrong with B.C.

Rail.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The former president, Mr. Member. Now that

you ask that question, I'm going to tell that story for the

first time, because I think it has to be told now.

When the election was over on August 30, it is normal

practice that the outgoing government, through the Premier,

meets with the Premier-elect. I waited two weeks, Mr. Speaker,

and received absolutely no communication from the former

Premier's office. The first information I had that the former

Premier was leaving office was on September 15 in the morning

when I received a personal call from His Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor asking me to come to Victoria to be sworn

in.

MRS. JORDAN: That's better than Bremer got.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I made myself available and

that knowledge was known. I was available for two weeks waiting

to hear.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Step right in? All right, Mr. Speaker. I

received no....

Interjections.

[ Page 3472 ]

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, we expected....

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Oh yes, you're just using your elastic

jaws to get ready to swallow that mouse so you can be swallowed

to join Social Credit. We know what's coming — we know what's

coming.

I have to be amused by the Member for....

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I have to be amused by all

the yelling and hollering by the official opposition all the

way through my speech. Yap, yap, yap, yap! But the most

interesting thing was the very short speech from the Member for

Vancouver–Point Grey. Usually he waxes eloquent in his

non-lecturing manner to the lower Members of this House, who,

of course, cannot match his intelligence, his charm or his wit.

It's impossible! It's impossible.

But all he said on television about the B.C. Rail was:

"Well, it's a little white lie." How one psyches oneself up to

jump from one party to another! "A little white lie." is what

he said on television. What's a little white lie between

political ambition, my friend?

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: What is the main issue that the official

Leader of the Opposition did not address himself to?

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you the official Leader of the

government? (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: Where's Bob tonight?

HON. MR. BARRETT: What is the statement that the official

opposition refuses to address itself to?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please! Will the Hon. Member for South

Okanagan (Mr. Bennett) be silent for a minute so that the same

courtesy can be extended to him?

MR. BENNETT: I'm extending exactly the same courtesy.

MR. SPEAKER: Oh, I thought that you had been listened

to.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's what he got when he spoke tonight.

You've got a short memory.

MR. SPEAKER: I have a very long memory; I listen very

carefully. I think that both sides of this House are entitled

to be heard from. I ask the Hon. Member for South Okanagan to

extend the same courtesy he demanded of the Speaker when he

spoke.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Why don't you remember what you asked for

yourself?

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order! Order!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker....

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: You didn't ask for any more than he's asking

for — no more, no less.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I have no objections to the

behaviour by the official opposition if all of that noise can

wipe away the facts. If that's their attempt, let it be. Let it

be.

Mr. Speaker, every single report back to 1967 had the

following words in it signed by Buttar and Chiene. The

following words were:

"These statements are prepared in conformity with the

uniform classification of accounts prescribed by the Board of Transport

Commissioners for Canada.

"(Signed) Buttar and Chiene."

MR. PHILLIPS: Page 10, Price Waterhouse.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of fact, and

subsequent action by the Chartered Accountants Professional

Association bears out, that that is not a true statement. We

found out that although these audited reports said they were

prepared under the uniform classification of accounts

prescribed by the Board of Transport Commissioners for Canada,

that was not the fact.

MR. PHILLIPS: That's the wrong report.

HON. MR. BARRETT: That was a statement by Buttar and Chiene

in the annual report saying that they followed those

regulations.

At the time Buttar and Chiene resigned, the following

statement was made by the official Leader of the Opposition. He

said on November 18, 1974, in the House, about Buttar and

Chiene, and I quote from Hansard , that "they resigned because

they weren't prepared to change the auditing procedures

[ Page 3473 ]

because of the mounting losses that the railway wished to

hide this year."

MR. PHILLIPS: Page 4, Price Waterhouse.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I will read this again. The allegation

made, not withdrawn, by the official Leader of the Opposition

about the resignation of Buttar and Chiene was that "they

resigned because they weren't prepared to change the auditing

procedures because of the mounting losses that the railway

wished to hide this year" — the allegation being, from the

official Leader of the Opposition, that someone on the board

was ordering Buttar and Chiene to cook the books. That's a very

serious charge. The charge was made by the official Leader of

the Opposition against this government and the board of

directors, and he said categorically that Buttar and Chiene

resigned.... He didn't guess; he wasn't surmising; he made a

direct accusation that Buttar and Chiene resigned because the

railway wished to hide losses.

