[ Page 1101 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Federal grant to Vancouver. Mr. Barnes –– 1101

Expenditures on Revelstoke dam. Mr. Wallace –– 1102

Report on succession duties. Mr. Stupich –– 1102

Attendance of cabinet ministers during question period. Mrs. Wallace –– 1102

Granting of railway charter. Mr. King –– 1103

Position of medical association on location of Victoria hospital. Mr. Cocke –– 1103

Committee of Supply: Executive Council estimates.

On vote 18.

Mr. Barrett –– 1104

Mr. King –– 1106

Mr. Lauk –– 1109

Mr. Mussallem –– 1114

Mr. Cocke –– 1115

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1117

Mr. Barrett –– 1121

Mr.Cocke –– 1125

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1125

Mr. Wallace –– 1126

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1127

Mr. Shelford –– 1127

Ms. Sanford –– 1129

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1130

Mrs. Dailly –– 1131

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1132

Ms. Brown –– 1132

Mr. Cocke –– 1133

Mr.King –– 1134

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. J.J. KEMPF (Omineca): Mr. Speaker, with us in the gallery today are several people whom it is my great pleasure to introduce. First, from my own constituency of Omineca, we have with us Mrs. Ivy Strimbold and Mrs. Neva Nickolichuck. I say it is a great pleasure to introduce these two ladies, as they are from one of the oldest pioneer families in this province, and surely one of the oldest pioneer families of the Bulkley Valley in my constituency.

Also from the constituency of Omineca we have with us His Worship Mayor Bill Zelisney of Granisle. And from that great constituency of Saanich and the Islands we have two individuals with us today whom I would like to introduce to this House, Mr. and Mrs. Joe Walcer. I would like the House to make all these people welcome.

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): With us today in the gallery is the new mayor of the most beautiful city in Canada, the city of Vancouver -Mayor Jack Volrich, who is here attending Victoria with a group of officials from the city of Vancouver. I would ask the House t6 welcome him.

HON. H.A. CURTIS (Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing): Mr. Speaker, two groups of young people in the gallery today are observing our debates. From North Saanich Middle Junior Secondary School - and I have some difficulty understanding precisely what that terminology means - are Mr. Quentin Russell, the teacher in charge, and a group of students. Also we have some students, accompanied by Susan Hamilton, from Cornerstone in the constituency of Saanich and the Islands.

May I, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, also extend a welcome to Mayor Volrich of the city of Vancouver. Already, in a few short weeks, I think we've established a good relationship between the Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing and the city of Vancouver. We will disagree from time to time, but the basis for mutual understanding is certainly well established.

HON. J. DAVIS (Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications): Mr. Speaker, with us in the gallery today are several of the staff and a number of -students from Capilano College, and l.would like the House to please give them the customary welcome.

HON. MR. CURTIS: A further introduction of a guest, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that I did not realize that Mayor Munroe of Glace Bay, Nova Scotia, is also in the gallery. He met this morning with the Premier, myself and representatives of local government in British Columbia. Mayor Munroe is the president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, and this is one of a series of meetings he is holding with provincial Premiers and ministers across the country.

Oral questions.

FEDERAL GRANT TO VANCOUVER

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): I~d like to address a question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. I think it's quite appropriate that I have this particular question because he was expressing his pleasure at the attendance of the mayor of the city of Vancouver, Mr. Volrich. I would like, on behalf of Mr. Volrich, to ask the minister if he intends to uphold the grant that is being made available to the city of Vancouver - the $6 million federal grant that was negotiated by the NDP in 1975 for worthwhile community projects such as the Chinese Community Cultural Centre, the Italian Community Centre, Fishermen's Wharf and Fishermen's Market in Gastown, and perhaps the preservation of the Manhattan Apartments as a low-cost housing project, among other things, instead of using that sum for perhaps the costs of the Otter and the Beaver which I think the minister indicated that he might like to do.

HON. MR. CURTIS ~ Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member's question: The matter of several million dollars - that originally was anticipated to be about $100 million provided by the federal government to and for the city of Vancouver with respect to demonstration projects - has been very much a subject of discussion between Mayor Volrich and my ministry. Also, I have discussed it with the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, Mr. Ouellet, both in Ottawa and in Victoria recently.

We are aware of a series of projects that have been forwarded as possible candidates by Mayor Volrich to the federal minister. With respect to the Burrard Inlet ferry system, this government last year on two occasions indicated that it believed - on the basis of demonstration criteria that were submitted by the federal authorities at the time - that the Burrard Inlet ferry system was very much a suitable candidate.

However, we are quite prepared to see some of the projects - and I'm not going to identify which of the ones the member identified - considered quite favourably for demonstration purposes. I think that we are providing what the member would hope would occur: good consultation and freedom of information back and forth between the city of Vancouver, the

[ Page 1102 ]

federal government and the province of British Columbia.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the NDP administration negotiated just that sum of money for urban projects in the city of Vancouver, will the minister confirm that he will uphold the previous administration's pledge to make sure that money goes to the city and not to an intermunicipality transportation system?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, once again, I've had a great deal of difficulty identifying precisely what was a pledge by the former government.

EXPENDITURES ON REVELSTOKE DAM

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): There are so many empty chairs today, it must have been a rough weekend. (Laughter.) Well, to the Minister of Energy and Transport and Communications and dams and other things. With regard to the contract for $35.4 million by B.C. Hydro in connection with the proposed Revelstoke dam and with regard to the cancellation clause in the event that the conditional water licence be rescinded, can the minister tell the House if the whole sum of $35.4 million will be spent regardless of whether you proceed with the dam or not?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member has said, this work is conditional on final approval. Only a very small part of that sum of money would be spent - the rest would be saved -were the project to finally be turned down by the cabinet.

MR. WALLACE: I wonder if the minister could be a little more specific and tell us what small fraction of the $35 million will inevitably be spent, regardless of the building or not building of the dam.

HON. MR. DAVIS: I'll have to get a number, Mr. Speaker, from B.C. Hydro. It depends when the hearing is held; I gather it'll be held very soon. Of course, the amount will be less, depending on the amount of time.

MR. WALLACE: Can the minister tell us if there are any further contracts anticipated in the near future contingent upon the same possibility that the conditional water licence might be rescinded on appeal?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I doubt very much whether any other contracts would fall into this category. But, again, I'll make inquiries and provide an answer to the hon. member.

REPORT ON SUCCESSION DUTIES

MR. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Speaker, the probate and succession duties branch of the Finance department was working on a full, detailed study of the succession duties. My question to the Minister of Finance is whether or not the report was completed.

HON. MR. WOLFE: In reply to the member, we have no report.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I do know the report was being worked on and I wonder if the minister will clarify this. Is it still being worked on or has it been stopped?

HON. MR. WOLFE: The answer is no. There is no report.

MR. STUPICH: I understand the answer to mean there is no complete report. My question is: is the report still being worked on? Is any work being done on the effect of the succession duty?

HON. MR. WOLFE: There is no report. There was work to develop figures, of which the member, I am sure, is already aware. There has been no report put together.

MR. STUPICH: I know work was being done by the Finance department, as the minister says. I don't have the information done by the Finance department. I wonder whether the minister is prepared to table with the House such work as was done.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, there would be no point in that. There is nothing to table. There will be ample opportunity to discuss this matter under the bill which is before the House.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. If that material is available, why isn't it presented to the House to make the debate more intelligible? Or are you afraid that information will defeat your own bill? You're hiding the facts.

ATTENDANCE OF CABINET MINISTERS

DURING QUESTION PERIOD

MRS. B.B. WALLACE (Cowichan-Malahat): My question is going to have to be directed to the Premier, and it is certainly not the question I intended to ask. But I would ask the Premier: inasmuch as the question period is the only

[ Page 1103 ]

opportunity that the opposition has to question cabinet ministers, and inasmuch as members of the opposition sometimes have pertinent and critical questions that they wish an answer to, would the Premier undertake to assure that in future we do not have seven or more empty seats facing us on that cabinet bench during question period?

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Mr. Speaker, I can sympathize with the member, having sat on that side of the floor and had as many as 10 cabinet members vacant. Believe me, it is one of the problems, as those who are former cabinet ministers would realize. They have appointments, sometimes out of the city or with other governments. We try to encourage that all appointments are done at a period so that they can be available for cabinet meetings. Unfortunately, also compounding the problems sometimes are travel arrangements when coming back from meetings. I can assure the member that it is my position and the position of cabinet to make ourselves as fully available as is possible during these question periods.

GRANTING OF RAILWAY CHARTER

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): Mr. Speaker, a question to the Minister of Transport and Communications. Between two and three weeks ago I asked the minister whether or not he had received an application for the granting of a new railway charter in the province, or whether such application was pending. That information seems very, very ordinary. I would have thought the minister could have answered before now. Is he now prepared to do so?

HON. MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, my staff has been trying to determine what the hon. member meant by his question. They can't discover any application of any kind having been made. Perhaps you'd like to elaborate.

MR. KING: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker: The minister does hold the jurisdiction under the Ministry of Energy, Transport and Communications for granting intraprovincial railway charters; those, in other words, which do not cross provincial boundaries. If the minister wasn't aware of that authority which is vested in his ministry, I'm glad to help him out. I would have thought that officials in the ministry would know, because such charters have been granted on other occasions. I'm simply trying to elicit the information as to whether or not any provincial railway charter licence is pending.

HON. MR. DAVIS: After inquiries, Mr. Speaker, not to my knowledge.

POSITION OF MEDICAL ASSOCIATION

ON LOCATION OF VICTORIA HOSPITAL

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Health. I'd like to ask him to give us his reasoning behind putting very large ads in a number of local newspapers with respect to his fight with the local medical association that is taxpayers' money being spent on these ads where all the doctors, virtually, are in opposition to his position.

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, 1 don't know of any fight with the medical doctors. The medical doctors were in my office last Friday, Mr. Speaker, and they said 1 was the best health minister they had ever seen.

MS. K.E. SANFORD (Comox): Why the ads?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: It's been a very long time since the squabbles over the new hospital in Victoria started - some 10 or 12 years, four health ministers - and we just felt the people of Victoria had a right, Mr. Speaker, to know exactly what had happened over those years and what was happening in the future. The easiest and quickest way for that to happen was to take out ads in the three major papers in this area to explain fully to the people of Victoria exactly the situation with regard to hospital facilities in this community.

MR. COCKE: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, to the best health minister B.C. has every had. Some of the press might argue with that, after having read some of the press this morning. Mr. Speaker, my question is: is there any reason why that Minister of Health could not have taken a serious position and rationalized his reasoning to the doctors so that the doctors, who are, after all, the front line in health care delivery, would be on his side as opposed to being against him? It strikes me that by declaring war through an advertisement in the paper, he's actually alienating doctors as opposed to getting them on his side, if he can justify his position in the first place.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question from the member for New Westminster, 1 dispute that we've alienated any doctors in this community whether or not we have a difference of opinion at the moment. At the present time we're fully in agreement with the doctors and the doctors are fully in agreement with our stand that we build a new hospital as quickly as possible to replace the Victoria General Hospital.

In answer to the member's question, Mr. Speaker, the second point is that we have no allegiance to any special-interest group. We're building hospitals for the

[ Page 1104 ]

public, not for anyone else.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, a supplemental. Incidentally, when the minister says they're building hospitals for the public, I wonder if you would tell the people in Coquitlam and Delta that. That's a very strange situation there. But anyway, aside from that, w e'll ask that question in further question periods. Right now, would the minister care to release the Agnew Peckham report with respect to the whole hospital situation in Victoria?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: In answer to the member's question, which he obviously got from an uninformed member of the press in The Victorian....

AN HON. MEMBER: Or Charlie Barber.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Or Charlie Barber, I guess - I don't know where he got it.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: In the first place, there is no Agnew Peckham report. Agnew Peckham has been taken on as consultants to the project management committee, which is building the committee to determine the best method by which we can provide a new hospital in this community. That report was not to me, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BARRETT: There's no report.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The report to which everyone is referring is an interim evaluation of the way that the hospital will be built. It was made to the project committee. It was made public at a meeting last Wednesday. It was reported in the two major dailies in Victoria. If that member can't read, that's not my fault, Mr. Speaker.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

(continued)

On vote 18: executive council, $713,648 continued.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I am glad to see you here. I heard the weather wasn't good in the valley.

I have a couple of questions I would like to ask the Premier. One of them deals with Railwest in his recent visit to Ottawa. I would like to ask the Premier whether or not during your discussions with the federal ministers you raised the capacity of Railwest to build railcars. Before I go on, I would like an answer from the Premier on that.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Well, it relates to other things I wish to say, so if the Premier....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 18 pass?

MR. BARRETT: No, Mr. Chairman. I am asking the Premier.... Perhaps a nod of the head will do and then we can get on with it. I asked the question: did you discuss Railwest with the federal officials?

HON. MR. BENNETT: When I was recently in the capital discussing other subjects of interest to British Columbia with the Hon. Otto Lang, we mentioned the subject. I made a plea on behalf of Railwest for part of the order of the Canadian National Railway. At that time I advanced the position on behalf of Railwest and, yes, we held discussions.

MR. BARRETT: I want to thank the Premier for informing us that he indeed did raise the matter of Railwest. Obviously raising the matter was not met with any success. We're faced with the very unfortunate situation where 2,000 hopper cars now have been granted to other manufacturers in Canada, including the Hawker Siddeley plant, and , through no fault, I hope, of the Premier's or of the government of British Columbia, we've lost the opportunity of a minimum order of 300 cars which would have kept that plant going for another nine months. At the present time there are 260 employees at the plant.

They are relying essentially on the commitments to the BCR, which is a good thing - an excellent thing.

But I find it distressing that after having read all of the wonderful newspaper clippings about the bonhomie and the wonderful new relations between the federal government and the provincial government, all we got was public relations out of it for either the Premier or the federal government, but no jobs.

It's very well to go down to Ottawa and shake hands. It's very well to go skating on the Rideau Canal. I think it makes great stuff for publicity, but the fact~ is the federal government has skinned us again. There have been 2,000 bulk-loading cars ordered from eastern manufacturers. Our own capacity is well proven here in British Columbia, and now we are turned down. I don't know if the Premier intends to wire Ottawa and tell them how unhappy he is with the fact that there's not even a regional consideration. Three hundred cars alone would have

[ Page 1105 ]

kept that operation going at full capacity for nine months.

Now I don't know what else Ottawa intends to distribute out of its new budget, but there is a question of regional defence contracts, there's a question of Air Canada diversifying its maintenance facilities, and I don't understand why after this wonderful trip back to Ottawa we've got nothing. There are 112,000 people unemployed out there and a report indicates that there may be as high as another 50,000 people eligible for work, desirous of work, but who do not show up in those statistics, and we find the federal government, after having lovely teacup parties with the Premier, not committing any of its expenditures to the west coast.

I don't want to destroy that amiable relationship that exists between the Premier and the Prime Minister, and it's all well and good to have nice tea parties, but unless there are results what's the point of going back there? I think the case has to be made publicly that British Columbia, while a member of Confederation, insists on a fair share of that federal spending. Two former Premiers of this province were attacked because they were "abrasive" with Ottawa, one of whom you are intimately aware, Mr. Chairman, and the other one of whom he's not so intimately aware.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Yes and no. But I want to tell you, through you, Mr. Chairman, that Ottawa will only pay a fair share of the money to be spent in British Columbia when there is some tough bargaining. We've just lost a share of that market of building those cars. I'm not blaming you, Mr. Premier - you told us in the House that you raised the matter with them - but I would hope that today at supper time, before we go on with the next 20 days of your estimates, you could send a wire down to Ottawa and say how disappointed you are.

It's obvious that the award was made on a regional basis; it's obvious that the pressure came politically from the Maritimes in a heavier way. I thought Railwest was most modest in its request. It was only asking for 300 of the cars in terms of one of the bids according to the press reports I have, and I doubt very much if the costs were out very much from Hawker Siddeley's costs. It's proven now that in spite of the freight barriers, Railwest here in British Columbia is able to build cabooses and other cars at a relatively equal cost. So I find it very, very disappointing.

Mr. Premier, I would hope that you would send a wire to Ottawa. You've got friends like.... Well, maybe you shouldn't refer to the former federal minister over there. I don't know if he's got any drag with them any more; he never had when he was in there.

