[ Page 2325 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply: executive council estimates

On vote 2

Mr. King — 2325

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 2328

Mr. Nicolson — 2330

Mr. Levi — 2332

Mrs. Wallace — 2336

Mr. Cocke — 2340

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 2342

Mr.Cocke — 2342

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 2342

Mr. King — 2343

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 2345

Ms. Sanford — 2347

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 2347

Mr. Stupich — 2347

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 2348

Mr. Stupich — 2348

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 2349

Mr. Stupich — 2349

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 2350

Mr. Levi — 2350

THURSDAY, JUNE 3, 1976

The House met at 8 p.m.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

(continued)

On vote 2: executive council, $636,598 — continued.

MR. W.S. KING (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Chairman, I listened attentively to the Premier's (Hon. Mr. Bennett's) response to the various points that had been raised by me personally prior to the adjournment and also by the other members of the House. The Premier basically outlined the problems that the government is facing in terms of revenue, and I appreciate that. I think the opposition, and I think the people of British Columbia, appreciate that economic times have indeed been difficult, not only in British Columbia but throughout the western world.

Unquestionably the world prices of minerals have dropped off drastically over the past few years. Undoubtedly the market for forest products with our main customer south of the border, the United States, has dropped off with home-building starts reaching only a fraction of the normal activity that exists down there. As a consequence, yes, there has been a slump in the economy of British Columbia. But this slump did not just occur. It came on heavily in 1975 and our government, at that time, was confronted with the dilemma of sluggish markets, too. But I find it somewhat curious that the Premier now is prepared to acknowledge those problems, because while he stood here in opposition he certainly was not prepared to recognize those problems brought on by fluctuation in world markets.

Indeed, he went to the electorate during the election campaign of December 11, and prior to that, telling the people and reassuring them that he had all the answers to the economic ills of the province, that the economy would be roaring and rolling again in short order if they would only vote Social Credit, and the people of the province took him at his word.

Unfortunately, now they find that the Premier no longer has the answers that he offered during the election campaign. He finds now that there are no easy answers at all, and, in fact, rather than trying to preserve and maintain services and maintain employment levels, he has heaped additional penalties and burdens on the people of B.C. by fantastic increases in virtually all public and social services in the province, thereby reducing the disposable income of large numbers of our citizens.

He has failed up to this point, and certainly in his response before the adjournment hour, to offer anything positive in terms of direct employment programmes that might ease and offset the impact of such large numbers of our work force being unemployed at this time. There are 114,000 people in British Columbia — 9.7 per cent of the work force! And this was a government that was going to get things moving again.

We recognize some of the problems, but the absence of any gesture, any policy put forward by the Premier to try to offset this tremendous economic loss to the province of British Columbia, is pretty hard to take. It's pretty hard to take when he is not only ignoring the plight of the unemployed, but heaping additional cost burdens upon them by insensitive programmes brought in by people such as the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer), who has in his jurisdiction the automobile Insurance Corp. of British Columbia. He brings in the extremely punitive rates ranging up to 300 per cent and then has the brazen audacity to tell the people that if they can't pay for their automobile insurance rates, they should sell their cars.

Now the Premier made another election promise. He suggested that if ministers in his cabinet didn't cut the mustard, they'd be rotated. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, tonight, that it's about time that rotation started. Indeed, because of the insensitivity and the unwillingness of the Premier to respond to any of the economic and social needs of the citizens of B.C., while at the same time coming before this House and asking for his salary vote of some $48,000 a year, I think the first one in the cabinet who should be rotated is the Premier, Mr. Chairman. I think he is No. 1 for the rotation process.

I'm concerned. The Premier made a number of points during his presentation. He said: "Look, the revenue to the government can only come from one source, the people." That indeed seems to be the myopic view of the present administration. Load it all on the backs of the people, and as I demonstrated earlier, because of the policies of this government, it's usually on the backs of the people who can most ill afford to bear that burden.

The cost of all of the government increases to the millionaire amount to 2.5 per cent of his disposable income. To the low-income earner in the province of British Columbia it amounts to, I think I said, something like 9 per cent. So it's a disparate initiative that the government has undertaken. It compounds and worsens the disparity that exists between income groups in this province. Yes, 6 per cent for the average householder; he's suffered in terms of erosion of his disposable income. The working poor have

[ Page 2326 ]

suffered a reduction in their disposable income of 9.8 per cent while that Okanagan millionaire who I referred to has suffered a loss, an erosion, of his disposable income of only 2.5 per cent.

So this clearly demonstrates, with a little bit of arithmetic on anybody's part, that this government is benefiting the rich and punishing the poor — the same old shell game, Mr. Chairman.

The Premier said the funds can only come from one source, the people. But I want to remind the Premier, Mr. Chairman, that there are other people in this society who are able to pay and should be called upon to pay. I want to remind the Premier that Kaiser Resources is shipping hundreds of millions of tons of coal, a non-replaceable resource, out of this province annually. And I want to remind the Premier that under our administration we increased the royalty payments on that coal from I believe it was 15 cents a ton up to $1.50. Despite that increase, last year in 1975, Kaiser Resources experienced the highest profits they had ever achieved in their history in British Columbia.

They can afford to pay and the Japanese steel industry is prepared to pay the increased market value, no question about it. We have a worthwhile, one-shot commodity to offer for sale, and if the Premier had a little bit more fortitude in making demands, reasonable demands, upon the resource potential of this province, then perhaps he wouldn't have to visit such really insensitive and brutal burdens upon the people. There's more than one source of revenue, Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Chairman.

But a government has to have the feeling for the people, and they have to have the fortitude to demand from those great multinational corporations that they pay a fair share toward the public coffers of this province for the one-shot irreplaceable resource that they're being allowed to export. I think that's a reasonable proposition.

So I wish that the Premier would raise his sights and broaden his horizons when he's looking at methods of extracting yet larger sources of revenue for the public coffers in British Columbia. The industries are certainly not suffering, certainly not the coal industry. Their share of the world market for coal has risen steadily. Their profit margin has risen steadily and it in no way jeopardizes the economic viability of their operation to demand a more reasonable share of revenue in terms of the public needs of British Columbia from that source.

He talks about spending priorities. He talks about minimizing or virtually eliminating the Highways department budget so more dollars can be expended for the purposes of health and human resources in the province. But I want to mention, Mr. Chairman, that, despite the economic hardship that the Premier likes to infer as bedevilling this province, it seems to be no problem for British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority, that Crown corporation, to undertake another mammoth hydro-electric development on the Columbia River chain just north of Revelstoke. That's going to have to be financed, and the capital funds seem to be available for that kind of thing. So I wonder about the priorities of this government.

In terms of the GAIN programme being any assurance and source of solace to the senior citizens of this province, I say, my God, surely you're not suggesting that the senior citizens of this province can take some comfort from being relegated to the tender mercies of your Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), the chap who suggests that people might exist more comfortably on a diet of tulip bulbs? Surely that's not the kind of compassionate sensitivity that is going to comfort the senior citizens of this province and the indigent and the handicapped people. I think that's insulting, Mr. Premier.

Now I'm going to move away from this and I'm going to....

Interjection.

MR. KING: I'm going to move away to some other topics, Mr. Chairman, and the hope that the Premier gives some thought to the points I have raised and comes up with some serious attempt to answer those questions.

Just in passing, before I do, Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that this is not the first tough and stormy economic downturn the Social Credit Party has had to face; they've faced them before. It's amazing to see how much things change and stay the same over the course of many years at times. I want to read an article here; I don't know what it will do to the Premier — it's a different government; it was a true Social Credit government that was referred to in the stormy economic times of August 6, 1935.

AN HON. MEMBER: John Wood sent it, I bet. (Laughter.)

MR. KING: No, no. Oh, no, I received this in the mail from some considerate constituent in the province. I think it's worthwhile just browsing back over it to see how some of the initial economic policies and thrusts of the Social Credit Party of old and the Social Credit coalition of today have remained constant and the same. I wonder if the Attorney-General of the province of British Columbia, that former Liberal, ever thought that he would be hand-in-hand and shoulder-to-shoulder with a group espousing the A plus B Major Douglas economic theories. I wonder if he ever thought that, because some of the economics seem to be the same.

Here's the statement, published and issued on August 6, 1935. It's entitled: "The Dangers of Aberhart's Social Credit Proposals."

[ Page 2327 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: What month?

MR. KING: August.

AN HON. MEMBER: What paper is it?

MR. KING: The preamble says:

"We are a non-political organization, like the members of the Economic Safety League of Alberta whose activities we welcome. Our members are drawn from all parties in all ordinary circumstances. Therefore we refrain from comment on general political issues. For instance, the annual convention of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce has just been postponed so that it shall not be held on the eve of the Dominion election."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think that on vote 2 we've been very generous in allowing wide-ranging debate, but somehow or other, seriously, we would like to have the member relate his present line of thought to the responsibilities of the Premier.

MR. KING: Oh, no problem there, Mr. Chairman. I certainly intend to do that. I'm sure that everyone on that side of the House is listening with bated breath while I draw a comparison between the economic policies pursued by one William Aberhart and a William of a newer, more modern era. I think the comparison, the similarity and the cogency of this particular policy to the matter now before the committee, Mr. Chairman, will become self-evident.

I'm not going to deal with it too long. I just want to deal with the main subheadings that the Alberta Chamber of Commerce were objecting to in the Social Credit platform of that day. I'm just going to read the subheadings:

"We fear Mr. Aberhart's scheme for Alberta because it threatens the ultimate mortgaging or confiscation of all private property." We had a bill discuss this the other night, Mr. Premier.

"We fear Mr. Aberhart's plan as simply a huge debt-making scheme, a further mortgaging of our future. Alternatively, we fear Mr. Aberhart's plan as a colossal scheme of fresh taxation.

"We fear Mr. Aberhart's plan of crushing sales tax." And how familiar that is.

"We fear Mr. Aberhart's attempt to fix just prices on thousands and thousands of articles and services, many changing almost daily." There's a lot that's very similar, Mr. Chairman; I think that you'd agree.

"We fear his attempt to pay dividends out of such intangible assets as cultural heritage and undeveloped natural resources." And on it goes.

I just want to say, Mr. Chairman, that perhaps the Premier should go back over some of the old, historic Social Credit dogma, and he would learn that the economic approach he's taking today, which is one of an ever-increasing tax burden on the people, ever-increasing burden of costs for essential public transportation and so on, is not new; it was tried before. It failed to do anything for the economy of Alberta during the economic slump of the '30s and it's going to fail to do anything for the people of British Columbia in the era of the 1970s — except to heap more burdens and more hardships upon them.

Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General has sent me a note over indicating Bennett has conceded. I want to give him the results of the first poll — I think it looks pretty good: Long — 44; Barrett — 154; Siemens — 4; Laver — 1. We haven't conceded yet, Mr. Attorney-General.

Interjections.

MR. KING: I want to talk, just for a minute, about the Premier's office. I'm going to have a great deal more to say about this as we go along. But just to give him some time to reflect on the economic policies that he as Premier is responsible for, to collect his troubled thoughts and come before the House with a more reasonable and a more believable explanation, I'll switch to something that perhaps he can relate to more readily, and that is the vote for the Premier's office this year.

I have some difficulty understanding the new organization of the Premier's office, and I'd like some explanations from him. The press secretary to the Premier is shown in the vote. The estimates show the position of press secretary at a salary of $19,500 per year. That was the same rate that the press secretary of the former administration was paid, and I have no quarrel with that. But this is the Premier's office vote, and to this date no one has been able to determine or identify anybody to fill that particular office vote, to fill that employment slot indicated in the Premier's office vote.

However, I notice something else that is somewhat disconcerting: under the executive council administration vote, which also comes under the Premier John Arnett is appointed as press secretary with toe public service designation of programme manager 2, and that salary is $28,860 per month. Arnett was previously head of the inflation services department of the Department of Education with the same employment status — programme manager 2, as I understand it. But in the executive council administration vote there's no indication as to what purpose the other amount of $125,000, which is also shown under the Premier's vote, is to be put to There's $125,000 there with no indication, no purpose whatsoever.

Now part of that may be used to pay Mr. Arnett's inflated salary of $28,860. I wonder how it is, Mr.

[ Page 2328 ]

Chairman, that the Premier and his colleagues criticized the NDP for high salary levels, but I want to assure him that no press secretary in the NDP administration realized a salary of $28,860 a year. The maximum was $19,500. That classification still exists in his department, and it would appear from the estimates, Mr. Chairman, that the Premier sought to bring in someone at a higher rate of pay — possibly someone who's a long-time party faithful; I don't know — at an inflated salary, and to conceal that rather than use the designated position under his office vote.