That, Mr. Speaker, is absolutely false. There is not one

shred of evidence that anyone ordered Buttar and Chiene to do

anything other than to tell the truth. Mr. Speaker, Buttar and

Chiene were not telling the truth in those accounts, and that

was why they resigned.

It's too much to expect the official Leader of the

Opposition to stand up in this House and say that this

accusation is not correct and not substantiated by fact, but it

is a direct accusation against the government that we ordered

Buttar and Chiene to hide losses, and that statement is

absolutely false. Absolutely false! It is a false statement

made by the official Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Speaker, I ask the official Leader of the Opposition if

he wishes to correct this charge or substantiate it with

facts.

MR. PHILLIPS: Price Waterhouse! Did you ever read that

report?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member for South

Peace River (Mr. Phillips) keep his silence? You are not called

upon to speak. You made your speech. Please be silent and

listen to other Members who are speaking.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Then the question arises....

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: I believe in fair play.

Interjection.

MR. SPEAKER: Well, then observe it.

MR. PHILLIPS: Certainly, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SPEAKER: Then be silent.

HON. MR. BARRETT: The other charges not withdrawn by the

official Leader of the Opposition and by the Member for Langley

(Mr. McClelland) were that I changed people's positions on the

basis of political patronage. The charge was made again this

afternoon and made earlier by the official Leader of the

Opposition. Not one name, not one shred of evidence, has been

given by the leader of the official opposition or any Member of

the opposition to prove any charge that anybody was removed

because of political patronage on that railway. Those two

accusations were made by the official Leader of the Opposition

and to this day they have not been substantiated.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I don't care how you attempt to reword

your charges; the statement was made that we ordered people out

and we appointed people because of political patronage. I

challenge those Members to name one name that was placed on

that railway by political patronage. Name one!

Interjections.

HON. MR. BARRETT: We witnessed an attempt through these last

few days in this debate by the official opposition in sucking

in wind, attempting to blow new directions around a situation

that is of the former government's making.

The official Leader of the Opposition had an opportunity to

stand in his place in this House and say that the new audited

statement and the old audited statements, even though they were

criticized by the professional chartered association and Peat,

Marwick as the new auditors...he had the opportunity to stand

in his place and say to this House: "That all happened before I

came here. It was all a matter of the former government. I

regret this matter took place; however, you cannot charge me

with the responsibility of what the former Premier or the

former board of governors did." But did he do that?

HON. D.G. COCKE (Minister of Health): The same old game!

HON. MR. BARRETT: No, Mr. Speaker, he came into the House in

a feeble attempt to attack the government without addressing

himself once — not once — to any one of the substantive charges

made in

[ Page 3474 ]

this report. Not once!

He chose, Mr. Speaker, to take the course of attempting to

smear Peat, Marwick, attempting to smear the professionals who

signed their names to these reports, and tonight allowing one

of his Members to cast aspersions on Mr. Minty, rather than

assuming the responsibility of Her Majesty's Leader of the

Loyal Opposition and standing up and saying that these

professional statements have to be accepted. Not at all. He

smears this government, makes false charges against me of

political patronage and ordering Buttar & Chiene to do

things. No apology. And yet he has the gall and the nerve to

really believe his own story and defence that he put on.

It was a dismal performance, but it was crowned with one of

the most foolish and I think most irresponsible statements I

have ever heard made in this House.

No one can avoid politics, Mr. Speaker — that is the

lifeblood of the nature of this institution. But on occasion

when decisions are made for the people of British Columbia, as

they have been made in the past, all Members of this House are

asked to decide on the nature of the policy, good or bad.

In particular I refer you, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that

prior to me assuming the office of the official Leader of the

Opposition, my colleague, the Member for Cowichan-Malahat (Hon.

Mr. Strachan), spoke in this House on many occasions on PGE

debates, and on every question of funds for the PGE, at no time

did the official Leader of the Opposition say that he was

opposed to the PGE. He said he was opposed to the

government.

