[ Page 1137 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Unethical conduct in Chilliwack land deals. Mr. Skelly — 1137

RCMP evidence-gathering methods. Mr. Wallace — 1137

Contact by B.C. police forces with U.S. Law Enforcement Intelligence Unit.

Hon. Mr. Gardom answers — 1138

Saanich pheasant shoot. Mr. Barber — 1139

Availability of ICBC loan funds. Mr. Cocke — 1139

Committee of Supply: Executive council estimates.

On vote 18.

Mr. Stupich — 1140

Ms. Brown — 1145

Mr. Macdonald — 1150

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 1151

Mr. Loewen — 1154

Mr. Barrett — 1155

Mr. Cocke — 1156

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 1158

Mr. Wallace — 1161

Hon. Mr. Bennett — 1164

Mr. Skelly — 1166

Ms. Brown — 1167

Mr. Barber — 1169

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 22, 1977

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. S. BAWLF (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): Seated in the gallery today is a group of 20 Victoria citizens from the Victoria Silver Threads centre. I would ask the House to bid them welcome.

Also seated in the gallery today are my wife, Marnie, and my son, Chauney. I would ask the House to give them a warm welcome.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): Yesterday during the discussion on the Vietnam committee problem, the Premier suggested that perhaps information should be tabled in the House dealing with the committee activities in 1975. I ask leave to table these documents.

Leave granted.

Oral questions.

UNETHICAL CONDUCT
IN CHILLIWACK LAND DEALS

MR. R.E. SKELLY (Alberni): I have a question for the Attorney-General. With reference to the serious allegations of collusion, conflict-of-interest and political patronage by the Chilliwack Save-the-Farmland Committee involving at least one member of the Social Credit Party and the former Chilliwack municipal solicitor, will the government call an immediate inquiry into those allegations?

HON. G.B. GARDOM (Attorney-General): I'll have to take that question as notice, Mr. Member.

MR. SKELLY: As a supplementary question to the Attorney-General....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MR. SPEAKER: One moment, please.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): Oh! Blocking opposition!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The hon. Attorney-General has taken your original question on notice, hon. member. If it's your preference to have him answer the first question along with a supplemental, that will be permitted, but I hope you realize that you can't engage in another full debate when a question has originally been taken as notice.

MR. SKELLY: I am not going to engage in debate at all, Mr. Speaker, during question period. This is simply supplemental information and a supplemental question that he may take on notice.

MR. SPEAKER: A point of order by the Minister of Health.

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Just in the interests of clarification and order in the House, Mr. Speaker, I'd like a ruling on a practice that has been observed in this House since I've been a member.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: When a question is taken on notice, a supplementary is not asked at that time but is asked at the time the question is answered.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. member, speaking to the point of order, it has been established both ways in this House that supplementals have been asked and other times they have been deferred until such time as the original answer came back. I've checked with other jurisdictions and the same thing does happen occasionally in other jurisdictions. So all I would suggest to the hon. member is that he very quickly and closely tie his question to the original.

MR. SKELLY: I intended to do that, Mr. Speaker. What action is the Attorney-General taking on allegations made to him concerning the role of a provincial court judge, David Hinds, in the Chilliwack land reserve dealings?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'll take it as notice.

RCMP EVIDENCE-GATHERING METHODS

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, to the Attorney-General: I had already raised the issue of the David Ross murder trial where evidence had indicated some questionable techniques of interrogation by the RCMP, together with the promise of $50,000 to a witness. The Attorney-General had said that he would look into the matter and I wonder if he could report on that.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Thanks, hon. member. I did inform the House that I would have a complete report by yesterday. I do not have a complete report. I do have an interim one and I prefer to respond to the question once I'm in receipt of the full information.

The hon. member for Oak Bay a few days ago, though, did ask me a question concerning wiretapping

[ Page 1138 ]

— could I confirm that cases are on record where a wiretap was left in place after an arrest of a suspect? I would like to respond to the hon. member's question. In discussion with the joint forces of CLEU, which does all of the wiretapping save and except the drug cases, they inform me that they do not have any information of such things happening and the policy with respect to wiretapping is as follows: all wiretapping information’s conclude once a charge has been laid.