HON. MR. DAVIS: Things change!

MR. BARRETT: Things change! So does your position on oil pipelines. When you were a federal Minister of Environment, you were different than you were on radio this morning. But, Mr. Chairman, we'll discuss that in his estimates.

I recall a conversation in my office where he used to do the belly flop and the swan dive on the pipeline. But now that you're no longer the federal Minister of Environment, you're in favour of the pipeline that you wouldn't take a stand on when you were there.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: I don't want history to catch up with you too soon.

Mr. Chairman, the next question of concern I have is the very serious statement made by a major executive of the CPR concerning coal development. It's obvious to all of the people of this province that the province has made a commitment to one major dash to the wire with a coal project. It's raised the ire of the Liberal member (Mr. Gibson) , whom I understand is away today visiting Mr. Carter. Mr. Trudeau has kindly accepted to accompany Mr. Gibson.

We understand that in the member for North Vancouver-Capilano's criticisms he give a financial analysis that every ton of coal would have to be subsidized by $5 a ton. While the evidence is out on that since we have no figures from the government at all, we find that Mr. Smith, who is a senior regional vice-president of CP Rail, told a Vancouver Seminar of the B.C. Employers Council that there's no need to go ahead with that project. Now what does Mr. Smith know and what does the member for North Vancouver-Capilano, know that you're not willing to tell the public? When you were asked questions about the "coal bonanza, " you said that the economy had turned the corner and that it was a bonanza for the people. You said you felt that you were going to get the money, and then when a reporter asked you how much money it was, you said you didn't want to suggest a cost because it might frighten the people.

Mr. Chairman, as the evidence now comes in from the very serious questions raised by the Liberal member and the very serious attack given by Mr. Les Smith, do they know something we don't know? I think it's important that we have those figures before this House be asked to give a decision on that one major investment. Why is Smith alarming private investors in Vancouver with his comments? Surely to goodness you wouldn't say it was because of the CPR's vested interest. Would you say a thing like

[ Page 1106 ]

that, through you, Mr. Chairman? Why is Mr. Gibson suggesting that it be a $5-a-ton subsidy?

The only way to put these matters to rest is for you, the Premier, to come clean and tell us exactly how much money you expect the taxpayer or this government to subsidize that project by. How much money are you talking about that will "frighten people"? How can the community accept the growing argument that's obviously going to take place from different interests unless we have those figures? I ask the Premier to stand up and tell us what the preliminary figures now are on the costs of mining that coal, both underground and open pit, the cost of shipping it through Prince Rupert and any other related costs in terms of the time of actually getting on the drawing board to the delivery of the first ton of coal. I'd like to know those figures.

Mr. Chairman, is the Premier's silence going to indicate that Mr. Smith and the member for North Vancouver-Capilano are correct?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'll cover it later.

MR. BARRETT: You'll cover it later. Well, I don't mind being frightened now. You say the figures are frightening....

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Premier, you are very skilled at turning away people's attention from information. You're asking the people of this province to pay a great deal of money for ferry rates, and you fly over the ferries and you can see they're half crowded when you go over. Mr. Premier, you asked them to pay an increase in their income tax, and then you make sure that that buffer will assist the millionaires by removing taxation from succession duty. You know how much all those things cost. You up the sales tax by 2 points - by 40 per cent. You know exactly what those figures are.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please address the Chair.

MR. BARRETT: Through you, Mr. Chairman, the last notice I had was that the Premier was still chairman of the Treasury Board or still on the Treasury Board. Mr. Chairman, the most up-to-date economic figures are given to the Treasury Board, as I understand, through you, Mr. Chairman. We are now weeks behind, and I hate to use that.... Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, not weeks - we are months or days behind. It's a verboten word today - "weeks." So we'll say days and months behind.

In the latest quarterly economic review that we were promised.... Do you remember that, Mr. Chairman? Oh, yes, I remember that. I hate to bring it up again, but we were promised a quarterly financial statement. I know that many people in the Fraser Valley are losing sleep tonight over those two important issues that the Premier brought up: patriation of the constitution and the quarterly financial report.

. Where is the quarterly financial report? You know, we have all these figures of how much it costs the ordinary citizen to get squeezed by this bottom-line government and you can't tell us today how much money is involved in succession duties. You won't tell us that because that protects the millionaires, through you, Mr. Chairman. And that excludes the chairman too.

One of the few non-millionaires in the group is the chairman of this committee meeting. I am glad that he can be impartial in this discussion.

AN HON. MEMBER: How do you know he's not a millionaire?

MR. BARRETT: Well, he's aspiring, Mr. Member. He hasn't made it yet.

AN HON. MEMBER: Horatio Alger.

MR. BARRETT: Well, he's got the black suit.

MR. CHAIRMAN: On vote 18, please.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, the competition and the odds diminish in that group over there, for the millionaires, Mr. Chairman, know all the answers. For the ordinary people it's: "Sock it to them." I've asked you to simply tell us how much it's going to cost. What are these figures that would frighten the people? Do they even frighten millionaires, through you, Mr. Chairman?

We need this information in the committee. We need this information to decide whether the government is going on the right course. Mr. Smith is saying there is no need. Now we need to know. I ask the Premier before the day is over to give us the exact figures that he has on the Sukunka project.

The other thing that I want to ask before I sit down, Mr. Chairman, is: if the project is feasible, and if the Premier is suggesting that the taxpayers put up that large subsidy, who does he not consider equity rather than a straight giveaway? Or is the project such a shaky one that a giveaway has to be given with no thought of equity? Now we need those figures and I'd like them.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I am surprised that the Premier is not answering. Every day in question period he seems anxious to get in on every discussion and exchange that's going on in the House. Now we have his estimates before the House, where he has an opportunity to account for the government's conduct

[ Page 1107 ]

over the past year, and he seems singularly reluctant to answer questions and provide the House with information.

I want to get on a bit of a different line. Perhaps the Premier can respond to both the Leader of the Opposition and myself at the conclusion. I notice in the Premier's opening statement, Mr. Chairman, that he dealt with the reorganization of cabinet and the various functions that have been transferred from one ministry to another. A number of things intrigue me regarding this rearrangement of cabinet function. Going over the office vote of the Premier's estimates, I find an increase of somewhere in the neighbourhood of $100,000. Some of those specific increases are rather interesting. I would just like the Premier to comment on the need for such rather spectacular increases.

The one that strikes me most forcibly is the executive council administration increase of $75,000. I know that the executive council was expanded part way through the year, but that still seems like a very significant and dramatic increase. There resides under the Premier's own office a number of functions and salaries which 1 would like him to comment on and explain, if he would be so kind.

One is an executive director to the Premier at a salary of $36,432. That is an increase of some $4,000 over the $32,000 paid for that position last year. 1 wonder if the Premier feels that that is within the general guidelines of the Anti-Inflation Board of Canada and within the guidelines that this government has extended to all the employees in the public sector in the province of B.C.

We then have an administrative officer at $19,500, and we have two administrative assistants with a total salary of $32,000. Administrative assistants -$18,780. A research officer - $24,000. 1 don't know what happened to the press secretary - whether that was combined with some other office or not. Surely the Premier still keeps a press secretary after the development of the big amphitheatre in which he presides frequently.

Just in general terms I would appreciate the Premier giving a more precise breakdown not only on the justification for those salary increases but on precisely what these people do. Who are they and what do they do? 1 don't know who the Premier's executive director is. 1 don't know who his administrative officer is. 1 don't know who his administrative assistant is. I would like to know who these people are and what their functions are. Should 1 be in touch with them to discuss matters pertaining to my riding? Are they there just for political assistance to the Premier or are they there to serve some function in terms of providing a service to this Legislature and to the province?

I'm kind of curious about all of these things because reorganization was rather a hot issue in the last session of this House. We in the opposition were concerned with the manner in which it was undertaken. Now we see figures being juggled around, allegedly to accommodate some variation in functions. But I wonder how meaningful it is, Mr. Chairman, when you get off the phone, when I find what appears to be a greater centralization of authority in this Legislature. It seems to me that these new ministries have diminished the real authority of cabinet ministers, particularly some, and I would like the Premier to explain what the intention and direction of the government is in this regard.

Now a few weeks back - I think it was on January 27 - a blessed event or something took place over at the Empress Hotel - a $1 00-a-plate dinner at which the Premier spoke. They commented on a number of things at that function, presumably, as well as raising money. I don't know whether that was to help out the treasury of the province or just the Social Credit Party.

The Premier responded to a variety of questions while in attendance at that function. He had a good deal to say about the realm of industrial relations in the province. He indicated that he felt it was most unfair that workers should be allowed to take other jobs and earn money while they were engaged in a strike. He indicated, as I recall it - if not on that occasion then certainly on a previous one - that there would have to be developed in this province a mechanism for the final resolution of all disputes. So it seems to me that the Premier is moving into a situation where he is going to assume most of the policy responsibilities for the Department of Labour.

I want to know whether this is true of other departments, whether he perceives the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) as a weak one and one on whose behalf he has to issue policy statements. Does it indicate that there is some basic dispute between the Minister of Labour and the Premier over what the policy should be? I find it rather curious that the Premier of the province goes around making policy statements on behalf of any of his cabinet colleagues, which the Minister of Labour then feels called upon to repudiate. And that has happened on a few occasions over the past year.

MR. BARRETT: He wants to get in before Vander Zalm does.

MR. KING: Well, perhaps that's it. I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, that this is a new kind of organization that I'm not familiar with. I would like the Premier to explain it to me.

I wonder what he has in mind when he talks about preventing working people who are engaged in a strike from working at other jobs. Quite frankly, I expect that most of those involved in a strike

[ Page 1108 ]

situation now and seeking other employment would have a pretty difficult time finding it in any event. When we have 112,000 British Columbians unemployed, I don't really think it's a burning issue to worry whether someone who is engaged in a strike or a work stoppage may find an alternative occupation.

I wonder how the Premier would handle the situation where someone involved in a strike decided that he was quitting that job and didn't want to go back to it, and as a consequence went out and found another job, another vocation. Would he prevent him from doing that? How would he determine what that man's intentions were? Since he is making policy statements on behalf of the Minister of Labour, perhaps he would like to explain this to the House.

Conversely, Mr. Chairman, I am curious as to whether or not the Premier would apply the same yardstick to employers. Would he say to employers who lock their employees out in a labour dispute that they are not entitled to make any profit by any other undertaking that they happen to have under their control? Does he believe in applying an equal yardstick to working people and employers too, or is he simply out to diminish and weaken the economic strength of working people who happen to find themselves in a strike situation?

The danger of getting into policy discussions on these other areas, Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Chairman, is that if you are serious and if you expect to be responsible and accountable, you should be prepared to come in here and justify those positions. You do precious little of that.

It seems that the Premier at times has a hyperactive larynx. He likes to hear himself speak and wander into various other areas of jurisdiction without perhaps thinking it out too well and too clearly. But in light of the cabinet reorganization and in light of the frequent incursions, particularly into the Minister of Labour's realm, I want to know what it's all about. Is he considering a cabinet shuffle? Perhaps he has the member for Fort George (Mr. Lloyd) in mind as a replacement for the Minister of Labour; perhaps he's going to take on a dual portfolio himself; perhaps he just really lacks confidence in the present Minister of Labour. If this is the thrust that we're to take from the Premier's comments, fine. He should explain that to the House. But if there is substance to the policy suggestions which the Premier is enunciating, then certainly I think the legislature should hear about those directions and those initiatives that the Premier is planning.

One of the other reasons, Mr. Chairman, that I'm perhaps more concerned about this is that it's not just an offhand comment by the Premier on an occasion. I have f found over the last six months the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) has made similar policy statements regarding the Department of Labour; the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) has made policy statements on behalf of the Minister of Labour; the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) has done so, as well as the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) - Lord knows he has enough trouble trying to tun his own department and keep it afloat without worrying too much about the Minister of Labour, unless the Premier is calling upon other people in the cabinet to take some responsibility in this area. So I want to know what all this cabinet reorganization is about. It looks quite sinister to me.

Quite frankly, I felt sorry for the Minister of Labour. I know something about that position and I know that he has a difficult time on his hands. But, Mr. Member for Vancouver East, my colleague, I would say to you that I know that you had far too much respect for me to ever issue a policy statement on behalf of the Labour department when I was visiting in Great Britain, as happened to the current Minister of Labour. Then he had to come back and try to undo the rumour mill that had been started by his cabinet colleagues - threatening gestures towards labour.

I say to the Premier, Mr. Chairman, that if you want to be the leader of this government, you have an obligation and a responsibility to develop trust and some stability in the whole realm of British Columbia's affairs. Certainly that includes industrial relations.

We are facing this year an unprecedented year in terms of collective bargaining - the largest year ever. I find the Premier not only intruding into the policy realm of the Department of Labour, but at his $100-a-plate dinner he was advocating that all contracts should be for only one year. "Only for one year, " he said. He was certainly quoted that way. It says here: "Unions and management must show restraint in bargaining in the coming year and should avoid only one-year contracts which won't provide the necessary stability for the province."

Interjection.

MR. KING: I beg your pardon. That's right - he was recommending the avoidance of one-year contracts. I'm sorry; I beg your pardon on that.

That's irrelevant; that's not the point. The point is that the length of contracts is negotiated by the two parties. Here is the Premier telling the parties what the guidelines should be for negotiations. Now, Mr. Chairman, when an impasse occurs at the bargaining table this year - if it does - and a strike ensues, and the issue is whether it should be a one-year or two-year contract, and management takes the position that, "look, we're not going to sign a one-year contract because the Premier of the province has said one-year contracts should be avoided, " what

[ Page 1109 ]

will the position of the government be then?

The Premier has intruded. He has set up a condition for a major clash between industry and labour this year over and above the guidelines that have already been imposed by the Anti-Inflation Board. This is like waving a red flag at a bull, Mr. Chairman. I say to you that it's absolutely irresponsible for the Premier to intrude in that way into an area where he apparently has little knowledge anyway.

Perhaps that's his problem, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps he likes to make generalized statements because he lacks very much expertise in any particular area. But I can tell you that this spells trouble on the industrial relations scene this year. He has taken a position. He is the Premier of this province, and he has said to industry: "You should avoid any contract that is only for one year."

On the other hand, the trade union people of this province are in the position, Mr. Chairman, where they see signs that the anti-inflation programme may end this current year. Certainly there have been hints by the federal Minister of Finance that the anti-inflation programme may be terminated, so they are very, very reluctant to sign a contract for more than one year and lock themselves into guidelines that may be applicable now and absolutely ineffective six months hence.

So I say that it's unfair and it's irresponsible of the Premier to take these positions, particularly when he has a Minister of Labour who is responsible, who is paid, and who has a capable department and capable advisers to allow him to run the industrial relations affairs of this province. I think the Premier has an obligation to tell this House why he continually intrudes. I Is he deliberately trying to create a confrontation? Does he simply lack confidence in his Minister of Labour, or is it just ignorance of the circumstances surrounding collective bargaining in the province of British Columbia? I would ask the Premier to provide this House with the rationale for his very, very unfortunate moves over the past few months.

MR. LAUK: It's unfortunate that the Premier will not rise in his place and answer the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Revelstoke-Slocan. I hope he's making copious notes.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Drinking water. I know that's a unique situation for you, but it's water.

Mr. Chairman, I did notice during these estimates - and I'm sorry I didn't notice before - that there's a telephone on your desk. My colleagues inform me that there's a telephone at the Speaker's chair. I'm surprised that these phones were installed without approval of the House, but I think it's a good idea. Why be unfair to the Speaker and the Chairman? They don't have the same opportunity to call their stockbrokers as the other members of the Socred benches have. (Laughter.) The Premier can slip out, and other members of the benches can slip out but, Mr. Chairman, now you've got the opportunity and I wish you well.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

MR. LAUK: Say hello to Arthur for me.

MR. Chairman, it puzzles me about the Premier. I was unavoidably away from the capital last week and I saw a press report that startled me, because we're all honourable ladies and gentlemen of this chamber. It said in the press report, Victoria Colon~t, Mr. Paul Bennett, February 16,1977: "Although Lauk was absent from the House throughout Bennett's speech, his absence did not deter the Premier from a sustained attack."

MR. BARRETT: Well, he had it memorized.