But we heard a statement from the official Leader of the

Opposition that dripped with lust of power and arrogance about

understanding of the nature of this very institution. His

statement was to this House: "I am going to vote for this bill

because I don't believe you'll be government after the next

election" — implying, Mr. Speaker, that if the people of

British Columbia chose a government of the day that he didn't

agree with, then he would change his policy based on the

electorate's decision, not based on what the railway means to

the Province of British Columbia!

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame!

HON. MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, to make that statement in this House

indicates only one thing — a shallow, grasping need for power without any commitment

for new directions, new philosophy. It's the same old gang with the same base,

negative politics: charges made and never answered; wild accusations made and

never proved.

The record is there, Mr. Speaker. We find these pious statements made by a

self-righteous group who think somehow that they have the divine right to rule

because they have a history. An opportunity to change that history in the Province

of British Columbia came during that debate, and instead of a rational debate

on the issues, the official opposition chose to attack the people who prepared

the report.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that the

independents, the Liberals and the Conservatives added

questions to this House, and I'm going to close on one comment

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

Williams). Mr. Member, you suggested that there be political

separation from the B.C. Rail. I want to tell you, Mr. Member,

I have believed that B.C. Rail should be separated on the same

basis as B.C. Hydro always was.

Mr. Speaker, my responsibility in becoming Premier of this

province was to take on those tasks that we inherited in the

structure that we inherited and to work one step by step by

step to find out where we were. If I had abandoned presidency

of the B.C. Railway without getting to the bottom of the matter

submitted to me by Mr. Minty, I would not have done my

duty.

I find it somewhat amusing that some editorials are saying:

"Oh, well, it's hypocritical. You shouldn't have brought it

out." Do you think that I was going to sit on this story and

take the blame for it and let more time go by? I have a

responsibility to bring the facts to this Legislature and I

have done so.

This government will seriously consider a method of

separating once and for all the B.C. Rail from any attempt by

any politician of this province to ever again manipulate that

railway for political purposes as it has been done by the

former government.

Mr. Speaker, after having delivered this information, the

moves will be made before the end of this year. And I tell you

that no matter what happens electorally, let us pray to God

that never again are we given a situation where books are

manipulated for political purposes in this province. I say it's

a disgrace. There was an opportunity by the official

opposition. Mr. Speaker....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BARRETT: Did we hide the ICBC losses? Did we hide

the losses? Not at all!

Mr. Speaker, let me tell you that this government has come

up front with losses every step of the way. Every step of the

way! You bet! And, Mr. Speaker, we have come up front with

profits every step of the way. Mr. Speaker, along the plus

ledger is Ocean Falls, Columbia Cellulose and others. And on

the loss ledger are the ferries and other services. You can

criticize politically the loss and the profit side of the

ledger. But you know what the facts are. They're not hidden by

false audited statements presented to this House.

We will stand and fall on the programmes based on

[ Page 3475 ]

profits and loss. But, Mr. Speaker, I tell you that in no

way do I intend to have any part of carrying the responsibility

and the burden of what we've uncovered in the B.C. Rail. The

railway must go on. We need these funds. But let the people of

this province know that the cost of the extension is not $69

million; it is $227 million, Mr. Speaker. And because we were

not told the truth by the former government, we will have to

pay that bill.

AN HON. MEMBER: It took two years.

HON. MR. BARRETT: I took two years, Mr. Member, because I

wanted every step of the way catalogued by outside references.

I knew the kind of assault that would be made on this

government.

So, Mr. Speaker, that is the story.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

HON. MR. BARRETT: I say to you that the people of this

province will judge for themselves this matter. And, Mr.

Speaker, that time will come soon enough.

But I tell you, Mr. Speaker, I would not carry to the people

of this province any of the responsibility of the political

chicanery we inherited. That is the record, and it's on their

head.

I now move second reading for this bill.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 42

Hall

Macdonald

Barrett

Dailly

Strachan

Nimsick

Hartley

Calder

Sanford

D'Arcy

Cummings

Dent

Levi

Lorimer

Cocke

King

Young

Lauk

Nicolson

Nunweiler

Skelly

Lockstead

Gorst

Rolston

Anderson, G.H.