Now I can only speculate with respect to the purpose for which the rest of that $125,000 is to be put. I saw some reports on television a few weeks ago indicating that the Premier's new offices are indeed a rather lavish affair, that there is a shower to be installed.

Interjections.

MR. KING: Yes! Imagine showers in the minister's office — remember how those people over there criticized the NDP for lavishness. I want....

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): The Taj Mahal.

MR. KING: Taj Mahal? There was no office with a shower in it...

Interjections.

MR. KING: ...where apparently, Mr. Chairman....

Interjections.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I don't really object too much to the shower because I think there's a greater need in this new government than in the old one — I think this new government has a real need to come clean with the people of British Columbia. I don't object to the shower too much. But look, I hear disconcerting rumours; I hear disconcerting reports about that shower. I hear that no less than three different tiles have been placed on the shower to suit the whims of the Premier who's probably more used to rather exotic and luxurious circumstances than most people in this House. But I think that's a bit of an excess in terms of efficient, wise and prudent use of the taxpayers' dollars. I want to know if this $125,000, which appears mysteriously in the Premier's vote, with no indication of what purpose it's to be put to....

Interjections.

MR. KING: Man, we have a vocal member down there from the north who has little to say on behalf of his constituents, but he sits there very vocally yacking away at every speaker that's up. I would hope that perhaps he'd get up occasionally and try and make some sense and some rational presentations to the House rather than sit there and yip away like a lost voice from the north, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, Mr. Member. I'll try to assist you — now to vote 2, please.

MR. KEMPF: Let's hear about the Taj Mahal.

AN HON. MEMBER: Want a deal on a $14,000 rug?

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Boy, the cabinet is busy, eh?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, hon. members. The Leader of the Opposition has the floor.

MR. KING: I'll tell you, Mr. Chairman, there's no intention of dealing in $4,000 rugs on this side. The last minister who did that went to jail, as I recall. And he wasn't in our administration, Mr. Chairman.

MR. KEMPF: Bring back the files, Gary.

MR. KING: That was the rug issue, as I recall it. Then, as I understand it, his colleagues of the day pulled that very rug out from under him. He ended up tuning pianos, I believe.

Mr. Chairman, these are questions I hope the Premier will answer. I think the questions of this press secretary is an important one. Is this a ruse to find a higher and padded salary for friends of the government? Why hasn't the office vote designated as "press secretary," which offers the salary of $19,500, been utilized? That's the up-front way to do it.

I want to ask further for a detailed explanation from the Premier as to precisely what the $125,000 indicated in his office vote is to be used for. I think there is due to the House a completely detailed explanation of those dollars.

Before I sit down, Mr. Chairman, I just want to give the latest hot report from Vancouver East: Long — 295; Barrett — 880; Lavers — 14; Siemens — 26.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Chairman, before dinner when we were dealing with more serious subjects I was answering the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson), but I see he is not back from dinner yet so I will save my remarks on the constitution till he returns.

AN HON. MEMBER: He's listening to the results.

[ Page 2329 ]

HON. MR. BENNETT: I would like to deal with the few remarks of the acting Leader of the Opposition (Mr. King). I guess he's not going to be acting much longer, the way the vote is going in Vancouver East. It might be early but I think it is probably time to offer congratulations on the re-election of the leader. May I say that I offer our congratulations on the high conduct in which the campaign was carried. I am sure the House will welcome the return of the new member for Vancouver East. (Mr. Barrett) .

AN HON. MEMBER: I'll pass that on.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The acting — for one more day — Leader of the Opposition was concerned about the renovations taking place in the area about to be occupied by intergovernmental affairs, the executive council and the Premier's office. I might remind him of the history of the west annex renovations.

The west annex, Mr. Chairman, is on three levels. The basement section of the annex will house the news conference centre and television studio. This work was started in 1974 while the former government was in office.

Work on the top floor started in June, 1975, and was completed in October, 1975. That is where the new cabinet room or executive council chamber has been located. The new government was fortunate that this was started and completed and ready for use for the new government, but at great expense to the people of the province.

In the news conference centre in the basement final approval for construction was given by former Speaker Gordon Dowding in January, 1975. Preliminary work started in July 24, 1975. Completion of this work is estimated for sometime this summer.

I might say, Mr. Chairman, that all of these renovations which were underway, completed or near completion when we took office were assessed as to whether they could be stopped, whether money could be saved or whether we should proceed. As most of it was completed or beyond halting, it would have been foolish to stop the restoration of the legislative buildings; so we continued the jobs and the contracts that were let when we came into office.

The first floor was originally scheduled to be occupied by the Minister of Municipal Affairs. The former minister, Mr. James Lorimer, gave approval in layout in October, 1973, and work started in January, 1975. This is the office area that is being taken over by the Premier's office in an attempt to reassign space in the legislative buildings for the various portfolios. As was approved, it is being carried out by the building manager, who has been with the public service for some time.

The second-floor offices were originally intended for the Deputy Provincial Secretary. This is the area surrounding the finished cabinet room that will house intergovernmental affairs and the staff for the executive council.

I might point out, Mr. Chairman, that all architectural design work for the annex, including office layouts, colour schemes and furnishings was carried out by Alan James Hodgson as consultant to the Department of Public Works. Mr. Hodgson was engaged by the former government to design and buy the furniture and put in the carpets. At this time the professional staff of Public Works feel that they can handle the job. He now acts on an intermittent consultant basis but not to the degree he was before. Overall management of the total project has been handled by departmental personnel, and work in the annex has been carried out primarily by Public Works departmental staff.

The Department of Public Works records indicate expenditures of about $423,000 to date. Mr. Chairman, I might reiterate that that $423,000 for the west annex was for work that was started in 1974-75 and mostly completed in that time. On the basis of past experience it could be estimated the office areas in the annex cost about $40 a square foot. The construction took place prior to us becoming government, and in some areas of the building the cost has reached $52 a square foot, particularly in the east wing, sometimes referred to the Taj Mahal.

The executive council chamber and press interview theatre both involve special services and construction such as air conditioning and acoustical treatments, and communications in the press theatre will cost considerably more than in the office areas. The press theatre in the basement and the cabinet room were started and designed by the former government and work was primarily completed. In fact even the press gallery and the CBC were called in to do some of the acoustical design and the lighting design in the press theatre, and so this work was all laid out and mostly carried out before our party became government.

I would say that the office to which the Premier's office will be moving to has had very little changes made. Changes made to this total office area included enlarging one office by approximately six feet, cutting in one new door, relocating one other door on the first floor, and creating two additional small offices on the second floor by subdividing larger rooms — because we have smaller desks than the former government ministers had.

In the washroom, which was already located, a shower was added for the Premier's office, and I don't apologize for wishing to appear neat and clean.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much was it?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The shower was added to

[ Page 2330 ]

the $427,000 building as carried out by the NDP at a cost of less than $300.

1 might say that the carpet in the west annex was already purchased before we came to office in a bulk purchase made in June of 1974. This carpet came in two qualities — $26 a square yard and $22.89 per square yard. The executive council chamber and second-floor offices are carpeted in the more expensive carpet, and the first floor has the lower-priced carpet. The total value of the carpet installation was $23,381.

Furnishing for both office areas in the annex was selected from stock built up by the Department of Public Works since the start of the parliament buildings project. Furniture layouts were prepared by the consultant hired by the previous government, Alan Hodgson. All desks installed in the west annex were acquired from February 7, 1974, to April, 1975, except the desk for the Premier's office, which is one of the original pieces from the building, refurnished by the Public Works department. All chairs, filing cabinets and accessories for the west annex area similarly come from Public Works stock.

I might point out again that the adjustments that we have made to the office formerly set up for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and now set up for the Premier were again: enlarging one office by six feet; cutting in one new door; relocating one other door; creating two additional small offices on the second floor; and adding a shower to the washroom which was already constructed.

Mr. Chairman, it's no secret that we spend long hours in the office now, unlike many of the other governments, working to clean up some of the problems that face British Columbia. Quite frankly, the adjustments made to the office, compared to what was there, are very infinitesimal in a $420,000-odd cost that was contracted and mostly achieved by the former government.

I'm sorry they brought it up, because I wasn't going to mention the expense of renovations to the buildings that were contracted by the last government.

I see the acting Leader of the Opposition (Mr. King) has gone. He asked a question about the press secretary. He suggested to this Legislature, Mr. Chairman, that the press secretary was a hired party personnel, and I would like to....

Interruption.

AN HON. MEMBER, We put a whoopee cushion on it.

HON. MR. BENNETT: As I've already extended my congratulations to the opposition on the election of their leader, I don't think I'll do it again.

I suggest that the press secretary is not the press secretary position that was formerly filled in the Premier's office. If you'll remember the appointment that went through by order-in-council, it was a press officer to the executive council in the Premier's office, and that will come out of the executive council vote. There is no one filling the $19,500 job that was formerly filled by Mr. Twigg, as it was felt it would be impossible to replace exactly what he did.

Many of the positions as outlined in the estimates are not yet filled, but I would point out — since the former acting Leader of the Opposition has requested — that the $125,000 vote for executive council administration is an estimate. I tried to outline earlier in my remarks that this would hire the support staff for council committees or serve the executive council. Only one position is filled in it now. That's the press secretary to the executive council and the Premier's office, which is to the cabinet. The press officer there does correlate all news releases from government departments and tries to make information more readily available both to the press and to the public.

It would be hoped that we could serve the cabinet committees through this vote rather than through the staff of the line departments. We felt it would be better administratively, but we really have no idea just how many will be needed in this vote to carry out that duty. It really is taken as an estimate, gauging a minimal amount compared to what it costs to serve executive councils in other provinces in Canada who do have an executive council vote. I might suggest that.... I have some figures here on what it costs the executive council vote for other provinces. I'll get that later because I can't readily put my hand on it but that's where that vote is coming. The press secretary's duties are carried out for $19,500 by Mr. Twigg — that position is not filled at the present time.

Now I think that answered the questions of the former acting Leader of the Opposition. The first part — the statement he read from 1935 — I have no comment on it nor do I want to read from the Regina Manifesto or the Waffle Manifesto or anything else.

MR. KING: Why not? You might learn something.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I did read from it and the voters learned a lot.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): Mr. Chairman, the Premier, I hope, has a little bit more knowledge of what is going on than some of his ministers did, because during estimates we've tried to get answers from certain ministers of things that might fall under their purview. I tried to get up-to-date lists of boards of directors, for instance, pertaining to industries in which the provincial government has some equity or financial interest. It took three days with one of your ministers, Mr.

[ Page 2331 ]

Premier, to get him to even admit that he was on the board of directors for Swan Valley Foods Ltd. And three days is, I think, rather ridiculous and a cat-and-mouse game.

I think it's an arrogance which is perhaps being reflected in this vote which we see this evening in this by-election. If you'd been doing so well that the people thought that your ministers were doing their jobs properly, that they were at least sincere.... It's one thing to get up and protest and say that you're trying to give remedies and you say that things are difficult. But when the people see this kind of an arrogance, Mr. Chairman, when people see arrogant ministers like the Minister of Agriculture, who is the first minister I know of who hasn't showed up.... I'm sure that the member for Skeena, when he was Minister of Agriculture, made a point to be at the Women's Institutes' annual general meeting when it was held. He nods his head and he says yes. I say to the Premier that it's time that you got your ship in order because it's going to sink if you don't get those ministers under control.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. May I interrupt the member long enough to remind him that order in the House is much more easily maintained if you address the Chair?

MR. NICOLSON: Yes, I am addressing the Chair, and when I say "you" I try to very carefully make it certain as to whom I refer, using that second person, either singular or plural. It's because in the English language, of course, unlike other languages, there is some confusion.

But, you know, I think that there is certainly a danger, and if there was any tendency of the people to believe that this government is seriously trying to change things for the better, that the faith of the people is certainly shaken with arrogant attitudes such as that, the arrogance that was exhibited when the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Phillips) took three days to admit that he was on one board of directors.

Now the Premier, Mr. Chairman, has said that they would not have politicians — MLAs and cabinet ministers — sitting on boards of directors. The other day we saw a resignation from the B.C. Steamship Co. Why did that occur? It listed the directors with which that manager could not get along, almost all of which, I think, were cabinet ministers. I don't think this is widely known, and I'd hope that if the Minister of Agriculture can't tell me full boards of directors.... I don't want to know full boards of directors; I want to know which cabinet ministers the Premier has told to go on which boards of directors.