MR. KING: He was programmed.

MR. LAUK: I wonder if anyone informed the Premier that when there is a sustained attack on any one member in this House, either on his role as an MLA or a personal, vicious attack, such as characterizes the speeches of this First Minister, it's dishonourable, as a matter of fact, to do so when that member is unavoidably absent from the House.

MR. BARRETT: Hear, hear!

MR. KEMPF: Where were you - checking your files?

MR. LAUK: And then, as I sit today and I hear that he's even afraid to have a face-to-face confrontation with his Minister of Labour, I begin to understand the psychology. He waited until the Minister of Labour had gone out of town to Britain and then he opens up. Don't be afraid of face-to-face confrontations, through you, Mr. Chairman, to the Premier.

MR. BARRETT: Where is the cabinet today?

MR. LAUK: There are two sword lengths between us. Get up and say your piece while I'm here. Give me an opportunity to respond. Now I'm going to have to do it today, because I was intending to raise a question of privilege and then I think Gordon Dowding advised me that would be extreme. So I'm not going to do that. He was a distinguished Speaker whose decisions are now quoted back to us' on a

[ Page 1110 ]

frequent basis. (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: And now to vote 18, Mr. Member.

MR. LAUK: Well, among other things, the Premier said that I attacked a civil servant named Norm Worsley and the hon. House Leader of the opposition (Mr. King) , the member for Revelstoke-Slocan, straightened him out on that. I hired Mr. Worsley. He's a good man. He's an excellent civil servant, but should he have to go and do the bid and call of someone sitting on the board by virtue of the fact that that someone is sitting on a board of a Crown corporation? I'm not attacking Mr. Worsley. I'm attacking a conflict-of-interest situation.

The Premier again is afraid of a face-to-face contact here. He's turning his back - not on me, but on the people of this province. He keeps on saying: "You're just upset because you've lost the election. You're just attacking the people who voted you out in 1975." Well, this kind of arrogant behaviour, Mr. Chairman, cannot go on forever. He has to answer some of these serious charges that have been levelled against him and his ministers.

I didn't attack Mr. Worsley, and I certainly want to put that clear on the Hansard record. Mr. Worsley is an excellent civil servant. I was attacking the conflict-of-interest situation and I attacked the previous - I should say hopefully the previous -Minister of Economic Development. He is the present minister, soon to be previous. I was pointing out for all to see the conflict-of-interest situations that were allowed to establish themselves under the tutelage of that minister. I pointed out half a dozen or more, and the last day I wasn't present in this House, the Premier said that I was afraid to make those statements outside the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. LAUK: The very thing that he pointed out as an example - the Norm Worsley incident, where he was used, I say, in a conflict-of-interest situation - I stated out in the hall. All the conflict -of-interest charges that I've made in this chamber had been stated out in the hall. If the Premier is not satisfied with that, and if he wishes, I'll go on television with him and we'll discuss the conflict-of-interest charges. We'll both be out of the chamber, Mr. Chairman, and not protected by parliamentary privilege.

MR. BARRETT: Do you go with make-up or without?

MR. LAUK: I'll go without make-up; the Premier can have Dan Campbell make him up. I have no objection to that. If you want to speak out on public television, or out in the corridor and have a debate, or at the University of Victoria about these conflict-o f-in t crest charges, I'd be glad to do that on behalf of the people of British Columbia.

You see, it's so easy to make those charges and take those high-flyers in this House that the Premier does from time to time, especially when you're absent from the capital when you're the subject of the attack. But I want to talk specifically and from time to time in the estimates of every minister, and particularly the First Minister of the province.... You discuss credibility in office, and 1 want to talk about the credibility of the Premier.

MR. KING: What credibility?

MR. LAUK: The credibility of the Premier over the past year, and, indeed, over the past year- and-a-half .

The Premier's position must be very shaky since he relies so heavily on what 1 would call "half truths." In other words, he states half the truth to bolster his arguments. Every member of this House, Mr. Chairman, must talk in total truths.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, may 1 just caution you that any statement that would impugn the character of any other member of this House is an offence to the whole House. Although perhaps in your opinion you might be speaking about the better half, 1 must ask you to....

MR. LAUK: I know it's difficult to find.

MR. CHAIRMAN: 1 would have called you, but 1 noticed you don't have a phone.

You will withdraw.

MR. LAUK: 1 withdraw that. Certainly I don't want to impugn, as you put it - never!

Mr. Chairman, the Premier of this province stated last week.... This is the way he uses "selective information" - how is that? He carefully selects that portion of the information that will support a good story. It reminds me of a rather well-known Vancouver columnist who once told me that he never bothers researching his facts because it might interfere with a good story. Well, perhaps we should apply that philosophy to the Premier of this province.

His latest example was last Tuesday on his return from Ottawa, and I quote from Hansard He was attacking me - when I wasn't in the chamber. He said:

The most alarming statistic of all for which that administration and that former minister, who has made these unfounded charges many times in this House this year, will be remembered is that between 1972 and

1975 British Columbia's share of the world trade or

[ Page 1111 ]

export market has dropped from 0.711 per cent to just

0.467 per cent. That's a one-third drop during the term of office of that former government and that member.

Well, the Premier neglected to mention, Mr. Chairman - and this is a sort of a culmination of a long series of this selected use of information - that those were the years when the entire world export picture was turned topsy-turvy by the OPEC countries' action in trebling all prices virtually overnight. It wasn't just B.C.'s share of world exports that was affected. All the rankings changed substantially as the OPEC impact created an entirely new world export equation and the world went through one of its most serious recessions during that period. For instance, Canada's share of world exports declined rapidly through those years too. Let me refer to that.

The thirteenth annual review by the Economic Council of Canada revealed that Canada's share of world exports to all countries dropped from 5.1 per cent in 1972 to 3.9 per cent in the first half of 1975. 1 wonder why he didn't quote those figures. He was attacking me as a "disaster as a minister" because of these figures. He relied on those figures. Now I may have been a disaster in the opinion of the Premier, but he could use the facts, or the facts that he thinks exist to support that not-amiss statement, or a selective use of the facts to create a wrong impression.

MR. BARRETT: Shame!

MR. LAUK: I think that's shameful. That should not be done in this chamber and by the First Minister of the Crown.

MR. BARRETT: Especially when you're not here!

MR. LAUK: I wasn't here.

MR. BARRETT: He's scared to do it when you're around.

MR. KING: If we hadn't introduced Hansard you never would have known.

MR. LAUK: That's correct.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. The first member for Vancouver Centre, please proceed.

MR. LAUK: My colleagues didn't tell me until today, they were so embarrassed for the First Minister of the Crown.

MR. BARRETT: We didn't want to tell you.

MR. LAUK: The "B.C. Summary of Economic Activity, " Mr. Chairman.... I want the Premier to listen to this. If he did less talking to the Chairman and cross-comment and more listening to me, he'd learn something. The "B.C. Summary of Economic Activity" - which is from the Minister of Economic Development's department and of which he's virtually out of control - which the Premier's own government published last year, proved the point that he was resorting, as is his wont, to a selected use of the facts last Tuesday. The document by this government showed that between 1972 and 1975 the value of exports through B.C. to the outside world rose from $3.2 billion to $6.4 billion, actually doubling in value during the three years of New Democratic Party administration, despite the dislocations of a severe world recession that began in 1974.

MR. BARRETT: Why didn't you use that? You published it.

MR. LAUK: To remind the Premier that that accomplishment came during a difficult period, I quote again from his government's document: "World-wide inflation and recession, with accompanying balance of payment problems, dominated international trade in 1975. Rising oil prices continued to be the major contributing factor."

Now is the record clear? Face to face? But this Premier, whose government has managed to turn around the economic benefits of this province, should be receiving some recovery from the present world-wide recovery. He's managed to turn around any expectation of that.

He didn't mention any of those facts because he didn't want anyone to compare the full context of our achievements as opposed to his failures.

Last Tuesday's little game with the facts is only the latest in a long series in which this Premier has played, particularly with the public. You remember the election campaign? I wonder how many people in the province remember the Premier's use of selective.... Yes, we'll lay a wreath to that campaign next week. There's an ad: "100,000 People out of Work."

MR. BARRETT: Yes.

MR. LAUK: The Leader of the Opposition holds up the ad: "100,000 People out of Work." "The unemployment figures for December, 1975, " says the then Leader of the Opposition, the now First Minister of the province who attacked me when I wasn't here last week.... I have a feeling he's regretting it right now.

[ Page 1112 ]

MR. BARRETT: Give him a chance to apologize.

MR. LAUK: No. He won't do it again. He said 100,000 people, Mr. Chairman, were unemployed. There were 80,000. When this was brought to his attention.... Well, are you happy there were 80,000? Of course not!,

MR. BARRETT: Say anything, do anything.

MR. LAUK: Say anything, do anything, indeed, Mr. Chairman. And he put it in the form of an ad, personally from "your friend, Bill."

And what about the telegram incident? What role did Arthur "Leaks" Weeks have in the stolen-telegram incident? Would the future Premier of the province deal in stolen property?

MR. BARRETT: Certainly.

MR. LAUK: Of course. Any day of the week. As long as he can get a front-page headline. Anything for a front-page headline. Not I'm not suggesting which way the hon. Premier came into possession of the telegram, but it was certainly pointed out to him soon after that it was stolen. That was a fact.

MR. BARRETT: He burned his fingers on the edge of it.

MR. LAUK: Somebody should have another ad someplace around here. We keep them. We keep these ads because we remember. Social democrats have long memories, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Premier. We don't forget. We forgive. And we forgive you, through you, Mr. Chairman. We forgive the Premier for his selected use of information. He told the senior citizens that Mincome would not be wiped out. That was the first act of the new Legislature! He brought in GAIN - equals LOSS - to the people of British Columbia who are over 65. The New Democratic Party is on record in this province for supporting people who are over 65, who deserve to live in dignity in this province, who have worked hard to raise their families. They don't run off to Hawaii and buy yachts with Mincome.

While the Premier, who is politically interfering with the BCR board to make settlements on MEL and other such contracts to protect his image, is shovelling money out of the back of a truck by the millions, his Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) is cutting $1.23 and $2.60 from disabled people on pensions. That's the contrast in philosophy.

MR. CHAIRMAN: This same speech was made under the estimates of the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) , and perhaps we should move to vote 18.

MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I will. I'm speaking about the credibility of the First Minister of this province and I am trying to demonstrate that through the election campaign he used selective facts. Last week when he attacked me when I was not in this chamber, he used selective facts. That's not fair, and what the man should do is be straightforward and honest with the public and with the people in this chamber.

MR. BARRETT: Right. At all times.

MR. LAUK: On the lighter side of the news, Mr. Chairman - and this sort of sets up the pattern which is rather disturbing to the people of British Columbia - he was asked by the press once on the question of whether he wears seatbelts. He says: "Yes, when the car is equipped with them." When questioned by reporters on whether he was wearing a seatbelt in the car he had just stepped out of, he replied without a moment's thought: "No, I wasn't. The car didn't have seatbelts." Close up. When the reporters looked inside the car, there were seatbelts front and rear.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, those fibbing cameras.

MR. LAUK: It's pretty hard. The camera's eye, they always say, Mr. Chairman. Oh, a slight embarrassment.

But then we go on - and this is while he is First Minister - to the Norman Sharpe affair. The Premier was questioned whether or not he had a driver. No, he said. On checking we found that Norman Sharpe was listed as an administrative assistant for the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) in an order-in-council. We checked with security staff, and when they were questioned, they said with no hesitation that Mr. Sharpe was the Premier's driver.

HON. J.R. CHABOT (Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources): Where did you get that old speech?

MR. LAUK: I just want to keep those on the record. The Bible has been written for many, many years - 5,000 years - and people still read it, Mr. Chairman. It makes good reading.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: It's 5,800 years to be exact. That's the Old Testament; the New Testament is a little younger. But it still makes good reading, Mr. Chairman. It has the truth in there. Let's put it on the record in Hansard, Mr. Chairman; let's keep reminding the people. If it was one slip or two slips,

[ Page 1113 ]

it's probably not a problem. But let's go on; let's see the saga of credibility involving the First Minister of this province.

In October, 1976, at the Social Credit convention - and I wasn't invited - the Premier waved a piece of paper around, saying it was the NDP budget for 1975-76 and it was brought in for $4.8 billion. He said that in front of the whole province of British Columbia. Later, on questioning, the Premier admitted it was nothing more than the departmental requests made to Treasury Board. I'd like to see those requests last year of his Treasury Board - probably $8 billion or $9 billion. Do you call that a Social Credit budget? This is the selective use of information by the First Minister of the Crown. It's absolutely shocking. So is it little wonder that he would attack me in my absence in this chamber - a person who would select information and use it in that manner?

A Thanksgiving Day speech - the Highways budget. Remember that? Another selective use of information.

MR. BARRETT: Forty million dollars.

MR. LAUK: Forty million dollars. Jobs, extra jobs in the Highways department. A cursory investigation by the press revealed that it was a total puff of wind.

MR. BARRETT: They put $1,000 worth of make-up on it.

MR. LAUK: What utter nonsense! What utter nonsense! I am surprised that kind of thing goes on. It is little wonder why the Premier has become so notorious with this selective use of information. Oh, look, it's no problem. Next day, smile and go on to something else. Talk about Confederation and the Senate. We can always avoid confronting the truth when it happens to meet us unhappily in a narrow path.

But the people of this province will not forget the worst example he showed at the beginning of this month. He said in this House when he was asked if there was a blacklist that came from his office and forwarded to other minister: "Absolutely not." When it was proven that such a blacklist was forwarded from his office, what does he say? "It wasn't a blacklist. But in any event, I'm ordering an in-house inquiry to find out who leaked the blacklist." So here we have an in-house inquiry looking for a non-existent blacklist. Now how much can a man's credibility withstand?

MR. W. DAVIDSON (Delta): You should know.

MR. LAUK: I'm finding out. The First Minister of this province - that's what he said:

Supplementary to the Premier: has anyone in your office ever forwarded a blacklist of names of public servants to any minister, identifying them by their political sympathies?

Answer: "Absolutely not."

AN HON. MEMBER: Would you fire him if you found out?

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, what does "absolutely" mean? Do we have a dictionary in the House? Or did his father not tell him: "There are no such things as absolutes, my son."? But he said: "Absolutely not."

AN HON. MEMBER: That means no seatbelts in the back seat of the car.

MR. LAUK: That means no seatbelts. That means 100,000 unemployed, that we won't take away Mincome, that the NDP budget would have been $4.8 billion. That's what it means. That's what it all means.

Twenty-four hours later, when it was obvious that a list with political identifications did go out of his office, what did the Premier say? Did he say, like he should have said: "Well, I didn't know that, and I will look into the matter to find out if, or why, or how such a list was sent from my office."

He didn't say that. You know what he said? "Well, that's not a blacklist." That's not a straightforward answer. I don't think the Premier reacted the way a straightforward man should react. His immediate answer was to order an inquiry not into whether the blacklist was issued or how it was issued or why but as to who leaked it. He set up a plumbers unit immediately to trace and plug the leak.

MR. KING: He'll set up a KGB.

MR. LAUK: I wonder whether that squad is hunting for the culprits or culprit who leaked the blacklist.

Well, I could go on ... and I will. You know, Mr. Chairman, it is interesting to look at the credibility of the responses that the Premier has made both just prior to the last election and up to this date as Premier with respect to the MEL Paving case. He has made much of no politics and no interference in Crown corporations. He was vocal when in opposition, accusing us of interfering with the BCR.

We finally pinned him down in question period on February 16 of this year on his interference in the British Columbia Railway. He admitted he met with Charles Maclean, counsel in the MEL trial to discuss - how is this for a seatbelt answer? -"administration of the BCR" with the counsel whose sole responsibility is the MEL Paving case. Unlikely, but on the face of it - no seatbelts. (Laughter.)

[ Page 1114 ]

He also admitted he met with other names. Who? He said he met with "other names" on the same subject. All of them were given the opportunity, says the Premier, to give this advice to the Premier's office, and some of them also were in consultation with the minister responsible, whomever they may be. Who were the other names he met with? Why did all of them meet with him and only some of them with the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) ? Because he was acting over the minister's head?

He admits that "One of the items we discussed at all of the meetings I was at was not only directors but restructuring the management."