Barnes

Steves

Liden

Lewis

Webster

Kelly

Wallace

Anderson, D.A.

Fraser

Chabot

Phillips

Bennett

Smith

Jordan

McClelland

Morrison

Schroeder

NAYS — 3

McGeer

Williams, L.A.

Gardom

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the

House.

Bill 27, British Columbia Railway Company Loan Act, 1975,

read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole House

for consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, we are going t o proceed to

second reading o f the Attorney-General's bills, starting with

second reading of Bill 100.

PROVINCIAL COURT ACT

HON. A.B. MACDONALD (Attorney-General): Mr. Speaker, I take

pleasure in recommending second reading of this bill to this

House this night.

MRS. JORDAN: This time?

MR. MACDONALD: At this time. I would like to express the

hope that this places the coping stone on the finest provincial

court system to be found anywhere in North America. The bill

has been proceeded with great consultation with members of the

judges' association and, of course, with members of the bar and

members of the interested public.

We have in this bill ensured that there can be no political

influence in the courts. I draw the Hon. Members' attention to

some of the additional powers of the judicial council whereby

from this time henceforward I can make no appointment of anyone

as a judge of the Provincial Court of British Columbia except

upon the recommendation of the judicial council led by Chief

Judge Laurie Braham, Judge Ken Arkell, the second. Very good

men.

Mr. Speaker, the bill can be dealt with appropriately later

this evening or even tomorrow in committee, but I would add to

what I've been saying — that we have had as an objective over

the past two years that the judges who handle serious criminal

charges involving the liberty of an accused should be legally

trained. We know that we cannot, and perhaps should not have

the total bench composed of legally trained judges.

We provide in this bill that in the local communities, and

for matters under the Juvenile Delinquents Act, under the

Motor-vehicle Act, and things of that kind, and all

summary

convictions under the

Summary Convictions Act, the chief judge

can invest with the necessary power, without any prospectus

being filed (laughter), a justice of the peace to conduct

trials under those laws.

MR. A.V. FRASER (Cariboo): Yes, but you won't pay him

anything.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: But in all of the serious cases of the

Province of British Columbia, it can be said without equivocation that from

[ Page 3476 ]

this time forward they will be decided, where the liberty of

the subject is involved, by a legally trained judge.

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, and the justices of the peace...

Interjection.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: ...will be continued in office. I hope

the Hon. Member for Cariboo (Mr. Fraser) asks me that question

in committee about the justices of the peace in Clinton and

Wells who are making $50 a month to attend and swear

information occasionally, or to swear them in their home when

requested to do so by the RCMP. It's not a full time job, Mr.

Member.

MR. FRASER: Seven days a week they're called upon.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Yes, seven days a week they could be

available to swear an information, but that's not their

vocation; that's an avocation. That's service being rendered —

no question about that — to the province, and paid for. I don't

say the $50 is right, but they're hardly judges sitting full

time, or even part time, and hearing cases. We're looking at

all of that. We have in this bill provided a grandfather clause

for the existing judges.

Again reverting to my first point, under no circumstances

shall anybody be able to say that there can be political weight

brought to bear upon the court. The justices of the peace, and

the retirement provisions for judges, meet the approval of the

judges' association. We have provided severance provisions for

judges in this province who have retired or will retire, apart

from superannuation. There were many, many of these public

servants who, until this little government came on the scene,

had nothing when they retired. Now that programme is costing us

perhaps — I'm estimating now — I think about $350,000, but it

was justice to people who, on a part-time basis, not legally

trained, nevertheless served the province in the various

communities of British Columbia for many years. They weren't

under superannuation; they had no protection when they retired

or were forced to retire by reaching the designated age.

I commend this bill to the House for second reading.

[Deputy Speaker in the chair.]

MR. D.E. SMITH (North Peace River) . The Hon. Attorney-General in that

bowtie tonight, that black bowtie — I'm not sure what the significance is, whether...

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I attended a fiesta. I had to attend a

fiesta for legal aid directors across Canada.