Let's start, for instance, with some of the agricultural enterprises in which the provincial government holds equity. In Chef Ready Foods Ltd., for instance, are any of the cabinet on the board of directors? Are any of the cabinet on the board of directors of IOK Poultry Ltd., in which the provincial government holds an equity position? Are any of the cabinet ministers in Kootenay Dehydration Ltd., in which we hold equity; or in Panco Poultry Ltd., in which we hold equity; or in Pan-Ready Poultry, in which we hold an equity; or in Dawson Creek-South Peace Dairy Products Ltd., in which we hold equity; or in Swan Valley Foods? Are there any other ministers, for instance, besides the Minister of Agriculture on the board of directors of Swan Valley Foods? These are some of the ones with which we might make a start, because things are taking place.

The minister issued a press release concerning Swan Valley Foods the other day. There was a further extension of credit, and I think there's been tremendous foot-dragging and a fairly reluctant extending of grants and loan guarantees ...

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: ...in order to keep it going....

Well, I do think that one of the mistakes we might have made, or that Swan Valley might have made, through you, Mr. Chairman, to the Premier, was that Swan Valley might not have asked for enough in the first instance. I believe that was a feeling they might have needed.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, of course I am not going to say what they should or should not have, not being taken into the confidence of the minister as to the present financial situation. I would say that with a venture of this type I would like to see the government stand firmly behind it. I would like to know what the situations are today. I do know that you can't lose by extending money so that another potato crop can be planted and harvested. That is a very obvious thing, and you have to stand behind it to that extent.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where's your riding?

MR. NICOLSON: Of course, it's in Nelson-Creston. You met with those very same principals when you were on the agricultural committee — when I use "you," I mean the minister who is interjecting, the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) — but he was on the Select Standing Committee on Agriculture. He heard a presentation from Swan Valley Foods back in the spring or summer of 1973, I believe, when the first travelling committee.... Was it 1974? Anyway, he knows full well that it's in my riding.

[ Page 2332 ]

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: Maybe I am going to learn something here this evening, Mr. Chairman, that I couldn't learn from the Minister of Agriculture.

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: I was there only yesterday, but....

HON. L.A. WILLIAMS (Minister of Labour): Did you look at the ground?

MR. NICOLSON: I would like to....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Nelson-Creston has the floor. Please proceed.

MR. LAUK: I was in your riding yesterday.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Labour seems to know quite a bit about it. Is the Minister of Labour on the board of directors of Swan Valley Foods?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I just plant the potatoes.

MR. NICOLSON: You just plant the potatoes. Well, that's good.

MR. LAUK: Between your ears.

MR. NICOLSON: It is very difficult, of course....

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: I would like to point out to the Premier, Mr. Chairman, that, yes, I was in my riding and I got a phone call. People were saying that there were rumours the government was going to sell its interest to Arab money. Now I happen to recall, Mr. Chairman, that they had made an offer to sell some of the expertise and technology and some of the patent rights to Arab interests for distribution and use in certain countries, and this might be the basis for some of the rumours which are going on.

There was such an announcement made publicly some time ago when things of that nature.... Whether its uncertainty about the operation and a lack of communication, but when government even refuses to disclose who the current board of directors are, then rumours — which I don't believe are well founded — start to take place. I think the basis of that rumour is that there was a genuine interest in the patent rights shown by some Arab interests, and in the technology of the Swan Valley Foods' packaging.

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, these people are just about as confused in government as they were in opposition.

It wasn't an offer for the company, and I am referring to something that appeared in the paper. I am saying that it did not refer.... I've had to go and clear up some misunderstandings and try to keep a reasonable and responsible attitude toward it. I haven't tried to make a political issue out of things, but I have tried to keep informed — something which is rather difficult to do with such an arrogant Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Phillips) who might be better termed as a Minister of economic incompetence and a Minister of disastrous developments.

AN HON. MEMBER: The Minister of indecision.

MR. NICOLSON: The message I'm trying to get across to the Premier is that with a reluctance on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture to even so much as comply with a promise that he made me during his estimates that he would supply me with the list of all directors for all of these companies...with such a reluctance people become rather suspicious. There was, I think, a half-baked story going around in the riding this last week when the announcement of the further financial assistance came up, and instead of being good news it sparked more controversy. I don't think that should be the case.

So I would say that the Premier could assist and do a lot of people a good favour if he would give some of the information, which I'm sure he would have — he must know which of his cabinet sit on boards of directors of various companies, and he could at least volunteer some information. He needn't limit what information he is giving, you know, so that he.... I wouldn't expect him to start guessing or speculating or knowing about every one, but he must have some pretty good ideas of who sits on what boards of directors. So I'd like to find out if I can get from the Premier some of the information that the Minister of Agriculture failed to disclose.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Chairman, just earlier, when the Premier got up to concede victory in the Vancouver East by-election, I was interested in how quickly he dumped his candidate; he only had five polls in and away he went — conceded. That's a remarkable kind of trust he had in that individual who ran for him.

Interjection.

[ Page 2333 ]

MR. LEVI: No respect for what? We'll talk about respect now. Do you remember this, Mr. Premier — an ad that was put in the paper November 29: "From Bill Bennett to Senior Citizens re Mincome and Pharmacare."

"An unfair rumour is circulating that the election of a Social Credit government would end or reduce Mincome, Pharmacare and other pension benefits. My pledge to you is this: any Social Credit government I'm privileged to lead will guarantee the continuance of these benefits."

One of the reasons you lost that by-election over there in Vancouver today is because nobody believed you when you said this. Nobody.

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): Not true at all.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please address the Chair; we're on vote 2, Hon. Member.

MR. LEVI: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

You went around this province; you went up and down, and you told the story to people, particularly old people....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please address the Chair.

MR. LEVI: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'll address the Chair, and the Premier, through you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member understands that addressing the Chair is the essence....

MR. LEVI: Yes, Mr. Chairman, if you'd just move back, I could see the Premier. I can't see the Premier just yet. Ah, now I can see him.

Mr. Chairman, he went around this province saying to the old people of this province that it was not true; they would not take away Mincome, they would not take away Pharmacare. And they didn't know what to believe; they didn't know whether he was speaking the truth or whether he wasn't. But today in the Vancouver East by-election he has an answer for what has happened since December 11.

Four years ago in this House, Mr. Chairman, there was a motion that was moved by the former Premier of this province (Mr. Barrett) — who was elected today — to guarantee a $200-a-month pension. This is it: that side of the House voted against it.

The Attorney-General is in a very difficult position, Mr. Chairman. After all, he was sitting on this side of the House then, and he didn't vote against it.

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): It was an amendment, for your information.

MR. LEVI: Yes, we know it was an amendment, and you knew exactly what the intent was, Mr. Attorney-General. It was to give the citizens, the old people of this province a guaranteed income.

We have the Premier going around, Mr. Chairman, and he says that the history of our party in helping the senior citizens is well known. Yet in that same month four years ago, in this House, the then minister of welfare was asked the question: "How many people in this province get a guaranteed income of $191?" That was the former Premier's proud boast: "That's what it is — we have the highest guaranteed pension in Canada, at $191." It was the case. That's what you could get — $191. You got $150 from the federal government and $41 from the provincial government. But the then minister of welfare in replying to the question said: "Twelve hundred and eighty-two people are getting a guaranteed income up to $191." — 1,282 people out of a total senior population of 205,000, with 107,000 on guaranteed — income supplements.

That meant that more than half of the seniors in this province in February, 1972, were living on $150 a month. Yet, Mr. Chairman, they keep trotting out this stupid kind of story. It's allegory. It's really apocryphal — there's no substance in it. If one is going to say one has the highest pension in Canada and yet when you ask how many people got it and you find out that 1,200 people got it and yet there were 108,000 people that needed it, what kind of substance is there in that kind of argument?

So what do we have? We have this kind of advertisement that went around during the by-election, Mr. Chairman, and then in late February or early March the Minister of Shovels couldn't wait to cut back the Mincome pension, with the approval of the Premier. He couldn't wait to cut it back.

The other day the minister was in Ottawa doing the people's business, and I questioned the Premier about the stuffer that was put into the old people's cheques in which he said that nothing has changed, that everything is the same as it was before. That's nonsense. It's not the same as it was before.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's better.

MR. LEVI: It's better? You can go like that, Bill, but nobody's going to believe you. It's not better when you're a handicapped person and you were getting $265 in January and when it comes to April 1 you're still getting $265, Mr. Chairman. How can it be better when, if you are over 65, you're getting $272? How can it be better? How much can it be better?

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: How much were they getting under the NDP?

[ Page 2334 ]

MR. LEVI: We approved the $265 starting January 1. We passed on every quarterly increase....

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): That's a lie!

MR. LEVI: The quarterly increase? Don't tell me that's a lie — I said the quarterly increase.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: You never passed the first one on.

MR. LEVI: That wasn't a quarterly increase.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: What was it, then?

MR. LEVI: That was not a quarterly increase; that was an overall increase in the pension.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: It's a lie!

MR. LEVI: Don't be ridiculous!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members!

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, when that government went out in 1972....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. LEVI: He's very twitchy over there tonight, Mr. Chairman.

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. LEVI: Very twitchy. There he is, the Minister of Un-facts.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the Minister of Health to withdraw the words, "you're a hypocrite," if he would, please.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Yes, Mr. Chairman.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, it just isn't possible that from the time of the election on December 11, to today, June 3, when we've had the first by-election in this province, when there's been an overwhelming statement by the people in Vancouver East, greater than I've ever known it to be in the history of that riding.... What you have really is the people over there saying something on behalf of the rest of the province.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: There we go again — the twitchy one's down there. Why don't you keep quiet and listen?

It's traditional in the province when you have by-elections that the government is voted against — that's quite true. It happens that way. But one has to really question, when the victory is so overwhelming — something of the order of 71 per cent of the vote for the winning candidate. A lot of questions have been asked.

I know that some of the members from that side have been into the riding during the by-election. I was there during the by-election, and the Minister of Shovels was there about three days before I was there. The thing is that people are asking questions. Particularly the old people are asking questions. Where do they stand? Where do they stand in respect to the Mincome programme? I can't talk about this GAIN programme because that's before the House, Mr. Chairman. I'll have to wait until I get that opportunity to explode the myth of that programme.

The main thing is that there's a great deal of uncertainty among the old people in this province that's never been exhibited for the last three and a half years. There is tremendous uncertainty among the handicapped, who are not getting the kind of breaks that they should be getting.

All of this, Mr. Chairman, goes back to the kinds of promises that that Premier made when he went through this province and he talked about it.

He said in the advertisement, I recall, in my own riding that they were so upset that people were not really believing what was being said about the Mincome programme that they actually put out a special leaflet in which they said: "No, it's not true. We're not going to take away Mincome." It was very similar at that time to the leaflet that was put out: "No, it's not true that we're going to take away the rent control." You know what happened with that one, Mr. Chairman — that only turned out to be half true. They kept the rent control at 10 per cent, when we had already indicated it was going to be 8 per cent, but they took off the freeze for the small businessman. Yes, you took off the freeze. That was your contribution to the small businessman's problem, as your contribution, is today with what's happening in Victoria and the rest of the province. You can shake your head, but that's what you did.

You haven't done one thing yet, Mr. Chairman, that Premier hasn't done one thing for the small businessman to show that he's intent on doing anything....

MR. L.B. KAHL (Esquimalt): What did you do?

MR. LEVI: Oh, the voice. Where's that voice from? Oh, yes, Esquimalt.

[ Page 2335 ]

The important thing, Mr. Chairman, that through you I would like to ask the Premier, is: when he went around this province saying to the old people of this province, "we will not take away Mincome," why is it that he has done just that? Why is it that he has destroyed the Mincome programme? Why has he introduced the GAIN programme? Do you know why? Because we've got George Orwell in 1976. This is the Social Credit Newthink, Mr. Chairman. Everything that took place between 1972 and 1975 didn't exist, so we have to get rid of Mincome and we'll call it GAIN.

But, you know, there's a great deal of difference between what I understand the GAIN programme is to be — and that's as much as I'm going to say about it, Mr. Chairman — and what Mincome was, because the differences have already been shown. There are differences; it is not the same programme. It has been destroyed.