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. LAUK: Direct intervention in the day-to-day management of the railway. How many meetings did the Premier have? Who were they? It appears that all of these meetings took place before new directors were appointed.

During the same question period, Mr. Chairman, the Premier was asked if they discussed the case when he was meeting with Charles Maclean, the counsel in the MEL Paving case. The Premier's answer on February 16: "Not that I can recall. I don't remember discussing it with him, but he may have passed his opinion to me."

AN HON. MEMBER: He sure did.

MR. LAUK: It is inconceivable, Mr. Chairman, that he met with Charles Maclean, whose sole duty it was to take the MEL trial, and did not discuss the major railway issue. Maclean has made several statements to the effect that his opinion on MEL was ignored. The Premier obviously did discuss Maclean's opinion. Exactly how much MEL was discussed and the opinion Maclean gave are important questions to be heard in this chamber, Mr. Chairman.

Maclean has said his opinion was that MEL should not have been settled out of court. Is that the opinion that he gave to the Premier? And did he discuss the MEL Paving case with anyone else? Did he discuss it with other people?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your time is drawing to a close, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: Don't sound so relieved, Mr. Chairman. (Laughter.)

The history of the credibility of the Premier is unfortunate. I do hope for the sake of the province -not for his political party, of course, but for the sake of the province - that he realizes that coming clean with the public of this province is the most appropriate way to be First Minister. Little things only get you into a lot of trouble. So tell the truth. That's important, and don't attack me when I'm not in the chamber.

MR. G. MUSSALLEM (Dewdney): It's a great pleasure to stand in my place after the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre. But as his scoutmaster, I want to tell him that he has just now failed his life-and-religion badge, and this time permanently ...

AN HON. MEMBER: Withdraw! (Laughter.)

MR. MUSSALLEM: ... and I won't allow him another examination for some considerable time.

MR. BARRETT: How about his speech badge?

MR. MUSSALLEM: The Bible was written 1,500 or 1,800 years ago - I'd like to get a little evidence of that, at your pleasure. But I'm so pleased to be here to hear these remarks of the opposition. I'd like to say now, and I think that every member of this House will agree, that in a time of crisis in the British system of parliament, somebody always comes up with what is needed at the time. If ever there was a time of crisis in the history of British Columbia, it was in this last election that we had when this government was returned to power. If ever there was a time of crisis it was fortunate that we had a man, such as the Premier that we have, who followed his illustrious father, whom I have often called Canada's greatest Canadian. That is the point: I think we are honoured today, and I hope that is recognized.

But I stand in my place for a special purpose. These words we hear spoken today are very ethereal, very general-like, without substance, But I've come to appeal to the Premier on something much more important than all this talk. In our great Fraser Valley we have a town that has suffered a great deal-and most of it at the hands of government, strange to say. Both the hands of God and the hands of government have mitigated against a beautiful centre, the town of Mission.

Interjection.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Their MLA's a great MLA, too. I say that without question. The failure of this town, if I may bring it to the attention of the Premier, occurred by an act of God in 1948, when the great Fraser River flood struck down the Fraser Valley, and particularly the city of Mission. Mission never recovered from that flood and the reason it never recovered was because.... There were several reasons. The old Mission bridge fell into the Fraser River. The trading pattern that usually flowed into Mission suddenly changed its course and flowed

[ Page 1115 ]

towards Abbotsford. That's bad enough, but subsequent to that the government took over the B.C. Electric Railway and the B.C. Electric power generation system and a great tax base resource disappeared. Half of Mission's tax base disappeared with that takeover and it has never received anything of any consequence in lieu of that.

If that was not bad enough, the coal trains from the East Kootenays, which were a great asset to British Columbia, came as far as Mission and crossed the Mission Bridge, which by now had been repaired. Here is a situation. That was a great thing for British Columbia and it is still a great thing for British Columbia. But what happened to the city of Mission? That long coal train would come into that town twice a day, split the town in two and tic it up completely and totally. The town is now dying. This is the process that took over this city.

In due course the new Mission Bridge was constructed. Now anyone would think that a new Mission Bridge would help the city of Mission, but not so. There was already a pattern of trade to Abbotsford to the south, and it was followed in greater force as the business of Mission flowed out by the new bridge into Abbotsford and surrounding areas. The disaster mounted, until today that fine centre finds itself without a tax base. I must appeal to the government as this is a crisis now. The crisis is this town, without a tax base, growing rapidly with homes, people flooding into the town from the urban areas, people requiring services that the town cannot afford. The town badly needs industry.

A further blow happened when the previous government took out 300 acres of their best land. Taxable land was taken over for a housing development that never developed. Of course it never developed. Another blow. Now there is a chance to rectify some of this now. This is the suggestion I make: the Fraser Valley College needs a new campus. I appeal to the government - not only to the minister involved, but to the government as a whole - to take a stance now and see that this college is established in Mission on 25 of the 300 acres of land they took during the last government. This would be a great asset to the city of Mission. It's necessary and it's needed now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Hon. member, I'm waiting for you to relate this to the Premier's responsibility.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Chairman, there is nothing that is not the Premier's responsibility, not one solid thing. You know that. I said I do not appeal only to the minister, but I appeal to the government. The Premier is the head of the government. It is the responsibility of the government and there's the head of it. Now that's not a thin, veiled way. That's a direct way. I appeal, Mr. Chairman, to the government to take steps today - to take steps immediately - to give them some help.

There's another thing. A glass plant can come into Mission, but they need six acres of government land that is there. I appeal to the Premier to see to it that this is done immediately and without delay. We need to help Mission a great deal and we need to help now - not next year, not next month, not six months from now, but now.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I'm quite surprised that the First Minister has deigned to sit in his chair all afternoon without even so much as a by-your-leave or any sign of confirmation that there's an interrogation going on, which is the duty of the opposition. I have felt for some long time that B.C. is in a crisis, so I'm going to agree, for the first time in some long time, with the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) . B.C. is in a crisis, has been in a crisis ever since December 11,1975. It will continue to be in a crisis as long as the leadership....

HON. MR. CHABOT: The people were wrong? You're attacking the people now!

MR. COCKE: I'm attacking, through you, Mr. Chairman, to the Minister of Mines, who has suddenly become terribly defensive, an attitude toward leadership that has not been shown, yet was widely advertised during a period prior to an election and during an election campaign. Good business leadership was what we were told we were about to receive from the troops who were flogging the Social Credit philosophy at the time. Mr. Chairman, the kind of good business leadership that we got immediately the reins of power were handed over to the new government was one of increase prices, reduce the economic standards in the province as quickly as possible, and try to turn an element of blame - if not all of the blame - onto the former government.

I have an interesting letter before me, Mr. Chairman. It's a letter to a constituent by the Prime Minister of Canada. The Prime Minister is writing a letter justifying the AIB. He takes considerable trouble in this justification. He writes two and a half pages of information and, along with that, he sends a one-year review - a little booklet. Mr. Chairman, I think it's kind of interesting to see what the Prime Minister says about the success of the AIB. Let me read you just a little bit. He's talking about prices here, He says:

"When we announced controls in October, 1975, inflation was destroying the buying power of the Canadian dollar at the rate of more than 10 per cent per year. Our goal is to bring down the inflation rate gradually over a

[ Page 1116 ]

three-year period to no more than 4 per cent. Price increases, as measured by the consumer price index, began to fall after the start of the programme. By November, 1976, inflation was down to 5.6 per cent. We achieved our first-year target, which was 8 per cent."

[Mr. Veitch in the chair. ]

Mr. Chairman, let's just think about that as it applies in British Columbia. Under the leadership of the person who was going to bail British Columbia out of the difficulties that the entire western world happened to be enjoying, the leadership was as follows: in spite of the AIB, in spite of everybody calling for restraint, we saw this leadership provide increases across the board on virtually everything that the government had a hand in, except royalties to mining corporations, except in areas where the large corporate friends of the government were affected.

Mr. Chairman, the leadership that we have in this province took us down the path of increases that have put us in the position where even the Employers Council of British Columbia has some pretty black news to tell us. Those black lines indicate "poor, " as those of us who have read the summary know. Their feeling about the future is about the same as my feeling about the future: that it's relatively bleak as long as we have a government that does not understand its role. I suggest to you that the government will not understand its role until such time as the bottom-line thinking of the Premier and his Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) , and others of influence around him, begins to change and shift toward the kind of thinking that will provide some kind of improvement in the buying power and the economy of this province. Hollow to the people of British Columbia, these words, Mr. Chairman.

We see across the country prices being held down by other governments as best they can. I'm not suggesting I'm particularly sympathetic to a one-sided proposition such as the AIB happens to be, but I am suggesting it's more one-sided here because the government has not placed itself in a position where it's restricting its own price increases. That, Mr. Chairman, is a direct result of the leadership.

On we go, Mr. Chairman, to an area where the Prime Minister is talking about government restraint. That's amusing also, I suggest, coming from the federal government - they're talking about government restraint! Nonetheless, restraint is a one-sided affair in British Columbia. But the Prime Minister says the federal government is practising what it preaches: "To hold down spending, many programmes have been postponed, cut or cancelled. Wages of all federal employees are, of course, subject to guidelines. In addition, we have imposed tough limits on the rate of growth in the total number of public servants." He did not, in his letter to this constituent , suggest anything with respect to holding down the prices or holding down the burden of taxation on the constituents, and, of course, nor does this government under its current leadership.

Mr. Chairman, this is hollow indeed for the people in British Columbia who are suffering to a greater extent than people across the country, when you have it! given that we are basically one of the most prosperous areas in Canada and should never have been placed in a position where we have this intolerable number of unemployed, a number that has grown, a number that was to be improved by this new government because of its business attitude.

No, Mr. Chairman, it's leadership that is required, and unfortunately the member for Dewdney is all crossed up on his history. The member for Dewdney says that in a time of crisis we need leadership, and I agree with that member. I agree with that member because of the fact that the crisis has been created and certainly increased as a result of the actions of this government.

There are a great many other areas where leadership is required. Leadership is required among your colleagues in times of restraint. I heard the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) sitting beside the First Minister telling everyone in the province: "Restrain yourselves." But, you know, just a few seats down - within two seats of the First Minister, within three seats of the Minister of Finance - sits the Provincial Secretary and Minister of Travel Industry (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) . Let me show you the restraint of that minister so that the First Minister can see the kind of restraint that went on when she was introducing the new home of Tourism British Columbia. I wonder what the cost of this package might be, Mr. Chairman. There is a very expensive brochure that I'd like to bring to the attention of the Premier, an extremely expensive brochure printed on heavy, heavy stationery and widely distributed. It's very impressive indeed. There is a lovely engraved invitation and many expensive pieces of work contained in that brochure.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, perhaps this would be better brought up under the Minister of Travel Industry during her debate.

MR. COCKE: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I agree that it would be much better brought up under the Minister of Travel Industry, and I will certainly do so. But, Mr. Chairman, I'm positive you'll agree with me that the Premier, who has given a speech on restraint in this House, who has amplified that discussion in this House on a number of occasions, who is to provide leadership with respect to restraint, has permitted one of his ministers to come out with this kind of

[ Page 1117 ]

expensive - wasteful, in times of stress - publicity. He let another minister - just off the record -spend I don't know how many thousands of dollars advertising in the local newspapers to put forward his reasons for building a hospital where he is and trying to straighten out his fight with the medical association. You know, I don't want to amplify those things, but I am suggesting, Mr. Chairman, that we've been given all sorts of directions that this government seems to want to go in. Yet we've found that in practice the government doesn't go there at all. All they ask the people in the province to do is to tighten up their belts and let the government reward their friends, let the government do the kinds of things that they've been doing in real contrast to the AIB.

We were suspicious when the Premier sent two or three or four of his ministers to Ottawa to discuss the AIB in the first place. It seemed there were some areas in British Columbia that they wanted opted out. It seems, for example, that they certainly wanted Hydro opted out of AIB. And I can certainly see why now. I would hope that when the minister meets Mr. Bonner sometime he will suggest to him that the $3 poll tax, let alone the increases - which are inflationary, which are outside the limits of the AIB - are intolerable to this government. But I've seen no leadership in that regard; I've seen none at all.

Mr. Chairman, I suggest to you very strongly that we have to come to a point in time when we need some confidence that the leadership is going to take us somewhere, as opposed to taking us down this terrible road to economic crisis as it has in the past year and a few months.

Mr. Chairman, there is no point in our going into any great detail on any of these areas which can be answered, however inadequately, by the ministers themselves. I thought it would be very apropos just to discuss this question and listen to what the Premier has to say about the leadership that he is giving us -business leadership in economic times of crisis, in economic times of chaos.

Mr. Chairman, let's hear what the minister has to say. I would hope that he would answer some of the other questions that have been put forward in the time that we've been standing this afternoon.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I'd answer questions to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) but he's away again, as is the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) , as is the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) , who is often away from this House.

I would like to deal with the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) because he mentioned advertising. That's one of the areas in which I can say this government has shown restraint compared with the type of spending that went on before we became government. I don't have the latest figures but I do know the amounts of contracts that were cancelled and the way advertising was placed.

When we became government it was apparent that one agency, the Dunsky agency, who did the election and political advertising for that party over there, also was favoured with all of the government business by some strange reason. Advertising proposals for all government departments, which are necessary from time to time for providing information, were never submitted to bid. Other firms were excluded from even having the opportunity. British Columbia firms with British Columbia employees were excluded from the opportunity of doing business in their own province. Here we have the spectre of this firm, just because of their political affiliation, being brought in from Toronto to handle the advertising for British Columbia.

I would say now that advertising by government bodies is now awarded on the basis of competition. There are now 12 separate agencies working for different parts of government in the preparation of public information. It's anticipated that this number will be increased as the shutdown - not the proliferation of advertising, as that member suggests - on the type of advertising proposals that were taking place and were proposed is released so that we can present some information to the public. The member for New Westminster, Mr. Chairman, is obviously not only wrong but he's chosen the wrong area to attack. That is one of the many areas in which we've made major changes.

Another thing, because this does touch my office, Mr. Chairman, is government publications and printing. Through the communications planning adviser, we've tried to correlate and bring some sense to the type of reckless advertising that was taking place and the expenditure of not thousands but millions of dollars of government money. It was over a million dollars, anyhow, because that was just the billings that the Dunsky agency had, let alone the in-house printing.

There will be new changes made in the Government Printing Bureau. Discussions are going on and plans are proceeding with representatives of the unions whose members would be affected in the Queen's Printer to try and update the equipment and the facilities for getting more value for the taxpayers' dollars and doing a better job of in-house printing just in those facilities we have. This has been going on for some time. But as you know, Mr. Chairman, the negotiation with union members involved is very important because changes in equipment will make changes in classifications.

We've also tried to rationalize the purchase and use of copying machines and audio-visual equipment and other phases of government communication. There was, again, a proliferation of copying machines around the whole of the government service. I don't

[ Page 1118 ]

have that information here, but the members have it, Mr. Chairman, because it was available in the report that was the basis for the type of action being taken now, as handled by the communications planning adviser. So that's one of the areas, Mr. Chairman, where the government has made strong moves to show restraint and to get better value for the taxpayer's dollar.

The leader of the Opposition was asking about Railwest. Railwest, as part of the BCR, is, I am sure, now going to be part of the royal commission that will be taking place. I would like to say that nobody more than the Premier wanted Railwest to get an order for the cars for CNR. I made strong representation, but here's another one of the facts of B.C. life, or maybe it's peculiar just to this company, but as the Leader of the Opposition suggested, there was a price differential.

AN HON. MEMBER: How much?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I even went so far as to suggest that the province of British Columbia which had caused us to lose the contract might be prepared, in order to create jobs, to provide some subsidy. We were not able to secure the contract mainly because of the differential. The B.C. bid was the high bid. I pleaded also for the fact of the high unemployment in this area, but it just so happens that the areas in which the contracts were let also have high unemployment. They have the same pockets of unemployment.

AN HON. MEMBER: What was the spread?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Those figures can be asked of any difference when they are provided from the government of Canada. When that information is provided it will certainly be shared with this House. I would just like to pass that on, because I would hate the Leader of the Opposition to have left the impression that the bids were equal. We were informed they were not.