MR. SMITH: Is it black or blue, Mr. Attorney-General? Has it

something to do with some ancient Scottish religious rite, or

is it something to do with a meeting you attended this evening?

Anyway, it looks like one that a person would wear to a formal

occasion, or to a funeral — I'm not sure which.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Don't get personal.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member please

relate the bowtie to the principle of the bill?

MR. SMITH: I will. Thank you for reminding me that I should

do that, Mr. Speaker.

It would seem that the bowtie is an indication of a change

of attitude of the Attorney-General and that this bill which he

has introduced for second reading tonight is a step, I believe,

in the right direction, inasmuch as the people that have

corresponded with me, or have talked to me in the law

profession, have given me information, they feel that this is a

correct move on the part of the Attorney-General and his

department in many respects. I think that the bill could be

debated more fully, perhaps, in committee stage because of a

number of different principles involved with respect to judges

and those who are presently in the judiciary and those that

will probably be joining it, as well as the justices that are

mentioned in here.

It seems that there is a provision for the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to provide that for certain

justices in the province the Public Service Superannuation Act

will apply. I think that perhaps we should discuss that in

committee, Mr. Attorney-General, because there is a problem

there, which you have rightfully pointed out, of the people who

came into the service many years ago and who are now at the age

of retirement without any retirement benefits.

So, Mr. Speaker, we support the principle of the bill and

will have more to say when we debate it in the committee

state.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Minister closes the debate.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I appreciate what the Hon. Member has

said; I appreciate even more the silence of other Hon.

Members.

[ Page 3477 ]

Interjections.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: The golden silence. I think the Hon.

Members have read the bill and I'm sure they have given

attention to it. I appreciate that. I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 100, Provincial Court Act, read a second time and

referred to Committee of the Whole House for consideration at

the next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill

SMALL CLAIMS AMENDMENT ACT, 1975

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, this bill is really

complementary to the one to which the House has just given

second reading. I may say that while it doesn't appear in this

bill, I hope in the summer — maybe I've said this to the

Legislature — to have a law student programme whereby we'll

have somebody assisting in the small claims courts to see if

people coming to that court can't be assisted on their way to

the judge — perhaps by a bit of legal advice.

So if somebody owes somebody else $250 and they're dead in

the water, to assign a court date and have the person perhaps

in ignorance put in a dispute note is not really advancing

things. Now that's not in the bill (laughter) but it's in my

head.

AN HON. MEMBER: What's in the bill?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I'm sure Hon. Members will read the bill

itself. I move second reading.

DEPUTY SPEAKER; The Hon. Member for Langley on a point of order.

MR. McCLELLAND: I would just like the Minister to advise us

whether we will be able to examine his head in committee stage.

(Laughter.)

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is not a point of order. The Hon.

Member for North Peace River.

MR. SMITH: The only comment I would like to make at this particular

time is that we see too often a repetition of what is happening this evening.

I don't want to get into a long dissertation of debate on this particular bill,

but I'd like to draw to the attention of the Attorney-General that regardless

of how innocuous the bill may be or how unobjectionable the provisions of a

bill may be, this one was introduced on June 10 two days ago. Here it is back

before us for second reading this evening, two days later. I think that perhaps

it's probably.... I would like to know why it was not possible to get this

bill before the House a little earlier in deference to the law profession and

to people who may have wished to digest the contents of the bill prior to second

reading.

I agree that there are certain bills that perhaps have no

contentious clauses in them and can be debated a couple of days

later. But, Mr. Attorney-General, this is really asking a bit

much of the House to try to get any feedback from anybody on a

bill that was introduced two days ago and comes up for debate

in such a short time. While I'm not personally objecting to any

of the clauses in this amendment Act, it does seem to me that

that's really rushing things a little bit more than is

customary. I think the Attorney-General would be well advised

to take that into consideration in future bills he might

introduce to this House.

MR. G.B. GARDOM (Vancouver–Point Grey): One almost has to be

an expert in phrenology to speak to this bill in view of the

opening remarks of the Hon. Attorney-General who's going to

move his head into second reading tonight. I think this is a

very sensible amendment, particularly the expansion, Mr.