Now the exception to that rule is, perhaps, where there is a possibility of joint charges being laid. In such a situation, wiretapping can continue after one person has been and could continue until further arrests have been made or the investigation is concluded.

If the hon. member has any specific information concerning any specific event which he would like to inform me of or inform the enforcers of, would he please do so?

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, responding to the Attorney-General's answer, one of the reasons I raised this issue in the first place is the rather staggering statement coming out of the B.C. Bar Association meeting recently, where Judge J.T. Spencer stated....

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: What's the question?

MR. WALLACE: Questions sometimes require a preamble, Mr. Minister.

Judge J.E. Spencer had stated that one wiretap conversation took place between one of our judges and a known criminal, and that the conversation was stated to have involved a former B.C. judge. I wonder if the minister has been made aware of this statement, which was a public statement at the B.C. Bar Association meeting. Will he look into that matter, since it casts serious aspersions?

HON. MR. GARDOM: To the hon. member, I have not received any specific information concerning the point in question. My only information is, as was yours, the statement in the press.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, in the light of the Attorney-General's answer, could I ask him if the B.C. Bar Association has made any representations to the minister, since there seem to be members deeply concerned. Have they or have they not brought this to the attention of the Attorney-General?

HON. MR. GARDOM: No, Mr. Member — not to my knowledge.

CONTACT BY B.C. POLICE FORCES WITH
U.S. LAW ENFORCEMENT INTELLIGENCE UNIT

HON. MR. GARDOM: I would like also to respond to a question asked a few days ago from the member for Burrard (Mr. Levi) . He is not in his seat today but he'll be able to read it in Hansard. He asked me a question as to whether or not the Law Enforcement Intelligence Unit, which is a private organization operating in the United States — I think it started in 1956 — was participating with any of our police forces in the province of British Columbia. I have been informed that neither the RCMP nor CLEU belong to this organization. Dealing with municipal forces, my information is that the only one that has an association with the organization is Vancouver city police; they've had an association for about one year. It's too early to assess its success or otherwise.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): Can the Attorney-General inform the House if he has any information as to the nature of the relationship between the Vancouver city police force and this private intelligence agency in the United States? Just yes or no.

HON. MR. GARDOM: My information is that they had been participating with this United States organization for just about a year. That's really all the information I can give you.

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): Participating in what?

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's a question of relating information from one side unto the other.

MR. BARRETT: Is it a private organization?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Well, yes, of course it's private. Your member raised that question and the response is that it is a private organization. That's what I'm told.

MR. LAUK: A further supplementary to the Attorney-General. Sometimes, I'm instructed, the Law Enforcement Intelligence Unit does deal in what the RCMP would describe as security and intelligence investigations. Will the Attorney-General satisfy this House that he'll look into it further? There is some fear involved in a private organization of this nature having Canadian police information.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Sure. If you have something specific that's giving you concern, Mr. Member, please let me know and I'll endeavour to do my level best to find out about it for you.

MR. LAUK: I point out to the Attorney-General, by way of a supplementary, that he brought the answer to the House that there is an association between this private network and the Vancouver city

[ Page 1139 ]

police force. Surely the matter shouldn't end there. Will the Attorney-General please look into it further and report the full nature of the association to the House?

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

HON. MR. GARDOM: If this would assist you, it was formed to supply an intelligence exchange service to member agencies in the field of major and organized crime. So I guess it's a sharing of information.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): Would the Attorney-General check as to whether this private American organization also engages in political surveillance of people suspected of political tendencies — left and right? This information may be interchanged within Canada and should not be.

MR. BARRETT: Is Grace McCarthy on the board of directors?

HON. MR. GARDOM: You seem to know a little more about this than I do, Mr. Member. Maybe you had better send me a note on it.