As far as the northern transportation system is concerned, I would like to make it very clear to this House that the northern transportation system has long been a dream of many administrations in this province and it should be, and must be, a part of a national transportation system. It's of interest to all of Canada. That system can be brought on line much sooner if one of the commodities that would be shipped on it would be the northeast coal deposits. Those deposits and the whole northern transportation system are being studied as part of two studies, but because of the very nature of the impact of that one commodity to supplement other commodities from other provinces that would go on the system and through the northern port of Prince Rupert, the two must have a very strong relationship. The figures and the studies going on, both on the federal side and the provincial side, and that are going on between the railways and that are going on ancillary to this but by the companies that will be proposing to develop some of the deposits, are still incomplete.

At such time as any decision is contemplated, figures, when firm, will be made public. It would be a little unusual to make incomplete figures, or figures that are not yet considered final, available before all studies are in and before all of them have had the opportunity of being agreed to by all parties involved. That northern transportation system is of such importance that it does have a high priority of this government, and this government went to the Government of Canada and pushed for the northern transportation system and an outlet on the west coast, yes - as it should be a priority to Canada.

Along with that, we have talked about the additional commodity that could help bring this about, and those studies are taking place. The Government of Canada has grasped the importance, not only to this province but to our country, and is participating in both a physical and a monetary way in the studies that are going on. The CN and the BCR have also been involved since the beginning of these discussions in studies of their own and proposals of their own that may call for upgrading of facilities or new facilities or new transportation systems. All of this is still undergoing study, but I am sure that history in all areas of capital development, but particularly the BCR, would indicate to this House that all of us want to be sure of the proposed loading factor and costs, the costs taking into account, as best we can, some idea of what inflation could do to those figures and what the costs will be. That's taking place now, and when there are complete figures in any area where they can be successfully utilized to make a decision, certainly those decisions will be made public.

I want to make it clear that this province must develop more than a dependency on a single port for the goods of Canada and for the goods of our province. The grain farmers on the Prairies are very interested in expanded grain facilities in Prince Rupert that would go along with any upgrading of the northern transportation system. This northern transportation system is not being developed for a single commodity but for many commodities, and also to develop a port that originally was to be the major port on the Pacific coast of Canada because of the low grades, easy access, and the fact that it's one day closer to the Pacific Rim countries through which trade would be encouraged. In fact, as has been stated before, it was the original route for the silk trains from the Orient to New York. This port was first designed to take that original traffic because of grades and because it would have been more easily

[ Page 1119 ]

constructed and serviced in those early days in the development of our province and this country.

1 want to say that there is no subsidy for companies. We're talking about a northern transportation system. When all of the studies are in, information will be made available.

Someone mentioned the press theatre. I don't remember what context it was in except that the press theatre, which is used for the relaying of information, was not started by the government but construction was underway. i give the last government credit. It's a good facility. It's used by all members of this House. 1 don't apologize for it. I give credit to those who helped design it. I understand some of the press were involved in developing the lighting for the TV. That was a good use, involving the gallery or those who report the news, of technical expertise in the development of the facility. 1 can't remember if someone was attacking it but 1 think they were. But I'll stand up for it and for the part we did, and those who went before should take some credit for developing the facility. I think it was the member for Revelstoke-Slocan who mentioned it.

The member for Revelstoke-Slocan mentioned -and quite property, I suppose, for as the former Minister of Labour he's spent some time dealing in labour matters, and we'll all agree - that this is a very major year in British Columbia with 65 per cent of agreements up for negotiation. Uncertainty was created by the Anti-Inflation Board or the federal government - what you will - as to whether the controls will end before the end of 1978, as stated in the original agreements into which this province and other provinces entered. The very suggestion of that by responsible people has created uncertainty and placed difficulties on bargainers from both sides, union and management. I have had concern expressed to me from both sides as to the difficulty this has placed them under. The member for Revelstoke-Slocan was having difficulty in reading a press account of a meeting 1 had. In fact, he had read it wrong and, of course, he was wrong in most of his interpretations. 1 think all of us want to see some stability in the marketplace in British Columbia.

The very fact that we have higher costs in this province, even in dealing with our own national railway, must indicate to us that we have a problem in British Columbia of which we all are a part and which we must help to solve. It isn't just labour and it isn't just management. Capital or other areas that affect the costs in this province have got to be brought into line. That's government as well, municipal and provincial.

The member for Revelstoke-Slocan was putting an incorrect interpretation on an answer to a question that was asked at a meeting. 1 was asked about what 1 thought about workers who were on strike taking employment elsewhere. 1 answered it very specifically. I said I had received complaints of concern, not just from people like themselves, but from members of other unions and other workers, about people moving into the work force who had made a conscious decision to go on strike - which is their right, one of the bargaining tools they have -but then going around and taking, or making themselves available to take, jobs from others. I agree that when we have this continuing high unemployment in this province.... I said it that way and I said the government was concerned about it too. Citizens of this province had passed on their concerns and what we are doing is reviewing those concerns as they're passed to government. I made no statement as to whether there would be any government legislation, but just the fact that we were concerned as those members were.

The first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lank) ... well, that member is that member and what he says is usually taken tongue-in-cheek and I don't think it's worthy of further comment.

The member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) mentioned the difficulties with the city of Mission. He and I have discussed this problem, or I have discussed it with municipal officials from Mission and received letters from them. In regard to the industrial land, I've sent a note, and the member, I know, has talked to the Economic Development minister. But the new capacity of the B.C. Development Corporation, in bringing all potential industrial land under one vehicle in this province from the multitude of departments to make it more easily identifiable and usable by communities, is just one of the programmes that could help this city. Hopefully meetings will take place immediately - as that member has asked for - to resolve that one request.

In regard to the request for moving the Fraser Valley College, I appreciate that the member for Dewdney is speaking out on behalf of part of his constituency. But more rightly, the siting should be made locally. There are local regional college councils that would talk about siting not as a resource for business but as a resource for the people who use the facilities. Certainly all aspects are taken into the siting. But the first priority must be the availability to those who would require the service and the knowledge that can be provided at that college.

The member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) did mention some of the salaries in my office. Specifically he mentioned the executive director to the Premier. I'd point out to his colleagues who are here who can advise him that the salary this year is exactly the same, and the position is the same, as that position was when we came to office. What happened last year was we reduced that member's salary 10 per cent along with the members of this House, and along with members of this House, the salary has just been returned to the amount it was before the one-year 10

[ Page 1120 ]

per cent reduction. If the member for Revelstoke-Slocan would want to get up and speak on behalf of the members of this House taking a cut, then certainly any cut that he would advocate.for members in this House would apply to those members of the staff. But I might point out that it's the same position that was there and it's now returning to the rate that was there at the change of government.

The press secretary position has been changed to serving the executive council administration, and that position is paid because the member is not an order-in-council appointment as such but was moved over out of the Department of Education. The higher rate is related to the salary and the position when the move was made from the Department of Education to the Premier's office.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I rise sadly. I listened carefully to what the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) had to say. I don't take it, as the Premier does, that he was joking. Yes, the member often speaks in a humorous way, but he wasn't joking, Mr. Chairman. The Premier proved him absolutely right the minute he stood in this House answering the questions, and let me tell you how he did it. He stood up in this House and he said Dunsky Advertising did all the government's business under the NDP.

AN HON. MEMBER: False.

MR. COCKE: That's absolutely, completely a misrepresentation, Mr. Chairman, of the worst kind, because he knows the difference. Mr. Chairman, my department, the Department of Health, never once used Dunsky. As a matter of fact, the majority of ministers did not use Dunsky. I can only recall two ministries that used Dunsky in the time that we were government - only, two ministries that I know of -although there may have been more. But, Mr. Chairman, I know of a great number of ministries that never met Dunsky in this budding.

AN HON. MEMBER: A fabrication.

MR. COCKE: An absolute fabrication. Not once did the Department of Health ever use Dunsky Advertising - not once.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Table the figures.

MR. COCKE: You table the figures, Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Chairman. You table those figures. We'll be happily watching for public accounts.

MR. BARRETT: False statement.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, the term "false statement". . . .

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: He never was from Toronto. He's from Montreal, if you really want to get down to it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, one moment, please. The Leader of the Opposition, while disputing across the floor, used the term "false statement." I would suggest that that is unparliamentary in this House.

MR. BARRETT: A false statement was made by the Premier, who said that all advertising was done by Dunsky. That's a false statement.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That is unparliamentary.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, if the Leader of the Opposition is worried about the word "all, " I'll say then the large bulk, on a very political basis, was paid to the Dunsky Advertising Co. There is no question of the relationship with that party, and I will be very pleased to re-table the figures which shocked British Columbia when they were first made known. It might be that that member, of course, was on his brief absence from the House before ...

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. Premier has the floor.

HON. MR. BENNETT: ... a conveniently arranged ...

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the hon. Premier has the floor. Will you... ?

MR. BARRETT: I had the floor before he got up!

[Mr. Chairman rises. ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, will you kindly take your seat, please?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, will you take your seat? You sat down and I recognized the hon. Premier.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I'm asking you to take your seat.

[ Page 1121 ]

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I'm asking you to take your seat.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. Premier has the floor. You'll have the right to speak in a moment.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MR. COCKE: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I have the floor. The Leader of the Opposition stood on a point of order. Now I have the floor, Mr. Chairman - nobody else, points of order notwithstanding. I have the floor when you finally get around to it.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: I accept the Premier's apology.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I think I made my point absolutely clear.

MR. BARRETT: We got him to admit he was wrong.

MR. COCKE: Yes, of course he was wrong, and he was really.... Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Chairman, you were really wrong. You know, every time you get an opportunity to stand up and persecute the former government, you stand up no matter....

MR. BARRETT: And say whatever comes to your mind.

MR. COCKE: Exactly, and it's just a little bit difficult to take ...

MR. BARRETT: He admitted it was a false statement.

Interjections.

MR. COCKE: ... particularly, Mr. Chairman, when I happened to have one of the many ministries in that government that never ever dealt with Dunsky. If the First Minister can show that I did, I want him to stand up and show it. I want him to show a number of other departments too.

MR. BARRETT: False statement.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, the Premier, in giving his leadership.... I'd like to know how he's doing with all the cabinet fights that are going on at the present time. That's very destructive in this province, very destructive indeed. You see cabinet ministers making statements concerning colleagues' departments and colleagues becoming white with rage sitting in the House listening to it. I think it's time the First Minister took control of that cabinet. He's got the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) .... We can't even tell what department he's running. One day he's commenting on agriculture; the next day he's commenting or, another department of government. Next it'll be the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. Chabot) who will be persecuted by that minister.

Mr. Chairman, I think it's up to the First Minister to straighten him around, to straighten his cabinet ministers up. Because, you know, it does a great deal of damage to British Columbia and its image across the country. They laugh at us across this country when they see that kind of thing going on. The minister, for instance, couldn't even keep his nose out of Quebec. So I suggest a little discipline from the First Minister on some of his cabinet ministers who are roaming too far afield from their own department.

Mr. Chairman, I have one other thing before I sit down, and that's the question of the Vietnam committee. I brought this up before. I saw, over the weekend, that the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) decided to take it upon herself to discuss the fact of whether or not there was money available to do the job. The fact is that the First Minister was also a member of this House and voted for that medical relief from British Columbia to disabled children in Vietnam. I don't think that it's in good taste for the Provincial Secretary to suggest that we can't honour our commitments in this province. I think it's time the First Minister stood up and said we will honour the commitment that not only we made, but he made. He was able to provide $30 million relief to the millionaires in this province. What about the $2 million for relief for disabled children in Vietnam?

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that the Premier got up and, by correcting his statement, saved me the embarrassment of having to repeat that he made a false statement. I'm pleased that the Premier saved you and I the embarrassment. But it is typical of what the Premier has been doing in this province, as catalogued by the member for Vancouver-Centre (Mr. Lauk) . He keeps on making statements that are simply incorrect, and is asked to correct them within minutes after he makes them. It's a question of credibility. Then in responding to the member's catalogue of the statements made by the Premier, the Premier says: "Well, it's because of that member."

[ Page 1122 ]

I really believe that the Premier is sincere in those kinds of rationalizations. I have finally begun to understand what the Premier is saying: blame everything and everybody except himself. "If I say something wrong" - in effect he's saying - "it's not my fault. Someone else brought it to my attention." There is no direct responsibility by the Premier to any one of his statements whatsoever - none. I find it really incredible that there isn't even a little bit of gracefulness, with him standing up and saying: "Look, I made a mistake."

MR. KING: He took lessons from Phil Gaglardi.

MR. BARRETT: Well, Phil Gaglardi used to say: "If I tell a lie it is only because I think I'm telling the truth." That's what he used to say.

Now, Mr. Chairman, the Premier's not perfect. We expect him to make mistakes. We didn't expect you to notice the seatbelts there in the car. After all, just because the cameraman saw them there.... You said, "There's no seatbelts, " and you walked out. You could have said: "Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't notice them." It's very much like the little boy who gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Rather than saying, "I'm sorry, I didn't mean to put my hand in the cookie jar, " you're saying, "Who slapped the lid down?"

It's the same way with the blacklist. Don't play games about the blacklist. The blacklist was written by a civil servant and passed on by Dan Campbell. You were asked by the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald): "Did you reprimand Dan Campbell?" You didn't answer the question. Do you condone what Dan Campbell did? Yes or no. Your silence indicated that you condoned Dan Campbell passing that list along to the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) . You have given us no indication since this matter became public that you've spoken to Dan Campbell about it and said: "Tsk, tsk, Dan. If you're going to do it, at least don't get caught." You haven't even said that much to him.

Now I find it absolutely incredible that the First Minister of this province, who must set some kind of standard for the government that he desperately wanted and was willing to say or do anything to get, and now has, has not yet said publicly if he reprimanded Dan Campbell or not. It was a blacklist; you know it was a blacklist. It wasn't sent along as a reviewing page. What is the business of Dan Campbell sending that kind of stuff along? If there's to be any reviewing of staff it's to be done by the Public Service Commission.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why was it confidential?

MR. BARRETT: Why was it marked confidential? Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, when the Premier told this

House, when he was asked the question whether or not there was a blacklist and said "absolutely not, " that was a correct answer. But within 24 hours he found out that what he thought to be true wasn't true, and he's done absolutely nothing since that day to correct it. Nothing. As the member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) and the member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) pointed out, he has asked for an investigation into the leak.

There is a question of the morality of the responsibility of that being issued from your office. If you disapprove of Dan Campbell having done that, then either can him, put him on probation, or say something publicly. But you've sat in silence and haven't said a single word.

Did you agree that that II~t be passed on? Was it bad judgment by Dan Campbell? Let us know what you really think. Do you have an opinion about the whole use of that kind of blacklist? About the silliness of Mr. Ohlemann to do that kind of thing? About the stupid decision by Mr. Campbell to pass it on? Do you really have an opinion on that kind of really gutter-sniping politics? It is the lowest type, the lowest form in a democratic society of attacking honourable people by somehow besmirching their career, regardless of the political affiliation, by sending a letter marked "personal and confidential" out of your office, perhaps without your knowledge, on to another cabinet minister, having it revealed publicly, and then silence from you as to the morality of the issue. That's the point, Mr. Chairman.

What is your position on the morality of that issue? We haven't had an answer on that. Do you believe Mr. Campbell did good or do you believe he did wrong? And if you think he did wrong, what would it hurt you, what skin would it be off you-know-what to stand up and say: "I think Mr. Campbell made a mistake. I regret it, and I want to see that it doesn't happen again."? You haven't said that.

The only thing you've indicated by your silence is an almost smug attitude. "Well, I'm going to check and find out how it leaked." - as if that was the evil. That's not the evil.

MR. R.L. LOEWEN (Burnaby-Edmonds): Are you worried?

MR. BARRETT: Worried about what?

MR. LOEWEN: How it leaked.

MR. BARRETT: I think that anybody who has any document from any government, whether it's ours or any other party that formed a government, that deliberately lists people to be wary of because of their political affiliation should leak it. That document should be leaked.

[ Page 1123 ]

This is a free society. This is no slave state or some second-class citizenship. We have fought for generations to have freedom in this country: freedom of association, freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of political affiliation. Here we have found a list coming out of the Premier's office that he probably didn't know existed - he said "absolutely not." When he discovered it was there and was asked the question: have you spoken to Dan Campbell about it? - all we got was silence. Silence condones the action unless we have a repudiation by the Premier of that despicable act of sending on a list.