Attorney-General of the jurisdiction of this court to encompass

the province, as opposed to the very local jurisdiction it

exercised before. I would commend you to these comments. I

would think it would be highly appropriate once again to expand

the financial jurisdiction of this court. It now has the

competence to hear matters up to $1,000 unless the litigants

themselves choose to remove the case to a higher tribunal,

which in this case would be the county court if the amount

should be over that $300 figure. That's a very good provision:

if the amount is over $300 the litigants have an opportunity to

opt to the higher tribunal. But proceedings in the small claims

court are very less formal and specific forms are not required.

Pleadings are not required per se.

If I could maybe have the ear of the Attorney-General for

this....

MR. WALLACE: Your head will feel worse in the morning,

Alex.

MR. GARDOM: Mr. Attorney-General, this will be a very

practical and useful thing for you to do, and I'm sure that you

could speak to that gentleman in about one and a half minutes

from now.

Pleadings are not required in this court. We don't need

writs or claims, statements of defence or replies, joinders of

issue or demand for discovery of documents, or examination for

discovery and so forth and so on. Trials are far, far less

formal — counsel, if required, there's not any necessity upon

them to gown. The obtaining of trial dates is much easier

[ Page 3478 ]

this court than in any other court. There's usually far less

time involved than in any kind of trial. Quite frankly, they

get to the nub of the matter and do the job much more quickly.

I thoroughly agree with the suggestion that you raised in your

opening remarks tonight.

But I'd say, Mr. Attorney-General, in view of the shrinking

value of the dollar, apart from anything else, that the

financial jurisdiction of this court be increased again. Now it

moved up over the years; from $100 in 1967, it came up to $500,

and in 1973 the financial jurisdiction of this court was

increased to $1,000. I think the object and the purpose should

be to increase the suitability and — what shall I say — the

approachability of courts for the purposes of the general

public. Let there be easier access to them; make the process

less costly, if at all possible, and let there be speedier

justice. Eliminate, at least, some of this continuous complaint

of the law's delays.

So I'd say with those reasons and with those purposes in

mind, I'd very much urge you to do a job for the people and

amend this Act to increase the financial jurisdiction of this

court from $1,000 to $3,000. Now I think that is something that

could be readily done now. As I say: there's a shrinking

dollar; it's an informal process; and the litigants, any one of

them, have always reserved unto themselves the right to choose,

to elect, a higher tribunal if it's a matter of complicated

concern but I would very much commend you to increase the

jurisdiction of this court from $1,000 to $3,000.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The Hon. Attorney-General closes the

debate.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I'll certainly give

consideration, but not immediately, to the suggestion of

increasing the jurisdiction. We've done it recently; we'll do

it again. We have to be a little careful as to that fine moving

line between provincial and federal courts. Nevertheless,

that's something which we should examine.

MR. GARDOM: It's nothing to do with the federal courts.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: In reply to the Hon. Member for North

Peace River (Mr. Smith) I do regret that the bill came in on

such short notice. I had intended that this bill would be

introduced in the fall session of the Legislature, and until a

few days ago I didn't realize that this was the fall session of

the Legislature. (Laughter.)

MR. WALLACE: It's that head of yours again, Alex.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Bill 111, Small Claims Amendment Act, 1975, read a second

time and referred to Committee of the Whole House for

consideration at the next sitting after today.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, second reading of Bill

NATIONAL CABLEVISION LIMITED

TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION ACT

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, in introducing this bill at

this time, I'll be very glad to accept an adjournment.

MR. GARDOM: Make your opening remarks.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Well, the bill has been requested by the

Province of Quebec and, of course, by the company concerned.

The company has no operations, I am advised, in this province.

It will have operations in the Province of Quebec. It will

entail a dissolution of the company in this province, and a

transfer of the charter to the Province of Quebec, and,

presumably, payment of some federal tax. But I understand that

this kind of a matter is perfectly in order.

However, if any Hon. Member wishes at this time or before

committee stage to have it adjourned and to discuss the bill

with me or my officials, it's perfectly fine with me. I'd

prefer that if we're to do it at all, that it be a bill that

was not controversial.

MR. GARDOM: When was it incorporated, do you know?