Now I would hope that the Premier will explain to us exactly what he means when he says that he is going to restore British Columbia to first place in terms of pensions for senior citizens. Now what does he mean by that? Does he mean that he is going to take it back slowly to the 1972 days, when you had 205,000 senior citizens in this province, and you had 1,280 that had a guaranteed income of what was then the highest in Canada — $191? You know, it's amazing that when we introduced the Mincome programme, Mr. Chairman, over here, one of the members, the former member for Victoria, got up and introduced a bill to take Mincome to $225, but, you know, he wanted to do it on a means test. That's what they want to do. They brought back the means test.

Now everybody who is over the age of 60, everybody who is handicapped, is going to be means-tested. We're back to the dirty '30s, the days of the dole. But, you know, that Premier went around this province; he went on T.V. I remember when the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland), when he was just the member for Langley, bravely went to the Queen Elizabeth Theatre on December 2. Does he remember, Mr. Chairman, the kind of greeting that he got from the senior citizens? Do you remember? I remember the kind of greeting you got. You barely got out of there with your socks on! They had already experienced that kind of thing from the Social Credit government, and they were not prepared, Mr. Chairman, to believe them.

But, you know, we have to deal in facts. We had that Premier standing up not 30 minutes ago and conceding after five polls. Well, here we've got.... How many polls is that?

AN HON. MEMBER: 130.

MR. LEVI: One hundred and thirty polls. Long has got 5,220; Barrett has got 14,930.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hurray!

MR. LEVI: Never in the history of this province has there been a by-election like that. Do you know who's speaking out there? The senior citizens and the handicapped and the poor people. They're speaking to you, Mr. Premier.

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: You know, the people I really feel sorry for, with all due respect — and they're not here tonight — I forgot to mention the vote that was gotten by the Minister of Housing's (Hon. Mr. Curtis') former party. That was 167 votes, and the former candidate for the Liberal Party, who is now the minister of shovels, his candidate got 707 votes. The former Premier (Mr. Barrett) of this province, he got 14,930.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're on vote 2.

MR. LEVI: Well, those are facts, Mr. Chairman. Those are facts and they relate very much. There's a certain irony that on this night this Premier's estimates should be up, and that former Premier is on his way back. We've even got his chair ready for him. It's there. The only question is: how quickly can we get the writ over, Mr. Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom)? That's the important thing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: And now to vote 2.

MR. LEVI: Now to vote 2. I would like the Premier to be frank and tell us exactly what he meant, Mr. Chairman, with this Act. He said that he would not take away the Mincome programme, yet he has destroyed it. How does he explain that? How does he explain that this is the kind of thing that we inherited as the government? "Socreds Kill $200 Pension Vote." That was in his father's day.

We have it today over here. The Mincome programme is wiped out. Now he owes it to the people of this province, and particularly to the senior citizens and to the handicapped, to tell us what it is you're going to do to them more than what you've done now. You have destroyed the Mincome programme. You have taken the handicapped back.... Yes, Mr. Chairman, I'm looking at you. You've taken the handicapped programme to where it was before....

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: You people don't know that. You've got too much money; you can't be that concerned

[ Page 2336 ]

about those people. Tell us why it is that you have the nerve to go around this province.... You know, I could say that you lied, but that's unparliamentary, and I'm certainly not going to say that.

But, Mr. Chairman, he took an election opportunity to say to the people: "We will not take away the Mincome programme. We will even improve on it." That's not the case; those are not the facts, Mr. Chairman. Of course, the facts that prove it are these facts — the election of the former Premier to this House. He'll be back within a week and then we will see.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): Mr. Chairman, as a comparative newcomer to this House, over the past couple of months I have been getting acquainted with the various members on both sides of the House. But tonight it is a great pleasure to have in the House a member who I really have not had the opportunity to become acquainted with. Now it isn't because I haven't been here. I have been here quite regularly. But I would like to take this opportunity to welcome the Premier to the House tonight. I am very pleased to see him here and be able to talk to him a little bit about the feelings of a new member to this House and discuss, through you, Mr. Chairman, the aspects of his estimates.

As a woman member in this House, Mr. Chairman, I am curious about the Premier's attitude towards a woman MLA. I have noted that the Premier's wife has been quoted in the press as saying politics is a man's world. I am just sort of wondering if that is the Premier's attitude too. Because it's not what a person says; it is what a person does that reflects their true attitude. I am thinking of what the Premier has just done or his various ministers have done on his behalf in regard to women since December 11.

It still concerns me very gravely, Mr. Chairman, that the Premier would allow or condone his only woman minister in the cabinet — would condone her action — in doing away with the office of women's co-ordinator as one of her very first acts. I am concerned that he would go along with the action of the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) in closing the transition houses. I am wondering, in fact, if that Premier over there is even aware of what a transition house is or the need for a transition house. I would like to hear his comments on this particular thing.

What commitment, Mr. Chairman, has the Premier made to assure that women will be able to work towards their rightful place in the business world? What has he done within his various departments? Has he issued any directions to his ministers regarding the employment of women within the government departments? Is he moving in the direction of allowing and encouraging women to participate more fully in the more highly valued and more highly trained jobs within the department? Is he making full use of that other 50 per cent of the population of this province, which has really become one of the greatest wastes that we have within today's society because we do not make use of the abilities of the women who are prepared and willing to use their talents and their skills? Believe me, Mr. Chairman, to the Premier through you, the women of this province do have skills and talents that can be put to good use for this province. I would ask the Premier to comment on these points.

I would be very encouraged if I thought the Premier would be willing to accept a bill that would move in the direction of the affirmative action bill in the United States. But we have no assurance of any kind, Mr. Chairman, that this is going to happen. An affirmative action bill would not necessarily relate just to women. There are other groups in this community that need the same kind of attention, the same kind of just a little extra boost that something like an affirmative action plan could produce.

I am thinking particularly, Mr. Chairman, of the native Indians. They have just not had the opportunity to participate to the fullest degree of their ability in today's society. We saw one big beautiful burst of enthusiasm as far as the native Indians went when this government first took office. Really, they were riding on the coat-tails of the former administration when they had their tri-party get-together on the land claims. Because that had been laid on, Mr. Chairman, through the efforts of the former Minister of Human Resources (Mr. Levi). He had insisted that that would be a three-party negotiation, that all parties would be allowed to participate equally. He refused to make any private deals with the federal government prior to that meeting.

You've had that meeting, Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Chairman, and what has happened since? The rumours that I hear, the world that comes to my ear, is that this government is now making sweetheart deals with the federal government regarding the native Indians, that they are making pre-plans and not allowing the natives full participation in a tri-party agreement as a full member. I would ask the Premier to comment on that, Mr. Chairman.

I have probably the highest Indian per capita vote or population or any constituency in....

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: A good many, to the member, through you, Mr. Chairman.

[ Page 2337 ]

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, this is word that has come to me and I've asked you to comment on it, Mr. Chairman. If you have comments on it, you'll have your chance, Mr. Premier.

I want to turn now to agriculture, particularly the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Phillips). You know, he's really a very nice person, but, Mr. Chairman, I have real problems with that minister.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order! Order!

MRS. WALLACE: He's a non-minister minister! You know, I've been suspicious for a long time that that Minister of Agriculture didn't know where he was going, but today I found out in the question period that he doesn't even know where he's been.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: But, Mr. Premier, I think you really should know that the farmers are quite discouraged with the fact that they don't have a full-time Minister of Agriculture, and, you know, that's the third-largest resource industry we have in this province. I would urge the minister to move very soon to give the farmers in British Columbia a full-time minister, one who has the time and the inclination to look after their problems.

AN HON. MEMBER: And the ability!

MRS. WALLACE: That's fine. I will excuse the Premier.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Cowichan-Malahat has the floor. Please proceed.

MRS. WALLACE: I will excuse the Premier because I'm sure that he can read, and I'm sure my remarks will be recorded in Hansard. I'm sure that he will read it and he will come back and reply to my remarks.

Some of the problems that the farmers are concerned about, Mr. Chairman, are becoming more and more aggravated all the time. You know, the Minister of Agriculture has just filed his report, and in the report the economic performance of the agricultural industry in British Columbia.... I'll just read the first sentence: "British Columbia farm cash receipts increased by $29 million or 7.8 per cent to a record $395 million in 1975."

Mr. Chairman, the farm industry in British Columbia has taken an upward turn in the last year, and I would suggest to this House that that upward turn is due to one thing and one thing only and that is the very far-seeing policies that were introduced by the former administration. Now if we have a reversal of those policies, there will be a disaster in this province. We must continue those policies. We must enforce them and extend them so agriculture can continue to thrive and be a viable industry and part of our economy.

Mr. Chairman, we must have that kind of commitment to the agricultural community that will provide for just that sort of forward-moving development of the agricultural industry.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: Well, Mr. Chairman, the Premier is responsible for the appointment of the cabinet. In case the minister was unaware of that, I think that perhaps I should tell him, because maybe, you know, in the meantime while we're waiting for a new minister, it will make him spend a little more time on the matters relative to agriculture if he is aware that there is someone over him watching what he's doing.

Well, Mr. Chairman, I am sorry the Premier is not back yet but, you know, it's just a very normal procedure that he isn't here. So I think I will just carry on. You know, all during the election we saw him jaunting around the province, tilting at windmills, a veritable Don Quixote, and since the election we've seen just the same.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: He's still jaunting around the province, tilting at windmills, Mr. Chairman.

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Agriculture): How many times did he go to China?

MRS. WALLACE: And now this man comes here, this Premier, and asks for his salary, asks for his estimates, the man who a few short months ago in taking the position, promised the voters that he would institute — and I am quoting the Premier — "an immediate freeze on taxes." I wonder if that Premier remembers his own campaign promises, Mr. Chairman. Certainly I remember them and so do many others in this province.

MR. LAUK: Don't remind him of any more; he won't keep those either.

MRS. WALLACE: To earn his salary as a Premier, he must be credible. But to hundreds of thousands of British Columbians today, he is not credible; in fact he is incredible.

The candidate who promised to freeze government taxes turns out to be the Premier presiding over a cabinet of sharp businessmen who have gouged the

[ Page 2338 ]

innocent with increases of 100 or 300 per cent, while at the same time cutting back on services everywhere. This Premier, while showering the taxpayers with unnecessary bills, conducts a massive public relations snow job trying to shift the blame on the former administration — trying to shift the blame onto the NDP for his own actions and to persuade the people to tighten their belts because of actions of the former NDP administration.

He has the audacity to do this after forcing through this House a bill to borrow $400 million which he indicated to the House — and the Minister of Finance, speaking on his behalf, indicated to the House — was to cover what purported to be the debts, the problems, created by the NDP government. He borrowed money to do this and now he is turning and using the same excuse and forcing tax after tax after tax upon the people of this province, a double taxation because he is borrowing money to pay it. But the taxpayers are going to have to pick up the interest on that, this so-called mythical debt, and then he is raising the taxes to do the same thing all over again.

In short, he is using any excuse to hide the real purpose for this punitive tax-increase policy in the province. And that purpose, Mr. Chairman, is to shift a large chunk of the economic burden back onto the people and off the big combines, exploiting the public resources and the people of this province.

Consider the government's actions and then its word. It has raised sales tax, which during the course of its four-year term in office will provide the government with an accumulative total of about $1 billion — $1 billion in four years from the sales tax. The people of this province will have to turn over to the government some $250 million in extra income tax.

Look at the cumulative, added revenue from the other increases over the next four years. Autoplan premiums will return something like $800 million more. The cigarette tax alone will bring in $50 million. Ferry rates will add $150 million to the Treasury. Medicare premium increases, by the budget's own projections, will bring in a stunning $350 million. The hospital co-insurance and extended-care increases should add an extra $75 million. B.C. Hydro's gas and electricity rate increases will provide an additional quarter-million dollars, and the double campground fees, I suppose, could realize as much as $5 million. That totals something like $2.930 billion over the four years, or three-quarters of a billion for each year in addition to the revenues of this government and its agencies.

But what do we find in the budget this year, Mr. Chairman? The budget has increased only 11 per cent. That's the same amount as last year when none of the terribly large and heavy increases were visited upon our citizens by the previous administration.

AN HON. MEMBER: What did you say that increase was?

MRS. WALLACE: It's 11 per cent. So this year's budget does not reflect the....

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: It's 11 per cent, Mr. Chairman. I would differ with the minister.

Interjection.

MRS. WALLACE: Did I hear that member correctly, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Cowichan-Malahat has the floor. Please proceed.

MRS. WALLACE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm suggesting that this year's budget does not reflect these huge increases in revenue. It only reflects the normal budgetary growth. The Premier has not volunteered any explanation for this strange fact. It is obvious to me, anyway, why he hasn't. What I believe is the answer to the apparent conundrum is that while this government has been busy piling on increases on the ordinary citizen of this province, it has also been busy removing an equivalent amount of burden from the shoulders of the big cartels and the multinational corporations.