I think it's despicable, and if you don't think it's despicable then you don't understand the very basis of what's going on here in committee right now.

MR. LOEWEN: I understand.

MR. BARRETT: Well, I hope you do. The Magna Carta was signed to protect the kind of freedoms that we finally got in this chamber, and it was signed to protect eventually the personal integrity, the personal freedom and the personal respect of every individual citizen. Yes, learn about the history of this esteemed place, Mr. Member. We are only passing guests in this particular day, but the long-standing traditions of this House are brought about because people fought for freedom, and freedom from the kind of listing that goes on.

I'm willing to say that the Premier probably didn't know the list existed. I'm willing to suggest that that indeed was the case. But it's been weeks since that was made known publicly. A direct question was asked the Premier on Friday: did you reprimand Dan Campbell? - and you didn't even answer that question.

Now did Dan Campbell, in your opinion, do right or wrong in passing that list off? The people of the province have a right to know the answer to that question because it reflects your degree of morality about political freedom in this province. There is no other question about the blacklist at this point, no other semantic, no other evaluation. What is the Premier's opinion on the decision by Dan Campbell to pass that list on?

That is what it all comes down to. Boil it, slice it, chew it, do anything you want with it - the fact is that that list was passed, and you have not said to this day, to this minute, your opinion on the fact that that list went out of your office. It would do this province a great deal of good that even at this late hour the Premier would stand up and say: "I think Mr. Campbell made a mistake, and I want to publicly say that I don't want this kind of list going out in our government." What would be wrong with saying that? Do you need a semi-lecture from the Leader of the Opposition to direct you to that course? To sit in silence, with a smugness.... That's the most important issue in relative terms that has come before us, other than the severe economic situation we are in.

Freedom - the right to associate, the right to speak, the right to pick your own colleagues, to act without fear in an open and free society, to know that no government to whom you are paying taxes for would make a list on what your choice is of politics or religion or any other group that you identify with. You don't seem to grasp the essentials of the dangers of that kind of list.

How do we know, Mr. Chairman, that there aren't lists of friendly reporters or non-friendly reporters? Is that kind of definition the kind of decision that goes on? We don't know. We want to know what your philosophy is. That's a very fair, honest and open question asked by the member for Vancouver East.

Did you say anything to Dan Campbell? To get up and attack the member for Vancouver Centre. (Mr. Lauk) by saying: "Nobody pays any attention to that member It's not that member! We're all going to be dead 50 or 60 years from now, Mr. Chairman.

What counts is that this institution survives, this very chamber survives and the very process of how we get here survives! It cannot survive with that kind of silence when a blacklist is forwarded. You've had all this time and you have not publicly expressed your opinion of that blacklist. That's what it's all about. If you don't understand that, then you have no sense of history, no sense of proportion and no sense of what British parliamentary systems are all about.

Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I want to go over some of the other statements made by the Premier. I made notes Mr. Premier. Perhaps my notes are inaccurate, ~but I wrote as quickly as I thought I could get the author of the word to paper. You said two studies are going on on the northern transportation system. What are the studies? Who's doing them? What groups are doing them? You said further on that other studies are going on related to them. What are they? Who's doing them? What other studies are going on?

We find in a statement from the paper - not denied, as I understand it, but perhaps I'm wrong here - made on February 11 in The Vancouver Sun: "According to one of Bennett's six-man entourage" -and I'm quoting from the paper, Mr. Chairman -"the response from the federal government was better than expected. 'I think we're going to get the money, ' he said." How could you think you're going to get the money if you don't know what the project is going to cost? You say you don't have any finite figures. What is it? What are the figures now? What is it you're discussing with Ottawa? If you don't want to tell us, then don't tell half the story. Don't go around making comments that the figures are "staggering."

You know, the member for Vancouver Centre read

[ Page 1124 ]

a catalogue of statements made by the Premier. I think you had to give him some leeway when he was the Leader of the Opposition. I find it amusing to hear a gracious statement about the opposition having done renovations in the building. Oh, yes! Now that he's using the press theatre he said: "It's a good thing the former government did it. It's welcome." My, my, my! What a difference 10 feet make!

When you were over here in opposition and the former Minister of Public Works came to this House and demonstrated the neglect that had gone on in this building and clearly spelled out the renovations that would take place, there was howling, yelling, squawking and moaning about furniture in ministers' offices. Perhaps the Premier would care to check his colleagues and find out how many are throwing out perfectly good furniture and buying brand new stuff. You should check on these things if you're going to be that picayune and come back here and start talking about this kind of stuff. It ill suits the Premier of the province to come in and make those gratuitous comments without any thought of what he said before.

I remember some of the things that were said off the top of your head without thinking, without understanding of the consequences - just say them. You made the charge in this House that I had hired relatives on B.C. Rail, that we had political patronage on B.C. Rail and that we had hired all kinds of people because of politics on B.C. Rail. You made those charges, through you, Mr. Chairman. They were never proven, never substantiated - never once. And there was never once an apology to the employees of B.C. Rail.

MR. KING: Absolutely untrue.

M R. BARRETT: Statements that had no foundation in fact were made by that member when he was Leader of the Opposition, and the same pattern continues while he's Premier. What that member for Vancouver Centre is talking about is a question of credibility. Every time you get up to speak and you say something, you damage that credibility a bit more, a bit more and a bit more. Then, above all, when all else fails, Mr. Chairman, the Premier will get up and say: "It's all the NDP's fault - everything!" Like I said Friday, everything from the reasons of Easter right down to the fact that it will probably rain tonight is our fault.

There are 112,000 people unemployed in this province, 112,000 people who do not have jobs. There are foreclosures on mortgages every single day at a level that is unprecedented in this province since the Depression. There are family men and family women out there who don't know where the next dollar is coming from to meet their budget. There are small businessmen who operate corner gasoline stations, haberdashery shops or other ventures that you say, through you, Mr. Chairman, is the hallmark of your identification of free enterprise. There is no protection for them, no hope for them, not a glimmer of some government imagination.

Mr. Chairman, we're told how the government saves money - 28 cents per capita in the Premier's office. It's been 15 months, Mr. Chairman. How about some leadership? We still have not had a reasonable explanation from your government, Mr. Chairman, as to why that additional $1 -a-ton royalty has not been collected from coal.

The former Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources admitted in this House that it could be collected. Read the Hansard. Don't shake your head, Mr. Member; just recall what you said. They were prepared - it was agreed - to go to $2.50 in April of last year. Why haven't you collected that $1?

We've learned from Mr. Smith's statement to the Vancouver seminar and the B.C. Employers Council a very, very significant remark. He said that coal shipments are actually down from 12.3 million tons to 11 million tons. And while you're talking about the studies in the coal fields, this gentleman is saying that the coal shipments are down and we're competing with Australia. We're aware of that, through you, Mr. Chairman. But that $1 a ton that we should be collecting would have been $11 million this year. Are you preaching forgiveness to Kaiser and the CPR? They could well afford that extra dollar. That $11 million could have done an awful lot of good, through you, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps he wanted to strike out on a philosophy that we should build our own ships in this province and any coal leaving British Columbia should go on a Canadian ship. Mr. Chairman, I submit to you that's a far more logical idea than investing $3 00 million to $5 00 million in a "hope-to-be" project in this province.

The Americans have the Jones Act. It's not exactly what we want, but it's a legal requirement that manufactured goods leaving one American port and going to another American port have to be carried on American ships manned by American crews. I think you'd get a lot more stimulation in the economy if our shipyards were working. There are 900 people that have been laid off right here in the Victoria area. Eleven million dollars - a freighter building project on the money. I'm not talking about new taxation or new royalties, Mr. Chairman. I'm talking about using the imagination on existing royalties. Why haven't you collected that dollar? Why?

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

The member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) talked about the succession duty money that you're going to give back to the millionaires. There's no guarantee that that will be redirected into the economy and you

[ Page 1125 ]

know it.

No, Mr. Chairman, we have not been given an adventurous, exciting, philosophical statement in which all members of this House could take part. We haven't even been given substance that would indicate any kind of philosophical commitment by this government to meeting the problems of the day.

You ran those ads saying "One hundred thousand unemployed. Can we afford it?" It's 112,000. If it was bad then as you claimed and your figures were wrong, how bad is it now? What hope have you given any person in this province who's suffering because of the economic situation. Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Fatuous statements, ill-befitting your office, about advertising that were incorrect. Fatuous comments about MLAs, that are irrelevant.

Sometime, somewhere, Mr. Chairman, as Premier of the province, you have to rise above yourself and tell this province what's lying ahead under your stewardship. That's what these committee sessions are all about. Put aside what you consider to be the niggling criticisms of the opposition or the scrutiny of the press. Stand up in this House, through you, Mr. Chairman, and tell us what the people of this province have got to hope for next year - the unemployed, the elderly, the overtrained young people who are coming out of our universities and can't find jobs. You believe in a system. You believe in a philosophy. We disagree with your approach, but you haven't indicated a single thing that you're going to do to make it work. And then you become petty, Mr. Chairman - petty and picayune. And all these problems are compounding out there. That's hardly worthy of the mandate that you demanded so much just 15 months ago.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, on Friday and again today, I've asked the question about the Vietnam committee. Mr. Chairman, there is obviously a conflict on this question. I seem to recognize that few were in the House when that question was voted on. But another member was in the House when it was voted on. It was Labour minister Allan Williams, who was then the Member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound.

He is quoted in The Vancouver Sun today as having said:

". . . a moral commitment was made by all parties; there's no question about it . . . 'The commitment should be fulfilled, as long as the present regime in Vietnam is prepared to accept foreign aid. The government should also take steps to ensure that the money, once sent to Vietnam, will be used for the children, ' Williams said."

Now that was always the direction; that was always the principle of the committee.

The article goes on to quote one other person, Provincial Secretary Grace McCarthy. In total contrast to what the Minister of Labour says, she says: ". . . her government, which succeeded the NDP in 1975, is not bound to the agreement. Besides, " she says, "there's no money available."

Well, I've proven that there's money available. There's $30 million to provide benefit to the millionaires in this province - no question about it; there's money available. "McCarthy, however, told reporters Sunday that any decision by one government cannot be inherited by another unless it is enshrined in legislation."

Mr. Chairman, that's an absolute mockery of this House. Now there's a conflicting opinion over there. One cabinet minister says a moral commitment is a moral commitment. Thank heaven for him, Mr. Chairman. Another minister of the Crown in this province says that there is no moral commitment.

MR. BARRETT: Different parties.

MR. COCKE: I ask you: is it unreasonable for me to ask the First Minister to stand in this House and indicate that he is going to have put together a committee on this question - a non-political, all-party committee, as we had before, to assist in the distribution of funds to disabled children for medical funds and medical aid to those children?

I'm pleased that the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) has as vivid memory of that committee's activities as he has. I'm pleased that over the last few days he's been supporting this situation. It's important that we do honour our moral obligations. We are looked upon by the rest of the world not by our words but by our actions. It was definitely a moral commitment to this question.

Mr. Chairman, I have one or two other things that I want to talk about, but I think that I can sit down now and ask the Premier to answer this question. Failing that, I would like to pursue one or two other things.

HON. MR. BENNETT: In regard, Mr. Chairman, to the one question concerning the money that was voted by this House for children in Vietnam, I'm sure the obligation remains with all of us. Nobody denies that. There was also the problem of the committee, I understand, finding from the last government where the money could be sent. There was some difficulty when we came in, but as that still hadn't been ascertained there was no immediate problem as to what agency or to how it could be spent. The fact that not only that money but other money had been spent by the former government still doesn't relieve the obligation of the Legislature that goes beyond normal spending. It was made and quite properly still remains a commitment. But the agency to receive it still has to be found, as it wasn't found then. The

[ Page 1126 ]

money will have to be found, even though this province was severely hampered in its ability to do many things for our own people as well because of the deficit position left us from the last government.

But there's no doubt that the people of B.C. have made a commitment in that area. I only wish that such a large deficit hadn't been left so that many other commitments we made to the people could be met as well.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, the Premier knows that the one way to properly handle this situation would be just to clearly stand up in the House today and say that the government will put together a similar non-party committee. I would like to suggest, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) not be the chairman of that committee because of his attitude. He said right from the outset that he's not interested, despite the fact that he voted for it at the time. I would hope that the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) or some other minister in that government would be given this responsibility.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm glad this member is so concerned now. I wish he'd have been as concerned in his government to set up the money in a trust fund so that it would have been available and not been spent in other areas while they were on their way to their record major deficit. I wish you had done that, but you didn't do it.

I was part of the Legislature that made an obligation. Because you failed as a government doesn't mean that we'll fail in that commitment. I like your suggestion about a committee. That's fine; it will be done and the money will be found. We'll get to work on something that's been a commitment for quite a few years of your administration and the first 14 months of ours.

MR. WALLACE: I have a few comments to make and I would like to respond to some of the statements that have been made regarding this Vietnam committee. I am certainly disappointed with the Premier's simple summation a moment ago in relation to a deficit left by the former government. As he sat down he said: "It's as simple as that." If we ever needed a demonstration from this government that they're the black-ink, bottom-line boys, that had to be it this afternoon. What's so tragic about this government is that it's an ex-Liberal who gives it some stature. A man like Allan Williams stands up in this House time and time again and saves this government from being the threadbare, insensitive bunch that they are.

The member for West Vancouver-Howe Sound, who is now the Minister of Labour, initiated what was surely a manifestation of the fact that we're not all so short-sighted and so selfish in British Columbia as to fail to recognize that there are some people going through some hellish suffering in other parts of the world. The motion that went on the order paper received not only the strongest, warmest support of all parties in the House, but received a very warm response in the newspapers and the media and from the public of British Columbia. Goodness knows we're all much too easily victims of looking only at the boundaries of B.C. and wondering how we're going to finance $1 billion in capital expenditure on the B.C. Railway, for example.

That committee, Mr. Chairman.... As I recall, you served on it also. If it had any error, it was the combined error of being too committed to meeting the obligations of 55 members of this House to ensure that the very noble motives of the fund would in fact be realized and that the money, unlike many other forms of foreign aid, would find itself eventually to the children of Vietnam. While I personally am deeply annoyed at myself for the role I played on that committee, because I was one of the people who kept harping all along at our various meetings that I didn't want that money to finish up in the hands of some corrupt politician in Vietnam....

The upshot of my trying to be careful and conscientious on that committee is that It looks as though the children aren't ever going to see any of the proceeds of that fund. But that is the simple explanation as to why that money was not adequately disbursed within the kind of period of time that it could have been spent. It is also inaccurate today for the Premier to say there is a problem with the agencies which might make the money or the supplies available.

HON. MR. BENNETT: We have the same concerns you expressed.

MR. WALLACE: Yes, Mr. Premier, but the point I am making is that we did set up a pilot project to spend something in the order of $300,000 using four different agencies and four different projects. Just before the 1975 election we were very close to finalizing the decision to spend the remainder of the money through the same four agencies, who had given us complete accountability. We had letters on record from physicians at the children's clinic in Da Nang; we had accountability from the Quaker groups regarding the medical kits which had been made available to be distributed by nurses and nursing helpers in Vietnam. We were right on the point of deciding that we were satisfied the money would be spent economically and effectively and would, in fact attain the goals for which the fund was set up in the first place.

Now I realize that technically, or traditionally, one government is not bound by decisions of former

[ Page 1127 ]

governments. But this is not the case of one government being bound by another government decision. It's a question of this House and the people of British Columbia being bound by a unanimous decision initiated by a member of the opposition. How often does that happen in government'?

I'm pleased that the Premier ended his comments by leaving the clear impression that he will do something about it. But let's not argue about the moral commitment that was made in a very unique situation by all members of this House when it happened to be an NDP government. I submit that the same would occur today if the situation in Vietnam was as it was then and the House felt that we should be looking a little beyond our boundaries to try and help other countries and people in other countries who are in terrible distress. Perhaps the Premier would care to comment.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, it's very nice for the member to get up and get a chance at some oratory because I don't think he's had an opportunity lately. But I want to tell him that I have never had this information on the money that was allocated sent to my office by letter. It's the first time that that member has even spoken to me particularly about a method of payment being made available. I've been in my office. Although I've received other letters from that member, I've never received this, although he seems very concerned about it now.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, there were no files in my office when I came to government. There weren't any in many of the offices.