HON. MR. MACDONALD: No. That's the kind of thing that....

AN HON. MEMBER: 1965.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: But if anybody wants to adjourn it or

have the committee stage delayed, it's fine with me. I move

second reading.

MR. SMITH: Well, Mr. Speaker, the Attorney-General was

courteous enough to send me over the briefs and notes that he

had concerning this particular bill, some week or 10 days ago,

when we had an opportunity to look at it. But if there's a

feeling on the part of any of the Members of the government or

the opposition that they would like to study this further, I'd

be quite happy to move adjournment of the debate until the next

sitting of the House.

[ Page 3479 ]

Interjections.

MR. SMITH: Okay.

As far as I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, I see nothing wrong

with the intent of the bill and what the company is trying to

do. As I understand it, they have moved all of their business

and transactions out of the Province of British Columbia. It is

a case of a problem that now presents itself to them in the

Province of Quebec, where they operate. Yet their head office

is in British Columbia. I see nothing detrimental or devious or

subversive in the bill. I think it is just a straightforward

proposition.

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

Attorney-General, I think, should have his bill tonight and

have the committee stage as fast as possible. We are doing this

at the request of another province — it seems perfectly in

order. There seems absolutely no need for any debate

whatsoever.

MR. L.A. WILLIAMS (West Vancouver — Howe Sound): I have

taken the liberty of discussing this with the Deputy Minister

in charge of financial services, Mr. Shepherd, and I think it

should be quite clear that this is not a request from the

government of the Province of Quebec but merely a necessity on

the part of this company to comply with the laws of that

province. The company was incorporated in British Columbia in

1965. It is in good standing. It carries on no active business

in the Province of British Columbia. It has no creditors in

this province. Indeed, its entire operations are within the

Province of Quebec. However, because of Quebec law and the

control that that province exercises over companies engaged in

this business, it is essential that the head office be there.

Because of a conflict in company law between the two provinces,

it is essential that the jurisdiction of this company be

transferred to Quebec. This legislation enables it to take

place without imposing upon this company unnecessary tax

burdens. At the same time, the legislation assures that the

company will remain registered in British Columbia as an extra

provincial company, thereby preserving any rights that any

citizen of British Columbia may have with respect to any

unknown claim against this company.

The legislation only becomes effective if, as, and when

legislation in the Province of Quebec of a companion nature is

passed. Under the circumstances, it seems to me an appropriate

action on the part of this government to assist a company. We

would hope that one day there would be a reciprocal opportunity

made available by the other province.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the

question be put.

Motion approved.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to refer the

bill to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration

forthwith.

Leave granted.

NATIONAL CABLEVISION LIMITED

TRANSFER OF JURISDICTION

ACT

The House in committee on Bill 133; Mr. Liden in the

chair.

Sections 1 to 5 inclusive approved.

Preamble approved.

Title approved.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise

and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The House resumed, Mr. Dent in the chair.

Bill 133, National Cablevision Limited Transfer of

Jurisdiction Act, reported complete without amendment, read a

third time and passed.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Committee on Bill 87.

CORONERS ACT

The House in committee on Bill 87; Mr. Liden in the

chair.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I did file amendments on

this bill. I'm not even sure they have hit the order paper. The

amendments were to do with an industrial accident so I would

like to move that the committee rise and report progress.

MR. CHAIRMAN: They are on the order paper.

HON. MR. MACDONALD: They just appeared. I think that in that

case the committee might rise. I move that the committee rise

and report progress and ask leave to sit again on this

bill.

Leave granted.

The House resumed; Deputy Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, the committee reports progress

and asks leave to sit again.

[ Page 3480 ]

Leave granted.

HON. MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, adjourned debate on Bill 103,

second reading. Is that one okay? Is the Member away that you

wish to have discuss it?

Interjection.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

HON. MRS. DAILLY: All right. Then, in view of that, Mr.

Minister, we will leave that one. Your critic then is obviously

away.

Hon. Mrs. Dailly moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 10:52 p.m.

[ Return to Legislative Assembly Home Page ]

Copyright © 1975, 2001, 2013: Queen's Printer, Victoria, B.C., Canada