I can't remember whether it was the Leader of the Liberals (Mr. Gibson) or the Leader of the Conservatives (Mr. Wallace) who today asked the question regarding some tulip bulbs, or was it gladiola bulbs, that had theoretically been given out — I don't like to use the word "bribe" — as, shall we say, a gift during the by-election.

Well, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to quote from Hansard back in 1975 and I'm quoting the remarks of the now Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer). It's from page 779 in Hansard:

Let there be no doubt about the motives of anyone who offers a gift to someone running in an election. Let there be no doubt about the motives or ethics of such a person who makes his identity known and who makes known the amount of money he wishes to give. That man expects favours in return.

That was the now Minister of Education, Mr. Chairman. I wonder if the Premier would give us the benefit of his opinion on the subject. Does he agree with the Minister of Education that any campaign gift does automatically expect favours in return? I'm thinking about Imperial Oil. They have admitted to their shareholders that over the past five years they have donated to the Social Credit, Liberal and Conservative Parties across this country some $235,000 per year. I'm surprised, or should I not be

[ Page 2339 ]

surprised? Perhaps I'm still a bit naive in this House. But when I find that the Premier of this province, if I can manage to speak over my friendly colleague in front....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry, Hon. Member. Is your colleague disturbing you?

MRS. WALLACE: Well, I'm learning to put up with him, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please proceed.

MRS. WALLACE: Yes, Mr. Chairman, $235,000 from Imperial Oil in campaign funds over five years is $35,000 a year to the three parties.

AN HON. MEMBER: Four.

MRS. WALLACE: Not to the New Democratic Party. We don't seem to merit any funds from that particular source, Mr. Chairman.

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: And then the Premier goes to Ottawa and advocates a $2-a-barrel increase in oil. And does Imperial Oil need it? Their net income in 1972 was $157 million. In 1973 it went up to $228 million and in 1974 it went up to $290 million. I think Imperial Oil is doing quite well, and now we hear the excuse that they need it for exploration, Mr. Chairman. But that's been shot down in flames, too. Figures have been put forth to indicate that there was no more spent by Imperial Oil on exploration in 1975 than there was in 1974 — not one cent more. So I'm wondering. I'm curious, and I'd like to hear the Premier's comments on it.

But let's get back to the $3 billion extra tax money that's coming in from all these taxes — the $3 billion extra that's not needed to cover off the debts, as has been said. That extra money, Mr. Chairman, I suggest, is simply the measure of the huge gift the government plans to hand to its financial benefactors in the form of reduced royalty payments, subsidy incentives and price-fixing umbrellas for the private insurance industry, the resource industry and other friends. No doubt a small fraction of this cumulative tax burden will be used three or four years from now in an election campaign programme of goodies intended to sway the voters and buy them back with their own money. Mr. Chairman, through you, I suggest to the Pren-der that that is what this new coalition government's so-called "fiscal responsibility" is all about. They are operating...

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: ...a cynical public relations job simply to rob the pockets of our citizens and turn the proceeds over to the foreign firms while accusing the New Democratic government of fiscal mismanagement because it took its social responsibilities to our citizens seriously.

It's very interesting, Mr. Chairman, where this $3 billion which represents the recent increase in taxes, utilities, ferries and so on — I'm just reiterating because the Premier was out of the House when I went through these details — will come from. The calculation of the impact of these direct government increases to our citizens over and above the cost of living that the rest of Canada is facing — the increased cost of living — shows that the old and the poor and the middle class will have to provide the bulk of the extra revenue. It won't come from the millionaires, Mr. Chairman. No, it won't come from the millionaires. The majority of that will come from the average person in B.C.

Consider that a typical B.C. household of four living in a home in Duncan or Ladysmith on an after-tax income of about $20,000 will this year lose $1,140 over and above the cost-of-living increase of all other Canadians. That's due solely and directly to the unwarranted increase in government charges.

Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Chairman, this is a reduction in the real purchasing power of no less than 5.7 per cent so far this year alone for the average British Columbia family. But the working poor, Mr. Chairman — a family of four whose head earns about $4 an hour — will be hit even harder. He will pay out no less than $635 of his disposable income simply to cover the increases this government is charging this year. That means a reduction in the standard of living for his family which is already classed as poor. It's already classed as poor, but it is facing a decrease in its disposable income of 8.7 per cent. Will the rich in our province be hit as hard, Mr. Premier? Will the millionaires among us have to tighten their belts by 5.7 like the middle class or suffer an economic setback of 8.7 like the working poor?

No, Mr. Chairman. If we take a member of this House who has just so magnanimously taken a 10 per cent cut and does not have to pay B.C. Ferries rates and who has an income of, say, $80,000 after tax, what per cent would that represent? It would be less than 2 per cent, as compared to 5.7 or 8.7. That money is taken directly and unashamedly out of the pockets of the poor during an inflationary period, and the sacrifice of the millionaires amounts to nothing. It's only a token.

MR. KEMPF: What member has an income of $80,000? Name one.

[ Page 2340 ]

MRS. WALLACE: Quite a few, Mr. Chairman.

Interjections.

MRS. WALLACE: I am not addressing the Premier. I do not want to make any personal remarks but I would suggest that he would not argue with that figure. No populist would squeeze $3 billion more than needed out of the population over a single term of office in order to hand it over as a gift to the big cartels and combines that are out to exploit the people and the resources of this province, Mr. Chairman. That $3 billion will come from the excessive taxes and rate increases imposed by this government. The middle-class family will provide $4,500 from its income to provide this slush fund for the coalition cabinet's disposal. The increase will cost the working family $2,543 over the four-year term. More increases may yet be coming; we don't know if we have heard them all yet.

The existing increases already guarantee that the old-age-pension couple will be $1,069 short and the Mincome couple $1,187 short by the autumn of 1979. But, of course, we can expect an election around that date, Mr. Chairman. The slush fund that the cabinet will have by that time can be used to distribute special campaign goodies with which to bribe the voters.

What will the Premier's election slogan be next time, Mr. Chairman? Will his PR team use "think free B.C." again? We all know who can think free in this province now. It's the wheeler-dealers, the boomers, the fat cats, the Daddy Warbucks, Mr. Chairman — the smoothies. They feel a lot safer in Maui or Palm Springs now, or in the New York or Toronto boardrooms. They are singing along; they are singing along that coalition government song that was sung on election night: "Happy days are here again!" Those are the people who are singing along, but I believe the voters of Vancouver East have spoken out loud and clear today. They have said what the average citizen in B.C. is thinking. They are not thinking: "Happy days are here again!"

MR. KEMPF: Wrong again.

MRS. WALLACE: No, the song that Vancouver East and the rest of B.C. Is singing today is: "Who's sorry now?" In four years that will be proven, Mr. Chairman.

MR. R.L. LOEWEN (Burnaby-Edmonds): They just want a good opposition; that's all they want.

MRS. WALLACE: I don't seem to have the Premier's attention. I don't know whether I am going to get any responses, Mr. Chairman, but perhaps if I were to sit down he would have a response for me.

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Chairman, I heard the Premier indicate that we were to discuss Hydro under the Minister of Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis). I would like to refresh the Premier's memory that when the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), the fiscal agent for Hydro, was in the midst of his estimates, we asked him whether or not he was to be not only the fiscal agent but also to report for Hydro. If anybody would care to check Hansard, it was that minister.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) was in error. The Transport minister (Hon. Mr. Davis) is the only director from Hydro in the cabinet. When his appointment was made as minister responsible for energy, he was made a director to report back both from the B.C. Petroleum Corp. and.... He's on both the B.C. Petroleum Corp. and Hydro. However, while he is responsible for Hydro, as the minister responsible for energy, the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources and Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) will be responsible for the B.C. Petroleum Corp.

MR. COCKE: Thank you, Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Chairman. Certainly I'm not going to argue that point. We have yet to discuss the Minister of Transport and Communication's estimates, and I'm sure that under those estimates we will be able to cover the issues.

The Minister of Finance, of course, was wrong again. He was wrong when he was talking about huge sums in debt, and now he's wrong about who's to discuss B.C. Hydro.

But, Mr. Chairman, I think that the Premier, who is first minister of this province, should bear in mind a few facts that are a bit unnerving to most of the people in B.C. and pass on to his minister in charge of energy the concerns that I and others of our caucus, and certainly other people across the province have, and I'm certainly not going to deal with this in any detail or in any depth.

I am unnerved every time I see the controversy which is beginning to develop between the B.C. Energy Commission — their feeling with respect to the reserves of power that are going to be needed over the next 5, 10, 15 and 20 years — and the difference between similar projections made by Hydro, which are actually double the Energy Commission's suggested need.

Mr. Chairman, we have been in a very fortunate position in B.C. We have immense reserves of hydro power. We're in a position similar to little old Norway. Little Norway, with very sound economic planning and generally well-planned economy over the years, has developed its hydro, power very carefully. Notwithstanding the oil that's recently

[ Page 2341 ]

been discovered around Norway, their hydropower has put them in a position where by the year 1980 Norway forecasts — and other nations, I believe, go along with this forecast — that they will be the world's richest country.

Now Norway hasn't become the world's richest country — or prospectively so; we know that Sweden now has the highest standard of living — by planning which did not take into account the basic and proper needs of their nation. They didn't take into account needs that may or may not be developed by virtue of creating a situation where they were dependent upon industry to move in where a vacuum had been prior. They developed around their own four million people, and they developed for their own needs.

They've done just an absolutely fantastic job when you think in terms of where they are situated — worse than we are geographically — further north. A great part of Norway, of course, is beyond the Arctic circle. The job they've done there in planning, I think, has been a job that's well to be looked at by our cabinet.

Mr. Premier — through you, Mr. Chairman — I suggest that Hydro is far too close. You know, smiles from cabinet minister and all really don't mean that much to me, but our province means a great deal to me, and what our cabinet should be looking at is an independent body, not a body that's so wrapped up in it as Hydro always has been in the past. An independent body like the Energy Commission should be given a great deal of credence, should be really listened to by our cabinet.

Now certainly we all want to discuss this in much more detail later, but I would like to ask the cabinet to take a look at that planning process that has been going on in Norway over these years, a planning process that really is something we should look at because they're so close to us in potential development. In other words, they are based on hydro power — their sole economy. Notwithstanding, as I said a few minutes ago, the fact that they've now discovered oil in the North Sea, but prior to that their whole economic base was their hydro power.

We have to watch this carefully here, but if we put ourselves into terrible debt — as is likely — by the projections put forward by B.C. Hydro, we won't really be an enriched economy. While we may attract some industry and we may build a larger economic base than we have heretofore, we still could be an economy that just limps along, based on that kind of planning.

But, Mr. Chairman, I had a good deal of trouble — and I'm very happy that the Minister of Health is in his chair — interesting the Minister of Health in something that I think can be a fiscal disaster in this province. I would ask the First Minister, who leads a party that espoused that they are the people with sound economic direction — put B.C. back in somebody's pocket, or put B.C. back together again, or whatever the phrase was — what we're doing out at the university. In my view, it is an absolute economic disaster.

The first minister should be quizzing two ministers in his government. One, he should be asking the Minister of Health to be part of a decision that broke up the B.C. Medical Centre — like that or lump it, to the Minister of Health, I think that was wrong — but as disastrous, if not more so, is the decision to go with the university hospital on the university campus.

Now, Mr. Chairman, through you to the First Minister, we had discussions that this present government had no possibility of duplicating in the short time that they were in office. We had discussions with people who had both worked to put together university hospitals in different areas of Canada and also worked to put together university training programmes, using hospitals that were a part of the community.

Mr. Chairman, there was no doubt about the efficacy of the latter, as opposed to the former. Now I predicted, and I don't know whether the first minister got this, but I predicted that the university hospital, which is....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, I believe that this was dealt with under the estimates of the Minister of Health, and if we accepted your premise, we would deal with every minister under the First Minister's vote. So could you get back to the vote?

MR. COCKE: That's right. I'm reporting to the First Minister a responsibility that he has to this province as being the minister in charge, the president of the executive council of British Columbia, the fiscal agent of B.C. As far as I'm concerned, he's most interested, I'm sure, in what costs will be, because, you see, Mr. Chairman, the costs for this new university hospital are something that the Premier is going to have to deal with.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: I suggest to you, Mr. Chairman, that the Premier would be interested to know that the $50 million hospital isn't going to cost $50 million. It's going to cost $90 million — $60 million to build, $30 million to equip — and it's going to cost $22 million to run it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, I believe that this has been canvassed before.