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I don't know. I don't know where they are.

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

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'm saying that what the member has advanced to me today is the first time I've been made aware of that knowledge. I'll be pleased to accept it from him some time when the House isn't sitting. If he would like to send the information to my office, it would be useful to any future committee or group of members of this House set up to consider this obligation.

There's a great, great need, seen today, to question members on their use of terms as being correct or incorrect. I know that many of us, when we're speaking, tend to use words on which you could put different meanings. But the word "fund" - there was no fund. The member used it but there was no fund set up. This Legislature did vote. But there was no fund such as we've set up other funds in trust to ensure that moneys are paid for certain things. That's been done in this Legislature by various governments when they want to -ensure that something is carried out.

But I want to assure the member for Oak Bay, who brought this up, that we're aware of this and that the commitment remains with the Legislature. The funds are as close as they always were, I guess. We'll have to find the funds somewhere because they certainly weren't there and were never set up by this Legislature. Maybe the legislature that voted that money didn't follow through to make sure that the funds were set up so that committee, in future legislatures, would have the opportunity to make sure that money got to the area of aid for which it was intended.

I thank the member for providing this information. If it's a failure of our government to have communicated internally with information that should have been available, then I'll accept the responsibility for that. But the information that the member has shared with me today through this Legislature certainly has not been available to me before by that member or any other member. The concerns he has expressed so eloquently - perhaps this Legislature last year or earlier could have dealt with it if I had been given this information at an earlier date by any of the members of the House who today expressed their concern so well.

MR. C.M. SHELFORD (Skeena): I was very pleased to hear the Premier's remarks last Friday in regard to the Kitimat pipeline. I'm quite sure there was quite wide support for his remarks up in the northern area where I was this weekend. There's certainly no question that there are an awful lot of answers that have to be given before the people of that area are at all satisfied.

One of the things that doesn't appear clear at this time is: will the National Energy Board hold hearings right in that area? There are certainly many reports that they will not. However, I see in the paper last week where reports out of Ottawa indicated that there would be public hearings by the Ministry of Transport and the Ministry of the Environment. I would say this isn't good enough. I think that it should be by the National Energy Board itself. They should come in and listen to what people have to say in that particular area. I'm certainly pleased to hear the provincial government is getting ready for these hearings because I believe all three ministries of government involved should take a very active part in these hearings - that is, the ministries of Energy, Transport and Communications, the Environment and, of course, Recreation and Conservation.

I am very concerned as to what we in British

[ Page 1128 ]

Columbia and Canada get out of an agreement on the pipeline. After all, we're going to take all the risks. There's no question that if we are going to take the risks, then, of course, it should be worth a great deal to us. In fact, I'm extremely concerned with the agreement as I read it. I must say I'm not a lawyer so I'm not 100 per cent sure whether I'm interpreting it correctly. I'd like to quote a few lines from the agreement on Article 3:

"No public authority in the territory of either party shall impose any fee, duty, tax or other monetary charge, either directly or indirectly, on or for the use of any transit pipeline, unless such fee, duty, tax or other monetary charges would be also applicable to or for the use of similar pipelines located within the jurisdiction of that public authority."

Then it goes on to say, No. 2:

"No public authority in the territory of either party shall impose upon hydrocarbons in transfer any import, export, or transit fee, duty, tax or other monetary charge. This paragraph shall not preclude the inclusion of hydrocarbons throughout the factor in the calculation of taxes referred to in paragraph (1)"

No doubt a lawyer wrote that, and no one else will understand it.

It certainly is of concern because I interpret that to mean that we couldn't make any charge against that pipeline except in a straight tax. There's no mention, for instance, of a throughput tax which I, for one, certainly think should be there.

In a statement by the company they talk about the benefits to Canada. The injection of some $500 million of new capital investment is important to the economy of northern British Columbia and Alberta. The addition of some $100 million in transportation revenue accruing annually to the Canadian companies.... Now my question would be why they mentioned revenue to the Canadian companies but they don't mention anything to the Canadian taxpayers.

In a statement in a book I was just reading -Making Democracy Safe for Oil - they mentioned on page 341 that they expect a return on investment on the development in Alaska of over 35 per cent per year, which is a tremendous amount. Now I notice in this same book, on page 93, they also mention where Syria many, many years ago was charging 9.5 cents per barrel. This was increased to 14.6 cents in 1966. Now if the increases since 1966, when oil at that time was selling for $3.28 a barrel - at this time I understand it's around $12.75, which is what they expect on the Alaska oil - to double that figure to 30 cents certainly wouldn't appear very excessive for a barrel which is just, of course, a little over half a cent per gallon with 42 gallons in a barrel. In the first few years of its operation they expect a throughput of around 350,000 barrels a day. Now if this is figured out at 30 cents a barrel - and this will be later increased to 750,000 barrels a day - this would mean a revenue, based at 30 cents, of $105,000 a day or $38,325, 000 in a year.

Surely, as 1 said before, if we're going to accept all the risks it certainly shouldn't be less than this. If the treaty doesn't allow this, then our answer, of course, has to be "no dice.---I think we should make it very clear to the national government that if the treaty doesn't allow a throughput charge such as this, then we certainly want to come out very loud and clear in this province to say "no dice."

On top of this, of course, the total cost of any spill should be borne entirely by the companies involved, not by the taxpayers of this province or Canada as a whole. If this is done, then there's a real incentive for them to be extremely careful in bringing the ships into Kitimat and down the coast of this province. There also must be very strict traffic control, equal to that in airport control, so that they know where every ship is at every moment. There has to be strict inspection to ensure that all the ships coming into our waters are very safe. All of these things must be clearly in place before any approval is given by either the National Energy Board, the national government or the provincial government.

We hear quite a bit of discussion in regard to Heritage Day, and I would like to make the following suggestion ahead of time because there is no doubt it won't get off the ground in Canada this year anyway. 1 would like to suggest that before any plans are made, being as we owe our heritage to our senior citizens, those who built this great nation.... They were the ones who suffered hardship and traveled by canoe, wagon or on foot across the country to build it to what it is today, along with help from our friendly native Indian people, to carve homes in the wilderness and set up a communications system so that we could develop this nation.

I think that in celebrating this great day I would like to suggest that we should dedicate this day totally to our senior citizens in the following manner. All workers and managers should be encouraged to donate one day's pay to this cause, which would mean $366,000, 000 in Canada or $44,700, 000 in British Columbia if everyone donated. Of course, those who donate, I would say, should be given a Heritage Button to show that he or she honoured the pioneers. To wrap up the celebration it might be an idea to have a banquet in each locality whereby people who were carrying a button to show that they had donated to the senior citizens of this country would be honoured.

The balance - which would be quite a lot of money - should go into a fund solely for the use and aid of senior citizens, such as senior citizens homes or

[ Page 1129 ]

intermediate-care homes for seniors. Any extra would be paid out as a Christmas bonus for travel, et cetera, so that they can get around and see other parts of the country or other areas of the world. I'm sure that if this was properly sold, and if management took an active role in promoting it by donating their pay first, the people of this country would gladly donate to a cause that was going to help our senior citizens.

The last point I would just like to mention before sitting down is that I have a request from my good friend Polly Sargent in Hazelton, who has done a great deal to help out the 'Ksan project. She now writes that the 'Ksan Dancers have been invited to Kansas City to perform "The Breath of our Grandfathers" for the opening week of the Sacred Circle Arts Exhibit. The president of the United States will be among those in attendance the first night. Polly, naturally, is asking the province to help out with a grant of around $4,800 which, I think, would be well spent because the Indian people up at 'Ksan certainly have done a great job and I think we should do everything possible to help them out.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Chairman, I would like to return for just a moment to the announcement made by the Premier in the Legislature this afternoon that the government will honour the commitment made by the Legislature a year or two ago - or three years ago, I guess it is now - concerning the children of Vietnam. I want to compliment him for making that announcement this afternoon to the House. At the same time, I would like to give him a reprimand, Mr. Chairman, for suggesting that it is only now that either the member for New Westminster or the member for Oak Bay is showing any concern about the issue.

You mention, Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Chairman, that you're surprised that they are now showing all this concern all of a sudden about the children in Vietnam. Both of those members of this Legislature worked very diligently on that committee and certainly the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) , who was then sitting as a Liberal, showed concern as well and still shows concern, as reported in today's paper.

But I would like to ask the Premier whether or not he would also indicate to us this afternoon whether the committee will, in fact, be set up or restructured this session, and, if that committee is able to come up with ways and means to spend the money to assist the children in Vietnam who have been disabled or who need medical attention, whether that money will then be available as soon as the committee is able to make recommendations. In other words, can he give two further commitments that the committee will, indeed, be structured during this session, that they can get to work as soon as possible, and that the money will be available when that committee can come up with recommendations? I would certainly like to hear the Premier's comments on those two particular requests.

The other questions that I would like to pose to the Premier relate to the bottom-line economics which the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) spoke very strongly about a few minutes ago in the Legislature. I'd like to know how hard and fast the Premier's commitment to bottom-line economics is. Is the government going to proceed with balanced budgets at all costs in the future? It's obvious now from the tactics taken by the government with respect to increasing taxes, ferry rates, ICBC that this obsession with a balanced budget has been very damaging to the economy of B.C.

We have received in the mail today "Business Trends Survey" put out by the Employers Council. They don't have too much optimism, Mr. Chairman, about the future of B.C. in this coming year. You look at the 112,000 unemployed and then you recognize that people are hurting. Small businesses are going under and the general economy in B.C. is indeed suffering because of the policies and the obsession of this government with its bottom-line economy.

We have heard pious statements from the government as well about not wanting to leave a "debt" to our children. But at the same time we find that they are not really balancing the budget because they are removing some of the items out of the budget which might show red ink by setting up the B.C. Ferry Authority into a Crown corporation and certainly by passing the bill last year which relates to the B.C. Buildings Corporation. It can now borrow money on its own, and certainly the red ink then won't show in the budget. But those are certainly increasing the debt to the children of British Columbia.

Talking about debt, all we have to do is look at B.C. Hydro, and the bill that's now on the order paper, Mr. Chairman, which I certainly won't speak about but which calls for another $650 million to be borrowed by B.C. Hydro. Whose debt is that going to be if it's not going to be for our children?

At the same time, we have young people today who are suffering and are paying a huge debt because of the actions and the policies of that government. The highest rate of unemployment is among our young people. They are becoming disillusioned, disenchanted and depressed. And when you have young people who adopt those attitudes because they are unable to find work in this province, they quite often adopt attitudes and behaviour which does no one any good. I don't know if that government has recognized that yet.

But what about the children now, the young people now, the thousands who are out there looking for work? The only thing that we have as far as

[ Page 1130 ]

government statements are concerned relates to the student employment programme. I have indicated several times in this House that the amount of money set aside for that is completely inadequate. We will have students all over this province again unable to find work, and consequently those students will be unable to continue their education.

I would like to know, when the Premier gets on his feet - he was up once already - how serious that commitment to that bottom-line economy is. Are they going to continue that approach at all costs, no matter what it does to the economy, the people of British Columbia, small businesses, and particularly young people who are looking for work?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, the member keeps throwing out that term "bottom line." That may be her expression, but it's financial responsibility to the taxpayers whose money it is. It's not yours and mine, although there are members of that party as former government that took credit as if they were spending their own money and not the taxpayers when they were the government. It's the people's money, and we're going to try and balance off with the people who already are paying a lot for the cost of government in Canada, British Columbia, and municipally. We're going to try and give them value.

We can't spend for many areas what we don't have. We've said that what we will do is arrange the priorities. That's what government is all about - the priorities on what the economy and the taxpayers can send to government. We arrange the priorities and where that money can go. We've arranged those priorities within the limitations of the economy. We'd like to spend a lot more but we don't have it, and what we don't have we can't spend on many of the areas that may be desirable but can't be carried out in this particular year. We've made our priorities. People are the priority of the government, and there's large sums of money being spent on them.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: That member says: "Balanced budgets at any cost." Not at all. We owe a responsibility not only to the people of B.C. today but to future generations and future people not to have them burdened with the excesses of today. That member may well be prepared to leave a legacy of debt on the province we're all fortunate to be members of. We didn't create British Columbia; it was here.

The only thing wrong with British Columbia is the way we manage it sometimes, and the expectation and demands we make upon it. That's right. The last government spent excessively, and they left a debt that we can't service now. That debt will remain for some time. We are not trying to pay it off - we can't.

All the money that we are collecting this year is going back for services in this year, except for the amount that goes to pay interest on that legacy of debt that that member's government left us. Now that is money that is taken out of services.

1 pointed out what deficit financing does, because the federal government has just brought down a budget of $41 billion, of which over $5 billion - far more than the total British Columbia budget - goes to pay off the spending of the past. That is money that is robbed from services today because past governments didn't have the nerve or the ability, or a little bit of both, to make the priorities, make the judgments and deal within the framework of the economy. Many of them wanted to play Santa Claus. One of the worst things that happens in the democratic system is politicians who are more concerned with trying to buy their re-election with the people's money ...

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. BENNETT: ... than they are with guarding the taxpayers' revenue so that they get full value and those in need get the money.

Mr. Chairman, somehow that member for Comox is like the former Minister of Human Resources, the second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) . She seems to equate a big heart with how fast you can spend dollar bills. But that's not a big heart. Along with a heart you have to have a head and some common sense. It goes in getting value and making sure the value and the services get there to the people.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Many services with fancy-sounding names have, in fact, provided no service at all to individuals in this province. What we have to do as a government or as a Legislature is have the ability to arrange the priorities within the framework of the economy to meet the needs of our people and not succumb to that temptation to try and buy the favouritism of the public, try and curry favour by spending their own dollars back as though we were some munificent and generous person spending their own money on the public, in effect. It has been governments that have succumbed to that weakness that have been detrimental, not only as you have been to this province, but as some governments have been in Canada. They have left a legacy of debt which robs money from current services today.

You can't equate current account with B.C. Hydro because B.C. Hydro, as any of the energy-producing facilities in any of the provinces, is financing for capital and financing for capital facilities. B.C. Hydro must be able to deliver energy at cost and be able to service its debt. But the money that is going into

[ Page 1131 ]

Hydro is for capital expenditure and capital works that will provide energy not only for us, but energy in the future. So you are leaving future generations a basis of ongoing energy that they can use, and you are doing it at today's prices.

Because if you left it to them, if we had, in fact, met the timetable suggested by that party, the NDP, when they talked about the two-river policy.... If we had left it to their timetable for constructing the Peace River and bringing it on stream, it would have cost us millions and millions of dollars more, knowing what has happened to costs in the meantime. It's nice to look back in hindsight - maybe that was their judgment of the day. But I just say that bringing it on in advance is leaving future generations not only the facility but the benefit of those facilities - the ongoing benefit, especially when it comes to hydro and electrical generation. It can't be equated with the ability of the economy to pay for services at the particular time.

The member asked about.... He got me sidetracked - he asked about Vietnam. Mr. Chairman, I'll be taking it up with my colleagues as to how we structure it. We're waiting for some information that the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) is going to provide to me. I'll also discuss it with the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) , who was not in the House when I mentioned that. He did mention that this was discussed in his estimates last year, and I don't recall it. So if I was in the House, I wasn't listening, and I apologize for that.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): What does that make you?

HON. MR. BENNETT: It makes me as bad as most of the members in this House.

Anyhow, we will deal with it. I'm not going to guess in advance how it will be set up or what will be available for distribution. What we talked about was the fact that there was no fund but that there was a commitment of a Legislature. I have said that if we carry that commitment as a Legislature, the same mechanisms for investigation and making sure that the generosity of B.C. cannot be abused....

I compliment the member for Oak Bay because I am sure that many people have been warned, as governments have been burned when generosity has been sent to many countries or to good intentions around the world. Much of it doesn't get to where it's intended, and I am sure that committee was acting in the best interests of our taxpayers and those whom they intended the service for as far as the money that was going to provide services for the children. So we will be dealing with that in that way and then the government of the day, responding to whatever the committee does, is going to have to try and find, as need be, the type of funds necessary. It is not in this year's budget and, as such, if they find ways, which they weren't able to in the few years they sat, to make sure the money gets to where it should be going, then we'll have to look at some ways of making adjustments this year. That will mean some adjustments, but the government is prepared to make recommendation to Treasury Board that we look in those areas, depending on the findings of the committee.