MR. COCKE: No, Mr. Chairman, the Premier of the province is naturally in charge of intergovernmental affairs. Now we have a conflict, we know perfectly well, of interest, a conflict of interests

[ Page 2342 ]

between the Health department and the Minister of Education.

When I first became Minister of Health in this province, you can't imagine the number of people who were leaning on me from academia. That's right, and, you know, rather than listen to people with biases, we took our time — and, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Education was one of the people who were really leaning with respect to the direction, that I feel is a misdirection, that the Minister of Health has chosen.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, we are dealing with the Premier's vote, not the Minister of Health.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, who's responsible when you can't deal with the Minister of Health? The Minister of Health didn't even make the announcement about that hospital. It was made by the Minister of Education. Now if there isn't some kind of co-ordination....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Member, I cannot accept the proposition that every minister's vote is discussed under the First Minister's vote. Would you kindly relate your questions to the Premier's vote?

MR. COCKE: That's right, and I'm relating my question directly to the Premier, and I think that he has a good deal of trouble in his cabinet. I think that the trouble will continue until such time as the Premier decides to take into account some of the needs of the province that are not being served, by a friction that obviously has developed between these two departments. So that's an area that I hope that the Premier will consider.

Mr. Chairman, the Premier has been accused of a number of things since he's been Premier, and one of the things he's been accused of has been that he has been focusing people's attention at the opposition for every move that he makes that has discomfited the people in the province.

I suggest to you that one way that he can restore confidence to the people in this province is to restore a, little bit of co-ordination in his cabinet. I've suggested the ways and means. Mr. Chairman, I don't accept the fact that he's not responsible. I accept the fact that if there is friction, if there is a difference of opinion in that cabinet, then it is up to the Premier to see to it that the needs of the people are served in this province, and they are not being served by this kind of friction.

There is obvious friction. I had access to the operating cost estimates, and I had access also, long before this, to the capital costs that we face. This is horrendous, and it's outrageous.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, earlier the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) asked about cabinet members being directors of seven corporations. The answer to the first one is no. No. 2, no cabinet ministers. No. 3, no. No. 4, no. No. 5, no. No. 6, no. As for No. 7, Swan Valley Foods, as you know, is in some difficulty. I'm unable to comment on it tonight because I don't have the latest information but, as you must know, the situation hasn't changed since the election. When you were government I think the government lent the company somewhere near $ 10 million. It's under review. It's a very difficult situation, and I'm sure the minister responsible will report to the House himself.

The others are all, no, no, no, no, no.

The hon. Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) asked some questions before dinner, and I thought he'd come back this evening. He hasn't been in tonight, but I would like to cover the part he questioned on the constitution. He was concerned about British Columbia's position on the constitution. I would like to reiterate again the position we have taken and will be taking with the Prime Minister at the First Ministers Conference or at any subsequent conferences concerning the constitution and its patriation.

We feel that the patriation of the constitution, bringing it back to Canada, should be an act of unity, an act of bringing the country together. It shouldn't be done in any way that may divide the country, and it shouldn't be done in any way that will heat up the regional differences that may balkanize Canada. Therefore it shouldn't be brought back under a series of negotiations where one province or one region plays against the other and places conditions upon the simple act of patriation.

We suggested to the Prime Minister that the simple act of patriation would be an act that would unit Canada, but that in the bill before the British Parliament to patriate the constitution or repatriate it to Canada the guarantee be given that any amending formula must have unanimous consent of all provinces and that until such an amendment formula is arrived at any additional constitutional changes must also have unanimous consent of all the provinces, in that way avoiding the squabbling that may take place now in trying to bring the constitution back. All of the arguments or the representations on constitutional change could take place while the constitution is in Canada.

I think under these conditions the constitution being repatriated to Canada could be an act that could unite this country. But any unilateral action by the federal government and any unreasonable demands by any provincial government would be divisive at this time and would be unwise and, in fact, would be unwarranted.

The Liberal leader and member for North

[ Page 2343 ]

Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) also asked about the revenue sharing that is coming up and equalization. As I said, we have programmes coming up on revenue sharing in Health, Human Resources and Education. Those ministers will be accompanying me to Ottawa on Sunday, Monday and Tuesday, June 12, 13 and 14, and it will be a full First Ministers Conference of a highly technical nature. In preparation for this conference we've had some of the new staff that have been added to Finance and to the departments to do research and projection in these areas working steadily. Their first reports are in, and those reports will go to the technical meeting that takes place in Ottawa on the 8th and will be a basis for the final positions B.C. takes at the conference on the 13th and the 14th.

The member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Gibson) suggested some sort of commission on these things. I might add that we have a series of meetings that are set up — First Ministers' Conferences or Western Premiers' Conferences — and we do now have the liaison between governments that wouldn't warrant the setting up of another investigative body outside of the present structures to look into cost-sharing. It would just be one more report whereas the mechanism is there now, and it's well controlled and looked after under intergovernmental affairs or through our new co-ordinating department in the Premier's office.

There was a point brought up earlier I think by the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King). I just wanted to clear it up because I don't think I did clear it up. He mentioned the new press secretary to the executive council. I would want to point out that this secretary was part of the civil service. He was hired by the former Minister of Education, the member for Burnaby North now, Eileen Dailly, and he passed the competition and the exams and was hired by the former government into the Education department. He was moved over because of the outstanding job he did with that department over two years, and was given the category of programme manager 2 in the very responsible job of press secretary to the executive council. He's called upon now to do much more travelling and work much longer hours than he was in his previous job. I would want to very much point out that he is not a political appointment, but did come from the professional civil service, and was already hired by the former government. I would not want to leave that impression before the House.

I would point out we passed a bill concerning the 10 per cent reduction in MLAs' and cabinet ministers' salaries. Two members of the Premier's office staff have had the 10 per cent cut on their salaries. One was the executive director to the Premier's office, who had the existing salary that was there from the executive director to the former Premier of $36,000. It's been cut by 10 per cent to $32,000 this year. The same applies to the executive director who replaces the former planning advisor to the cabinet. He was appointed at the very same existing salary, but that has been cut by 10 per cent this year as part of the cuts that have been taken by the Legislature and the cabinet.

The member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace) made a strong case as to whether the Premier's office recognized women in responsible positions, and I can only say that for the first time in the Premier's office they do have executive positions. The chief administrative officer, which is shown in the votes as $19,500, is a woman. In the last government there were three administrative assistants, all men. It's the same with the administrative officer in intergovernmental relations. Two of the top four senior positions are held by women in the Premier's office in intergovernmental affairs. This wasn't done for any other reason than to find the best people that would suit the jobs.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, before I raise a number of points I wanted to raise, I would like to observe that it appears that the election results in the Vancouver East by-election are certainly all but complete and without any question as to the outcome. I want to thank the Premier for his earlier comments and congratulations to the successful candidate, the leader of our party. I'm sure that many members on all sides of the House recognize the contribution that our leader has to make to the public life in the province.

At the same time I would like to, again I believe on behalf of all members of the House, extend my best wishes, my thanks and my congratulations to all of the candidates that ran in that by-election. I think we all know that anyone who stands for public office subjects himself to disruption in his life in many ways, and I think we all feel some sensitivity and some affinity with those people who had the fortitude to stand and offer themselves for the service of the public. I want to wish them well. I want to congratulate them on a good campaign and thank the government for their kind wishes.

Mr. Chairman, the Premier's comments regarding the gentleman who is shown as his press secretary I accept without question. I simply posed some rather rhetorical questions as to who the man was and what appeared to be a rather inflated salary over that which had been established as the press secretary's position. I accept the Premier's comments on that. I accept his explanation of the qualifications of the individual much more readily than I accept his explanation of why it was necessary to employ the individual in a new category, in effect an existing category but a new slot, because I can well appreciate the kind of cry that would have gone up had our government developed a new position of this nature.

[ Page 2344 ]

In a time when the Premier and his government are trying to convince the opposition and the people of the province that restraint on all fronts is necessary, I find it perplexing that the government has found it necessary to manipulate classifications, in effect, to justify a rather fat salary of $28,000-some a year for the purpose of the role of the press secretary. I want to make that observation for the record.

I want to move to a new topic, Mr. Chairman, a topic that I think resides clearly and unequivocally within the realm and the jurisprudence and the ambit of the Premier's authority as the No. 1 minister of this government, and that relates to the need to do something with respect to campaign funds in this province.

I want to remind him and the government, his colleagues, that great things were proffered in the course of the last election campaign about what this new coalition was going to do to regulate and restrict the temptation of accepting large slush funds from people who in many cases are not prepared to identify themselves, and which raised the question of precisely what return favours those donors expected to receive for their contributions.

During the Premier's estimates last year the present Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer), the first member for Vancouver Point Grey, had quite a lot to say. I hope that the Premier will heed, if even retroactively, the advice of the Minister of Education, and this one of the few times that I would commend the Minister of Education's advice to the Premier. But the Minister of Education has a good deal to say in the Premier's estimates last year, because he was somewhat exercised and upset about a $200 cheque which apparently had been directed to one of the then cabinet ministers.

On page 779 of Hansard for last year, 1975, the current Minister of Education had this to say:

I've said quite clearly what the ethics should be. Anybody who donates before or after an election and who makes personally known to you that he is giving money, and the amount of money he is giving, is himself guilty of improper motives.

That's the opinion of your colleague, the Minister of Education. It's very strong stuff and I think it would be well heeded by this government. He went on:

Let there be no doubt about the motives of any one who offers a gift to someone running in an election or elected. Let there be no doubt about the motives or ethics of such a person who makes his identity known and who makes known the amount of money he wishes to give. That man expects favours in return.

That's what the Minister of Education said: "...expects favours in return."

Now I think the Premier has an obligation to state again the position on this. They have been strangely mute and quiet since the election campaign. I think it would be interesting to know who paid for all those radio ads during the last election. You know — "Thanks for the memories." All those things.

Interjections.

MR. KING: That's the Aloha cookie; I think they were waving goodbye to you, my friend. (Laughter.)

Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Education had good advice to offer. I think the Premier should heed him and I think he should have something to say about this tonight. I don't know whether that's a wave goodbye or a victory sign the Premier gave to me, but hope springs eternal, Mr. Chairman.

The Minister of Education thought that anyone who paid large or small campaign donations, and made it known to the politician that he was contributing to their campaign, was seeking favours in return. The Minister of Education has been in politics a long time; he has had a lot of experience. He's not a new-found coalition member; he sat over here leading that once-great Liberal Party for many years. He has a family background in politics and should know whereof he speaks.

So I think the Premier should give us the benefit of his opinions on this subject. Does he agree with the Minister of Education that Social Credit campaign fund donors want favours in return? And what's more important, what favours will they be after? What about the Imperial Oil company? Do they expect favours? Because I understand, by their own publication, that they made large campaign contributions to the Liberals, to the Conservatives and to the Socreds. They admitted in June last year in a report to shareholders that for the past five years they have been giving money to the Social Credit Party in B.C.

AN HON. MEMBER: No!

MR. KING: The total amount they said they donated to Social Credit, Liberal and Conservative Parties across the country was an average of $235,000 per year over five years. Not exactly a pittance, you know — that's a pretty weighty campaign contribution, I would think. I want to remind you what the now Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) thinks of that. He said: "I've said quite clearly what the ethics should be. Anyone who donates before or after an election, and makes personally known to you that he is giving money and the amount of money he is giving, is himself guilty of improper motives." Very interesting. I want to know how much of that $235,000 the Social Credit Party of B.C. received. I would like to know, and I think the government has an obligation to tell us in light of the strong opinions of the Minister of Education, an executive council member now.

[ Page 2345 ]

1 think perhaps the government is being called upon to return favours. We have already witnessed their first favour, I suggest, Mr. Chairman. Shortly after the election of the present government, Imperial and other oil companies who no doubt also sweeten the Socred campaign funds, were allowed to increase the price of home heating oil by 4.5 cents per gallon.

AN HON. MEMBER: A coincidence.

MR. KING: I talked about the Prime Minister's responsibility for the total economic thrust of the government. That's unquestionable; that goes without question. Certainly if the Premier has the ability to influence the economic thrust and approach of his government, then it is possible that there is a tie-in, by implication and by the statements of his own Minister of Education, of improper motives here. It's the setting for questionable relationships between the government and their campaign donors. In other words, is economic policy — permissible price levels for gasoline and petroleum products — being determined on the basis of the amount of campaign funds donated by Imperial Oil and other oil companies? This is what the Minister of Education said.

I think this is a serious thing. I think the Premier of the province has an obligation to get up and talk about it, and an obligation to tell us precisely where the government is going to go with respect to this very important matter. Is this government here in essence to protect the rights of all the citizens of the province who elected them, or are they here to do the bidding of those who paid the piper?

The Minister of Education says these people are guilty of improper motives. I want to ask, Mr. Chairman: what about the other industries that unquestionably did make campaign contributions to the coalition government? What about the auto insurance industry? They certainly did. They did by running a heavily financed advertising campaign totally on behalf of the Social Credit Party in the last election. It was obvious to anyone. Unquestionably the government knew, and unquestionably by implication of what the Minister of Education says, that return favours are now due. Is that related in any way to the policy statements issued by the Minister of Education, the minister responsible for ICBC — that the private insurance cartels are going to return to this province, going to be allowed back in to cream the industry? These are interesting questions.

What about the mining industry? I think, Mr. Chairman, that unquestionably they kicked into the Socred campaign chest. I think they unquestionably did. I wonder what favours they expect in return. What will be the slant of the new royalty legislation that comes in? Is the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Waterland) being influenced by anyone in terms of the direction and the level of royalties that are going to be required from this resource industry — this basic irreplaceable resource industry? I don't know, but certainly I think the opposition is obliged to ask these questions when one of the current cabinet bench people has assured us, as is recorded in Hansard last year, that these are serious and valid questions that must be asked.

I think the Premier.... I don't know what he's going to say — whether he is going to get up and say the same thing as he said about that Minister of Education before, that his remarks were unfortunate, I don't know whether he is going to do that or whether he is going to assure this House that there is going to be strict legislation forthcoming which is going to publicly regulate, in a very effective fashion, the method under which the elections of this province will be conducted, and respecting not only campaign funds but the whole realm of law that should be reviewed. I would like to hear the Premier get up and talk about this.

I hope he doesn't take any umbrage at the remarks I put forward, because I'm just quoting from one of those dissident Liberal people who were welcomed into the fold with open arms just a year ago. Sometimes if the record of the past comes back to haunt one, then he should not blame the opposition for that embarrassment. So I'd like the Premier to comment, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 2 pass?

MR. KING: No, not yet. I have much more material here. Mr. Chairman, I think the Premier should answer.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, the member for Revelstoke brought up the question of party campaign funds and campaigning. I'm sure this subject was well exhausted during the election campaign. Before that we had some of the most ridiculous amounts tossed around by — well, I shouldn't say the former leader — the returning leader of the New Democratic Party. I was hoping that we shouldn't have to keep fighting the old election campaign over and over, but what I said then... I made an offer that they could have a chartered accountant go through our firms, any major one of their choice and go through the party. The offer was never taken up because, of course, the statements weren't true.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: What I did say during the campaign was that because I may have to keep another promise that wasn't kept by the former government who promised all sorts of things, had

[ Page 2346 ]

three and a half years of government.... Every good thing we do now — ombudsman, auditor-general — oh, "We would have done it." We would have done it, they say, but they never did it while they were here. One thing we said we'd do is have a royal commission on....

MR. KING: You are being crassly political.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: We're going to have a royal commission on electoral reform, and that royal commission will study all aspects of elections. It will consider party funding. It will consider limits on campaign funds. It will consider redistribution. It will consider all aspects to update and bring British Columbia into the realities of a modern-day election.

MR. KING: So long as you don't invite Gerry Mander to it, it will be all right.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I make the commitment to the House that this commission will be struck, report and legislation will be in place before this House goes to a general election next time. Now I know we heard that promise from the last government. In fact, it was even in the throne speech. I used to feel embarrassed for the Lieutenant-Governor months after that was said in the throne speech and it was never acted upon.

Mr. Chairman, I do say this will take place. I have no way of knowing the findings or the recommendations of such a commission but I do say it will be struck, be given wide powers from redistribution to examining party funding, and certainly this will do a lot to allay the fears of the public who may believe some of the wild stories that circulate about what happens in politics. I think that some credibility will be established when the wild exaggerations can no longer be given any credence with those types of rules enforced. So I look forward to such reform taking place in British Columbia in the next few years, Mr. Chairman.

MR. KING: As long as it satisfied McGeer, that's....

HON. MR. BENNETT: An earlier question that was asked was about the executive council and the $125,000. As I said, it was a new vote in line with what other provinces do. It was arbitrarily arrived at. The only expenditure out of it so far is the press secretary to the executive council, which is the cabinet. I would point out that the $125,000 for the executive council comparing it to other provinces.... In Alberta, the executive council has a vote of $1,235,000; the executive council in Manitoba, $3,244,500; in Ontario, $1,190,000; New Brunswick, $777,000; Newfoundland, $855,000.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: So I think that in a first year, Mr. Chairman, of providing an estimate of support staff for the very important cabinet committees, $125,000 perhaps may be minimal. We may have underestimated, but we had to pick a figure. This was in light of what other provinces have done.

While I'm on my feet answering, I might also point out that intergovernmental affairs, which replaces the old advisory planning to the cabinet which has a vote of $282,000 — there again, intergovernmental affairs in Alberta is $1 million; in Ontario, $2 million; in Quebec, $16.8 million; and in Newfoundland, $282,700. So we're even less than Newfoundland again. I might point out that this vote is $282,000 compared to $276,000 last year. But in reality it's much less because there's a new figure in there, $61,300 for Canadian intergovernmental conference secretariat. Now this was an agreement that was already signed by the former planning adviser to the cabinet for the $60,000. It wasn't signed by any government cabinet minister. It was an agreement signed with Ottawa that this province would have to pay that amount for a number of years to support the secretariat in Ottawa.

If we take that out we would be running that department at much less than it ran previously. Also the Premier's office, which runs with a vote of $228,000...this compares with Ontario at $1.219 million; New Brunswick, $931,000; Prince Edward Island, $567,000, and Newfoundland, again, $472,000 a lot more than British Columbia. So you can see that we aren't asking for a large amount of money to correlate the activities of the executive council, intergovernmental affairs and run the Premier's office. In fact, the figures may prove to be light — maybe not for this year, but in the future as we expand the cabinet committee or the executive council co-ordination, which I believe is in the best interests of good government that it take place and that's the interaction between different government departments. I'm sure the members opposite who have been in the cabinet would agree that this is a good move and would make for a better government, more efficient government.

Also the fact of having intergovernmental affairs and the executive council all running out of the Premier's office — so we don't have some under the Provincial Secretary's vote, and using different staff from the line departments — in fact affects the performance of the departments themselves.

Let's see if there are any other questions I haven't answered here.

[ Page 2347 ]

MR. LEVI: Yes, the question on Mincome.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Now we have before us the second member for Vancouver-Burrard mentioning the Mincome programme. But we have the GAIN legislation before us, and that will be called for second reading any day, and also the Minister of Human Resources's estimates will come up; I'm sure you'll get a fuller answer, and it is improper to discuss legislation that's before the Legislature.

There was a question earlier from the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) on DREE, and whether we would support the proposal which she's working on with the federal member in getting DREE money for the road to Port Hardy. I'd suggest that British Columbia has always fared very poorly when it comes to getting DREE money. We haven't received a share on a per capita basis, nor on any other basis, which British Columbia should be entitled to.

The Minister of Economic Development is negotiating a new form of British Columbia getting DREE money. I'd like to say that it meets the criteria of how I think federal money should be spent to further the economic activities of British Columbia. I don't believe in grants for specific industries, like a particular company, but rather to a general concept, and that's the way we're working on having DREE money spent in British Columbia.

We're not looking for — as someone very close to your party, or used to be, talked about — corporate welfare burns; we're looking for the co-ordinated spending of any federal money in a co-ordinated provincial programme that would service an area. Certainly, if such activity is in your area, that would be considered. But right now the way DREE will affect British Columbia is being negotiated, because we just haven't got our fair share in the past, under both preceding governments.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the Premier with respect to his answer as far as my question this afternoon is concerned. But I understand that there is a possibility of a subsidiary agreement which could be drawn up at this time and signed by the provincial government for the specific purpose of completing the two contracts still outstanding on that road.

I was talking today to some of the people within the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, and they indicated to me that that was a possibility, that a subsidiary agreement is possible, Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Chairman. I'm wondering if the Pren-der would answer that specifically, as far as the subsidiary agreement is concerned.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, I can't take the question as notice in estimates, but I'll provide the answer for you if my estimates are completed. I'll get the answer for you, because I have no knowledge of the subsidiary programme that's being negotiated by Economic Development. However I will get the answer for you.

MS. SANFORD: Thank you. I appreciate that.

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Chairman, at least the hon. Premier is trying to answer the questions that are put to him. Some of the ministers previously, in presenting their estimates, were just silent when questions were asked. I think not so much the questions or the answers would have been embarrassing, but perhaps they didn't know, Or chose not to answer, or whatever. There are some questions that were asked of earlier ministers that could have been answered and would have disposed of the questions without need to repeat them, or without need to ask them later in the discussions of estimates, and I would like to ask the Premier some of these questions.

Some of them would relate to his address as delivered on February 28, 1976, when he first made public the Clarkson Gordon report. I think at that time in the beginning of his speech, the words he used would indicate that Clarkson Gordon had been asked to do a job, of research and a review in the auditing sense — not just a review meaning a cursory look at it, but a review in the full auditing sense. Yet Clarkson Gordon, certainly in their statement, didn't say that.

I would just wonder whether the Premier would like an opportunity to clarify just exactly what he had in mind when he asked Clarkson Gordon to do their job. Does he agree with the Clarkson Gordon introduction to the report — that is that they were simply asked to consolidate information that was made available by the government? In his remarks in that address the Premier did express some concern about the extent to which people taxes, in particular the 5 per cent sales tax and personal income tax the degree to which the government was depending upon those two sources of revenue.

I wonder whether he would like to comment on just how he squares this with the fact that the budget before us now shows an increasing reliance, both in terms of absolute dollars and in percentage, on both the 5 per cent sales tax and this personal income tax, in that the rate of both taxes has been increased. Yet there has been no increase that we know of with respect to the resource-revenue items. In fact, campaign promises were made that some of these would be reduced.

Beyond that, there is the question with respect to the report — and, as I say, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) was asked this question and he didn't answer it, just sat silent when the question was asked a number of times — and that is that apparently he had the report in his possession for some 10 days.

[ Page 2348 ]

During that time he insisted.... In answering questions he would say only that no figures were changed. He was very careful to repeat that answer time after time, which led us to believe that something else was changed, or that something was added, or that something was subtracted.

I would invite the Premier, in his capacity.... I'm thinking now of the new title, executive council administration. Perhaps the Minister of Finance didn't answer because he didn't know the answers, and if he didn't, then the only one to whom we could turn for answers like that would be to the Premier, the head of the executive council administration.

The other question that was asked repeatedly of the Minister of Finance, and likely he didn't know the answer and that's why.... I don't know why he didn't tell us he didn't know it. But he, at least, gave no answer at all. That was the question as to the revision — or the second printing — of the budget speech in an amended form — that is, there was something deleted from it. Now we asked who gave the instructions for that. The Minister of Finance was asked outside of the House, and it would appear from his early answers to that question that he wasn't even aware that a revision was being printed. Then when he was asked in the House he simply was very silent on the subject. I wonder if the head of the executive council administration could tell us who it was that authorized this change in the printed budget speech.

As I said in the beginning, Mr. Chairman, once we have the answers to those questions, really the question ceases to be important. I think we could very easily dispose of these if we had the simple answers as to who did these things. Then it would be no longer a matter of importance.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I have no way of knowing. The idea of appointing a separate Minister of Finance was to do just that. I don't participate in the Finance department. The only place I participate is as a member of Treasury Board. I have no knowledge nor do I know who would make any changes in how financial information is presented. You will have to get that information from the Minister of Finance himself. I've no way of knowing.

I would say that you asked about our financial report to the people of the province and how I described the instructions to Clarkson Gordon. It's very clear in my opening statement in which I started off and where I say: "I promised the people a full financial review of the province's financial affairs, and in line with our pledge to research and share information, we moved first in research. One of the first acts of the Minister of Finance was to appoint the national firm of Clarkson Gordon Co., chartered accountants, to conduct an independent and full review of the province's financial affairs including those of government agencies and Crown corporations. This review under the direction of the firm's Toronto partner, Donald Scott, is now complete."