MS. SANFORD: It seems to me that the Premier is hedging his bets a bit now with respect to the setting up of the committee and making that money available. There is no doubt that the information is very readily available. The Minister of Labour certainly has all of the information. I know that the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) , the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) and myself wrote to the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) immediately after this government came to power. The issue certainly has been raised with members of cabinet on several occasions. It's regrettable that they didn't bring it to your attention since you are responsible to meeting that commitment. I would hope that the Premier would be able to tell us that, yes, we can set up that committee again immediately and that we can get on with the job of disbursing that money just as quickly as possible.

There's no doubt, Mr. Chairman, looking at the way in which the government has estimated its revenues this year, that they're going to have some extra money which they, I suppose, will be using at election time. They want to set this aside. He talked about buying favouritism, but there has been no government in past history as famous for buying favouritism at election time as the former Social Credit government. I assume that this present Social Credit government is up to the same sort of thing. I'm not going to get into arguments about Hydro and the capital costs that are involved and who it's going to benefit and who is going to pay for it this time, but I do hope that the Premier will give us the assurance, because I felt he was backing down on the commitment that he gave earlier in the House this afternoon that that all-party committee will be established immediately and we can get on with the job of disbursing that $2.5 million to the children in Vietnam.

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): I have for the Premier just a very short question, and it's related to his rather weak defence of his government's fiscal policies which he just outlined for the umpteenth time in this House. I just have one very simple question which the Premier always seems to evade when he's defending his austerity, tight-money policy. My simple question to you, Mr. Premier, is: would you not agree that your fiscal policies have

[ Page 1132 ]

taken millions of dollars from the pockets of the consumers of British Columbia and because your policies have done that we are in a state of further recession than we would have been if you had not followed this fiscal policy of removing money from the pockets of the consumers of British Columbia?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Once again, I guess the member will have to listen, Mr. Chairman, to the same statement. The same costs were going on before, like the cost of insurance when we came to government - the cost was there. Only part of it was being covered by premium; the rest of it was being covered up. But it was due. The money was there. The cost was there. You're trying to say that just because ... like the member for Kootenay (Mr. Haddad) does in his magic act, it's "don't watch this hand" while the other hand covers things up. But I'll tell you that by audit the Insurance Corporation lost $181 million in two years because the premiums were insufficient to cover it. That money had to come from somewhere to pay for insurance.

MRS. DAILLY: You set it back.

HON. MR. BENNETT: We didn't set it back. You set it back by not coming clean with the public.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. BENNETT: I would like to leave these old areas and get on with the business of today and the future, but the members keep bringing it up as though they've got some death wish that they have to keep reminding the public of their administration. I don't want to keep reminding them because the memory still hurts them. You keep bringing it up and I don't want to have to deal with it anymore.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): I agree with the Premier. I would certainly like to talk about today and the future. I would have been actually convinced by the Premier's arguments about why one has to cut back on services if I didn't remember the budget which just wiped out a source of revenue when it allowed people leaving estates of more than $200,000 not to pay any duty or any tax on it. I want to talk to you about the present, Mr. Premier, because you gave a very moving statement about why we can't have services, why we're cutting back services because there isn't any money in the coffers.

I want to read to you a letter that I received just a few minutes ago about something that's happening right now. This is from Terrace. I sat and listened to that member from Terrace (Mr. Shelford) give his statement, and he didn't mention anything about an experience that happened in his riding just last week. The letter said:

"Dear Rosemary:

"I just have to write to you re an incident that took place in Terrace this weekend. On Friday evening around 5 p.m. a young mother called her doctor and told him that she had just murdered her child. He went over and found the child barely alive.

"Doctor Asante was called and spent the night keeping the child alive. He was supposed to have left on Sunday for a Whitehorse trip but he called a mercy flight on Saturday and accompanied the child, who required oxygen, to Vancouver. The youngster died on Sunday. The tragedy of the whole scene is that we just had a battering case that was fatal less than six months ago."

You know, while you are saying that there is no money for services, Terrace doesn't even have a child-abuse team. Here's a young woman - I don't want to give you all the details of the letter - with four small children trying to live on inadequate welfare. Even your own minister spends all of his time talking about the abuses, but he doesn't really talk about the people who are trying to live on it Finally, at the end of her rope, she had nowhere to call for help even if she needed it, and beat her child until that child died. And you stand up in this House and tell me that we cannot mortgage future generations to meet the services of people today! Who do you think is paying so that you can balance your budget?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, please address the Chair.

MS. BROWN: It would be really nice, Mr Chairman - and I want to speak through you - if every time we wanted something we could afford to pay for it. I'm sure this woman would have liked to have been able to have a decent life for herself and her four children. It just so happened that she was left on her own. Her husband had taken off and left her, and she was on her own. Because they were small children she had to try to live on the inadequate welfare which is paid under this system.

It's true that a lot of mothers do it and survive, and that, in fact, there are very few mothers who resort to child abuse. But we do know that child abuse exists. It is such a serious thing that there is going to be a three-day conference in Vancouver on violence in the family. One of the sponsoring bodies, the Conference on the Family group, is one of the groups of which that government cut off the funding After telling us that there is no money to deal with things like child abuse and violence in the family, they turn around and wipe out a source of revenue If one had to choose between being able to write off their death duties on an estate of $200,000 or

[ Page 1133 ]

more or having $30 million in the budget so that Terrace could have a child-abuse team, so that the Conference on the Family could continue the kind of work they are doing with battered children, Mr. Chairman, and with battered wives and other kinds of violence in the family.... What kind of priorities does the Premier have? What sort of priorities does the Premier have if, when he establishes his priorities and he establishes the priorities for his government, he decides that it's a more important priority to be able to write off your death duties on an estate of $200,000 than to have decent child-abuse teams, groups like SPARC and groups like the Conference on the Family that are dealing with violence in the family? What kinds of Priorities are these?

The Premier says we are not to talk about the past, that we are to talk about the present. Well, this is the present. This letter is dated February 16; this is the present. What are we do do about that? Sure, Vancouver has a child-abuse team. But even their funding is in jeopardy because funding for the Vancouver Resources Board, out of which the funds come for things like the child-abuse team, is going to be cut drastically. So the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) can brag to you and show you what a great minister he is by cutting $28 million off his budget, which you turn around and make a gift of to people who die and leave estates of more than $200,000. They can have the gift. But people who really need....

You ask the member for Comox (Ms.Sanford) who is to pay off these bills and who is paying these debts, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Premier. This woman who beat her child to death is one of the people paying off those bills and you have decided that it is more important to reward the rich than it is to do anything about people in need. You have decided when you establish your priorities that there are only so many dollars to go around. You decide how those dollars are spent. You made a clear, cold and calculated decision that the people in need in this province, through you, Mr. Chairman, were the ones who were going to pay. The people who were not in need were going to be rewarded for the fact that they had so much that they could die and leave estates of $200,000 or more to their children.

I'm not really speaking on your estimates because I haven't got enough time. Tomorrow I'm going to do my 30 minutes on you, Mr. Premier.

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): I can hardly wait.

MS. BROWN: I didn't intend to speak today. But I couldn't sit here and listen to the response that you gave to the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) without sharing with you this letter that just came in the mail to me today. You have established your priorities. This woman and her child paid so that you could reward the people in this province who die and leave estates of more than $200,000.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before I recognize the next member, I feel constrained to make an observation that I think will assist every member of the House. If I could have everyone's attention for just a moment - including the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) -I'd appreciate it.

The practice has been observed in the House - and I think that we must refer to it - that the debate which is carried on in this House must be carried on through the Chair. I know that members are seeking to do this, and they do this, they believe, by saying "through you, Mr. Chairman." I think that perhaps we should refer to Beauchesne and let him give us the lesson that I think is required as to what it is to speak through the Chairman.

"It is the custom in both Houses that no member should refer to another by name. In order to guard against all appearance of personality in debate, members should be referred to in the third person."

That means we should talk about a minister as "he, " and to a group of ministers as "they." The reason why this rule is established at all is to take the abusiveness of the direct contact out of interpersonal debate. I give this to you today as just a little bit of steerage.

MR. BARRETT: But, Mr. Chairman, it is not answering my question!

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, when he stood up, he said that the ICBC premiums were too low and the government was going to re-establish the ICBC as a pay-as-you-go proposition.

MR. BARRETT: Then what did it do?

MR. COCKE: I asked a few weeks ago, Mr. Chairman, what the ICBC had on hand in the way of investments at the end of the month most recently discussed. The answer came back from the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer): $272,480, 000. Mr. Chairman, they sure have turned the corner with ICBC, haven't they? By abusing every young person and every motorist in this province - that's how, Mr. Chairman.

MR. BARRETT: With or without seatbelts.

MR. COCKE: This is the question that we've continually brought up to this bottom-line government - a government that tries to justify gouging by indicating that the past government's performance wasn't up to par. Mr. Chairman, the past

[ Page 1134 ]

government's performance was very much up to par in this province. Anybody that has any kind of sense of history at all recognizes that. It was not a government that was totally preoccupied with the bottom line, but a government that was totally preoccupied with people. It was a government that was totally preoccupied with the needs of the people of this province, whether it was health, whether it was education, or whether it was in any of the other areas.

I wonder if the Premier today is reflecting on some of the words that he said on March 19,1975. The Premier stood at that time in the other Premier's estimates - the Premier now who was then Leader of the Opposition. This is what he said, Mr. Chairman, and let's draw our conclusions. I quote from Hansard. He said:

If we're concerned about the government's position, Mr. Chairman, when it comes to placing loans at too high an interest rate, certainly we should be concerned about the government's activities within the stock market.

My goodness! There's a fresh breeze blowing in that area right now. I wonder if he reflects on making that statement.

It was pointed out last session in this House that when the government and the ministers are taking over a company in total, the confidentiality - notice this -that must apply, the fact that no leaks should be allowed to happen, the fact that nobody who hasn't given an oath of secrecy should be involved in the planning of the takeover of a company, because of the nature of what it would do to the value of shares ... et cetera.

That also applies in other areas, Mr. Chairman.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who said that?

MR. COCKE: The Leader of the Opposition then - the Premier now - said it. He said, Mr. Chairman, that there must be no leaks.

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): Has he forgotten all that?

MR. COCKE: He said that there must be secrecy. He said, Mr. Chairman, that there had to be an oath of secrecy taken by anyone involved in government activities. Mr. Chairman, I wonder now if he's thinking about that in terms of things that are happening around this government. Many situations have occurred in recent days and in recent weeks that should put him in mind of his old speech. I have a great many of his old speeches that I've gone over recently, and I would just like to know, Mr. Chairman, whether or not he still feels the same way. Because of the inadequate way he answered the member for Comox (Ms. Sanford) about whether or not he recognizes his present direction as being all wet with respect to the economy and the present direction of his ministers as being all wrong for the direction of our economy, is he going to suggest that he's going to take the screws off the people of this province so that there can be an opportunity for our economy to resurrect itself? It's suffering badly, Mr. Chairman, and I suggest that it's about time that he answers some of these questions.

'One other thing I would like to -know is whether the Premier, in his discussion of the Vietnam committee, said definitively - and I thought I heard him say definitively - that the committee would be resurrected, that it would be an all-party committee, hopefully not chaired by the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) , who showed his complete lack of interest in it right from the outset. As a matter of fact, I would ask the House if it could be chaired by the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) , who's had a continuing interest in this question. The dominating force on that committee can still be the government; they can have as many members on it as they like. But I would like to see the member of that original committee, the member for Oak Bay, as chairman of that committee.

Mr. Chairman, it would show a sign of recognition, of justice and fair play if the Premier would stand in this House now and say that that would be the direction that we'll go with respect to providing that care, providing that sharing with the poor little mutilated children in Vietnam. Can we hear from the Premier on that question, Mr. Chairman?

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I was interested in the answer that the Premier gave to my colleague from New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) regarding the commitment to the Vietnamese children. I'm sorry the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) is not in the House because his comments on this matter that were carried in The Vancouver Sun of today, February 21, were certainly, I think, a true reflection of the commitment this House made in a moral way.

But what interests me, Mr. Chairman is the fact that the speaker's support of the Minister of Labour's position in this regard - and I took his comments to be just that - was a commitment, an acknowledgement that this House did in fact undertake a moral obligation to continue that commitment made to the children of Vietnam by all of the members of this House. In so doing, he certainly repudiated the position taken by the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) . In today's Vancouver Sun the Provincial Secretary had this to say:

"McCarthy, however, told reporters Sunday that any decision made by one government cannot be inherited by another unless it is enshrined in legislation, especially if that

[ Page 1135 ]

particular government does not leave sufficient funds to fill the obligation.

"She said she does not see a commitment in this case."

Now the Premier got up this afternoon and repudiated the Provincial Secretary. He has acknowledged that there is indeed a commitment.

For all of those, including the Premier, who seem confused as to where the money might come from, I want to remind them that, as my friend, the Leader of the Opposition, pointed out, they can activate the increased royalty on export coal which was announced by our government before the election in 1975 - a step that would result in at least $11 million a year additional income to this government. That's certainly adequate to pay for any obligation and more with respect to our commitment to Vietnamese children.

As other colleagues in the opposition have pointed out, the government did not seem at all hesitant about providing a tax holiday to the tune of $30 million for all of their friends in the millionaires' club, to exempt them from the need to pay succession duties and gift tax. Certainly that not only benefited the friends of this government but it benefited a great number in the cabinet and treasury benches, Mr. Chairman, so there's no problem in terms of coming up with the money; it's just a matter of priorities.

Where is your primary concern? Is it for children who are crippled and needy around the world? Is it for unemployed British Columbia workers? No. I'm sorry to say, Mr. Chairman, it appears to be for the millionaires in this province and the heirs of the millionaires, who can fend for themselves and have shown that they're doing very, very well with the influence they hold in this province.

One other thing that I wish the Premier would do, and certainly something that I expect him to do before I'm prepared to see his estimates approved, is get up and give a clear statement with regard to where he stands on this whole matter of the blacklist that was transmitted from his office to the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) . That memo, which identified civil servants in this province by their political persuasion, was marked "strictly personal and confidential." The Premier initially answered that it was absolutely not true that any blacklist had been sent. When that blacklist was tabled in the House by myself, I was treated to an attack by the Premier for having documents in my possession which belonged to the government.

Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier, I tabled those documents in the House, which I think is the responsible thing to do as a legislator, particularly when the significance of them was threatening to the civil liberties of employees of this government. I want to contrast that approach to the approach which the

Premier himself took when he was Leader of the Opposition and he came across property which was ultimately shown to be stolen property. He released it at a public meeting up in the northern part of the province somewhere. He didn't hold it; he didn't come before the House with it; he didn't discuss it with the government of that day.

He revealed it at a public meeting. At least, Mr. Chairman, I tabled in this House documents that pertain to the government business, and that is what should be done.

So what is the response? What is the response from that Premier and from that government? They set up an investigation to look into the leak. How was this document leaked? Was it the Fonz himself or was it someone from his office, Mr. Chairman? How was it released' , I I'm sure the Chairman doesn't know who

I'm speaking about!

But, Mr. Chairman, that's significant. Here's the Premier of the province, who apparently is incapable of recognizing or distinguishing between proper conduct, the morality of government, and political self-interest. He took the route of political self-interest and he set up a commission, an investigation, to look into why the document was leaked. There was not one word, not one statement, regarding the threat to the reputations and the careers of those public servants who had had their reputations impugned and who had had their possible future careers with that government jeopardized. There was not one word from the Premier saying: "This is wrong. Dan Campbell never should have sent this material out of my office. I will admonish him and I will discipline him for taking this action."

Mr. Chairman, I can't accept that. Before I can vote on his estimates, I demand from the Premier a clear and unequivocal statement regarding where his government and lie, as the leader of that government, stands with respect to these clandestine blacklists which, erroneously in many ways, categorize people by political parties they don't even belong to. That is the kind of pork-barrel politics in this province that we thought had left forever in 1972. 1 don't want to see it return to the province, and I expect a clear statement from the Premier before his estimates pass.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. McClelland moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.