I think that's fairly self-explanatory, but as to your questions of the workings of the Finance department, I'm sorry, you'll have to.... If you're not satisfied with the answers you got in estimates from the Minister of Finance, you'll have to place them again in the question period.

One question that came up earlier — again from the Liberal leader — that I didn't answer, and I see now that it was related to, again, our financial relationship with Ottawa, dealt with two areas. One is the subsidy to B.C. Ferries which, again, we are actively pursuing in trying to get subsidies for British Columbia Ferries. There's a case where the federal government does provide subsidies to ferries that travel in the east, that travel between provinces, and there is some case in British Columbia — the conditions in which we joined union — in having a subsidy for perhaps the Marguerite that runs from the province to the United States, inasmuch as there was a condition on mail service from San Francisco and from Seattle and Port Angeles. This is being actively pursued, and I suppose it was by the last government. I have no way of knowing but I do know it was a strong case that was presented time after time by the government that preceded the former NDP government.

The other question that he asked was about the B.C. Railway construction subsidy. Now, unfortunately, we have to reactivate this because at the time the former government was negotiating the northwest rail agreement. They made a commitment to....

The former Premier stated in this House that he would cancel British Columbia's claims for construction subsidies for the BCR up to that time. Now there is no way we will accept that, because I believe construction subsidies that have gone to other resource railroads, or other railroads in Canada, certainly should come to British Columbia. The BCR, under succeeding governments and even in the early days, should have qualified for construction grants. I do believe we have a valid claim against the Government of Canada, only we'll have to reactivate that claim, and there will be some difficulty because these claims were cancelled by the former government.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I have been in politics now for 30 years and I have never accused the press of misquoting me. Sometimes they do misunderstand, and that must be my fault. (Laughter.) I am just not explaining myself properly, and I think I must have failed to get across to the Premier some of my questions.

First, it's not a case of being dissatisfied with the

[ Page 2349 ]

answers we got from the Minister of Finance. You'll recall that he just didn't answer the questions at all, so it was a case of not being satisfied with the non-answers rather than not being satisfied with the answers.

Very specifically I will try once more on this question of the budget — not about the way it was presented and not about the financial information. No criticism of the government for having changed the printed budget speech. I think it was well that they did change it. I would congratulate them for changing it. But the Minister of Finance said publicly, outside of this House, that he didn't know who authorized the change. Now I think I heard the Premier say that neither did he know who authorized the change. Now if neither the Minister of Finance nor the Premier knows who authorized that change, then I think it's time the Pren-der looked into it a little further and found out, at least for his information, just who did authorize the change in printing of the budget speech.

Now I want to be clear and I want to make sure there is no misunderstanding between us, Mr. Chairman, and I would like the Premier to repeat that answer if, indeed, that is the answer he gave — that is, that he doesn't know who authorized or who instructed that there be a change in the printed budget speech.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Member, I'll say it for you again quite clearly: the Department of Finance is under the direction of the Minister of Finance, and all presentation of financial material, in whatever form, come under his direction and responsibility. I have no idea who authorizes or who gives any authorization for it, whether it's called budget speech or whether it's called quarterly accounts, or how or why the information is presented. If there was a change in some of the financial information relating to the budget speech, in either cover or documentation or deletions or things added, then you will have to take that up with the Minister of Finance because it certainly doesn't come under my authority, nor would I make it my authority. So all I can say is that I don't authorize those things and you will have to take that up with the Minister of Finance. If you are dissatisfied with his answers, you will have to pursue him and take another course in pursuing it.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I think, if I may, I would suggest to the Premier that he too should be dissatisfied that the Minister of Finance apparently has, as the Premier says, the direction of the Department of Finance. The Minister of Finance said that he doesn't know who authorized or who instructed a change in the printing of the budget speech. That's what he said. And the Premier doesn't know either. Somebody over there ought to be able to find out some person, some little Hoe-boy somewhere down the line, who can be criticized or maybe fired or demoted for having made that change. But somewhere in this organization of some 30,000 or 40,000 employees, somebody should take the responsibility or the credit — not the blame — but the credit for having authorized or made that change in the printed budget speech.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Is the member for Nanaimo recommending that someone from one of the departments should be fired?

MR, STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, it is not my estimates that are before the House right now — I would be pleased to answer questions. But I am certainly not recommending that. I know one minister did take that out, and I hope that no other minister will ever try anything like that.

But I do think that the Premier should be interested enough in finding out.... That's a pretty important document — the printed budget speech. I think the Premier should be interested in finding out for his own information, even if he doesn't want to tell anybody else, In view of the fact that the Minister of Finance said he doesn't know, and the Premier doesn't know, the Premier should find out just who does know. Somebody somewhere should know who authorized the change in that budget speech. I'll leave that.

The Premier has said that he doesn't know; I accept his word. He's an honourable member of the House and I accept his word that he doesn't know who authorized the change in the printed version of the budget speech. I heard the Minister of Finance say that he doesn't know. We should ask every cabinet minister — perhaps some day we would find out.

In any case, the Premier, in response to my question about his instructions to Clarkson Gordon, read out part of his address. Really, my question was, Mr. Chairman, not what he did say in his address, because I read part of that too — my question was: how does he square that with what Clarkson Gordon understood to be their instructions? And now I'll read to the Premier what Clarkson, Gordon said:

"On December 22, 1975, you requested us to co-ordinate the production of certain unaudited financial information for the year ending March 31, 1976, which you" — and it's addressed to the Minister of Finance — "had requested from the Deputy Minister of Finance, the comptroller-general in the management of all Crown corporations, boards and agencies, to produce a summary report on the overall financial position of the province."

So Clarkson, Gordon didn't understand that they were asked to do research. Obviously, Mr. Chairman,

[ Page 2350 ]

there was a breakdown in communication between the two, and while the Premier thought he was getting a job of research, Clarkson Gordon didn't understand they were to do that. So the Clarkson Gordon report that the Premier asked for, or that he got, apparently is not the one he thought he was getting, not the one he was asking for. Perhaps he's just finding that out for the first time this evening, Mr. Chairman.

The other thing that he missed commenting one is this question of the proportion and the total dollar volume of government revenue that is coming from people-taxes — that is, the five per cent sales tax and income tax. He was concerned about it when it was the NDP that was in government that was raising this money. Now is his concern the fact that it was the NDP that was doing that, and that once his government moves into office and raises the sales tax, raises the income tax, and gets a higher proportion of its total revenue from these sources, that it's all right — it's all right as long as the Social Credit are doing it, it's only wrong when the NDP are doing it? Is that what he means in this part of his address — page 2 in my version of the address?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, there again, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) was the person who contacted Clarkson Gordon, and I make that clear: the instructions were given by the Minister of Finance. I said what I asked the Minister of Finance to do, and that is exactly there. The statement is very explicit. It also is explicit in how I interpreted the findings. The findings showed that we were getting more and more taxation from individuals. That's exactly what it says in the address — what I consider a very good address; very good and very fair — which is very fair to the former government.

I know the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) doesn't want to recanvass all of the debate or questions that went on in the Minister of Finance's estimates. I do think the subject has been well canvassed, and in rereading that very excellent presentation that was on television I do find it very clear in the instructions to the Minister of Finance and the interpretation I put on the findings.

MR. N. LEVI (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Chairman, it's interesting to me that the Premier can assume the stance that he does and have no regard for a continuing debate that is now going on in Ottawa which is under the aegis of the doctrine of responsibility.

Whether he likes to think of it or not, his position is that he is the leader of the government, and I don't think it is sufficient for him to say that he doesn't know. Those of us who have served in a cabinet, under a Premier, are aware of the obligations there are on the part of the ministers to make sure that the Premier does know what is going on, that the Premier does know why, for some reason, the budget speech was rewritten. It's no good the Premier coming into the House and telling us that he doesn't know what goes on in the Department of Finance. That was not the question.

We are talking about what goes on in terms of decision-making regarding ministers and the Premier. Now is the Premier suggesting — and he may very well be suggesting — that because he perhaps doesn't understand the doctrine of responsibility, all the ministers in his cabinet are making their own decisions without any kind of recognition or discussion with him on the decisions? It isn't good enough for the Premier to come in here and somehow say that he doesn't know who approved the changing of the budget. That's a very important document, and obviously somebody must have made the decision.

We can only deduce, if the Premier says he didn't know, that perhaps Dan Campbell made the decision to change the budget. You know, the thing is that we've already had, from the Premier and from another minister of his cabinet, an abrogation of the doctrine of responsibility. We had the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) trying to lay the blame on some member of his department, and then before, Mr. Chairman, when I asked the Premier in my remarks about his opinions on Mincome, he tells me: "We can't really discuss this because we've got the GAIN legislation before the House." Well, that's a lot of nonsense. I'm not discussing the GAIN legislation. I'm discussing the questions the Premier raised in the election, Mr. Chairman, with respect to improving Mincome. I'm not talking about GAIN. I'm talking about Mincome.

Now if he can't stand up Mr. Chairman, and be frank with us.... He was going around and saying that he would improve upon Mincome, and then he tells me I should wait and talk to the Minister of Shovels. I'm not interested in talking to the Minister of Shovels about this; I want to talk to him. He's the one who went around; he's the one who authorized the ads in the paper; he's the one who said we would improve on it; and now he wants to shove it onto that poor minister who only knows about bulbs and shovels. He's the master tactician, Mr. Chairman. He's the one who has to know why it is that the very thing he said he would not do, is happening.

He is not prepared to be frank with the senior citizens of this province — not prepared to be frank at all. I said earlier that one of the reasons you were defeated tonight in Vancouver East, Mr. Chairman, is very much because people over there are extremely skeptical about the kind of statements that are made in respect to the Mincome programme.

Interjections.

[ Page 2351 ]

MS. SANFORD: Oh, that gets them upset over there.

MR. LEVI: Oh, they're so twitchy over there, the Minister of Boots or the member of boots. Aloha, my friend from Hawaii. I'd forgotten he's still there.

AN HON. MEMBER: Your leader isn't here.

MR. LEVI: But he'll be back within 10 days.

AN HON. MEMBER: We'll be waiting for him!

MR. LEVI: We sure are waiting for him.

AN HON. MEMBER: Parachuting in.

MR. LEVI: A parachute, with 71 per cent of the vote? I should be so lucky and get parachuted somewhere.

Interjections.

MR. KING: The member wears the mantle of an idiot.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Now to vote 2.

MR. LEVI: All I am asking, Mr. Chairman is that the Premier be very frank with the House and tell us exactly what he had in mind when he was going around this province before the election and saying: "We will not take away Pharmacare, we will not take away Mincome — we will even improve on it."

Well, his record up to date is that he has not improved on Mincome; he's dismantled it. Yet he tells me I'm going to have to wait to deal with the Minister of Shovels. I simply can't accept that. After all, he was the leader of the party.

Do you accept the doctrine of responsibility, Mr. Chairman? That's a basic doctrine. It's a basic doctrine in the parliamentary system that the pecking order in terms of responsibility starts with the Premier, goes to the ministers, and that's where it stops. It stops either with the Premier or with the ministers. But when we are addressing the Premier in respect to his estimates, and he is the author of the remarks that I've referred to, then he has an obligation to tell not only this House but the people of the province what he meant when he said he would add to Mincome and that he would not take it away, when in fact that's exactly what he's done.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I think the second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) well knows that the government was elected

December 11, was sworn in on the 22nd, and raised the income supplements January 1.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, that has got to be, with respect, the most incredible statement to come from any member of the government on that side — that you went in on December 11 and raised the Mincome. Well, isn't that nice of you? Sometime in March you took it back again. What are you talking about?

AN HON. MEMBER: Nonsense!

MR. LEVI: Oh, nonsense, the minister says. Here we go again: the Minister of Un-facts, Mr. Chairman — the man who knows it all. Is it not the case, Mr. Chairman, that the handicapped people of this province and the people aged 60 to 64 are getting less in terms of payments than people over the age of 65? Is that not a fact? Is the Premier prepared to stand up and say that that's not true? That's the very thing that happened in March. You did take away the Mincome programme. You did! That's the situation today. Now you stand up and tell us that that's not the case.

AN HON. MEMBER: You did it, Mr. Chairman!

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, the government was elected December 11, was sworn in on the 22nd, raised the income supplements on January 1 and none of those raises that were given on January 1 have been taken back.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, it's really remarkable that here we have a Premier who could spend something like 25 minutes explaining to this House the details of the expenditures of the construction in various offices, and he can't spend two minutes talking about the future of senior citizens in this province.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11 p.m.