SAANICH PHEASANT SHOOT

MR. C. BARBER (Victoria): Were the MLA for Saanich and the Islands (Hon. Mr. Curtis) here I'm sure he'd ask this question, but as he's not, I'll do it for him. It's to the Minister of Recreation and Conservation. Last night at North Saanich council they took the first step to approving an application from Mr. George Aylard of Brackenhurst Farm to operate a pheasant shoot. Part of the consideration given by council in their approval of this was information that had been received by the proponent, Mr. Aylard, that the minister's department has, in fact, endorsed this application. My question to the Minister of Recreation and Conservation is whether, in fact, his ministry has endorsed or supported in any way the application made by Mr. George Aylard of Brackenhurst Farm for a pheasant shoot.

If I may put in a supplemental at this point, I would ask the minister if he's aware that this has raised considerable objection on the part of the neighbours in North Saartich, and the leader of this neighbourhood organization is a Mr. Bud Mesher — who I'm sure is familiar to all opposite — I am informed by the press. I wonder if the minister has been in contact with him as well.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Barber under glass.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question. This matter was brought to my attention this morning. On inquiry, I discover that the ministry has indeed encouraged programmes of this sort in the lower mainland and elsewhere in the past. I have, this morning, ordered a stop to such programmes until I've had an opportunity to review the whole question of this type of programme.

SUBSISTENCE HUNTING PERMITS

HON. MR. BAWLF: If I may, I would like to respond to another question asked some couple of days ago by the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson). The question was:

With regard to subsistence hunting permits for native peoples, has the minister instituted a new programme whereby these people must submit to a means test at the Department of Human Resources before granting of a subsistence hunting permit?

The answer to that question is simply no. I have not instituted a new policy. Native people are not required to submit to a means test before the granting of a subsistence hunting permit.

AVAILABILITY OF ICBC LOAN FUNDS

MR. D.G. COCKE (New Westminster): I have a question for the Minister of Education, in charge of ICBC. The Insurance Corporation of B.C. has a considerable amount of funds available to loan on a short-term basis. An answer to a question recently indicated that was an amount of about $272 million. The question, Mr. Speaker, is: would the minister advise the House whether some of these funds are made available to the forest industry?

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, corporations with a high rating in B.C., regardless of their particular field of interest, are eligible for short- and long-term borrowing from ICBC because it's the policy of the corporation to invest in British Columbia wherever possible.

MR. LAUK: Has there been?

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. COCKE: I would ask a supplementary: would the minister advise the House specifically whether any funds are loaned at this time to MacMillan Bloedel?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, we have one member from MacMillan Bloedel on the board of directors. Because of that, MacMillan Bloedel is not eligible to borrow funds from ICBC.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary, I understand that member on the

[ Page 1140 ]

board is Mr. Gillen. I wonder if the minister could tell us what salary Mr. Gillen is drawing as vice-president of ICBC.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Gillen is receiving no salary from ICBC. The normal rate of remuneration for directors of ICBC is $250 a day for work done for the corporation, but Mr. Gillen receives a monthly stipend in lieu of director's tees in order to save the corporation money.

Interjections.

HON. MR. McGEER: Subject to correction, Mr. Speaker, I believe it's $3,750 a month.

MR. WALLACE: A further supplementary: in light of the fact that....

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker....

MR. SPEAKER: It would certainly assist the question period if you would allow the person who has the floor to ask his question uninterrupted.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, in light of the fact that Mr. Gillen is deriving $3,000 a month from a public body — and I believe he's vice-chairman of strategic and planning services for MacMillan Bloedel, which is a private company — can the minister tell us whether he considers this not to be a conflict of interest on the part of Mr. Gillen?

HON. MR. McGEER: No, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, since the Attorney-General didn't answer my question, I would ask leave to move adjournment of the House pursuant to standing order 35(1) for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance. If I may, I'll state the matter of importance.

The matter is the statement in today's Vancouver Province which says as follows:

"The Save-the-Farmland Committee says it has evidence that indicates collusion, conflict of interest and possible political patronage in the alliance of municipal authorities and developers in their persistent and continuous applications for the release of farmland from the agricultural land reserve."

The article further states:

"They call for an inquiry into the role played by former Chilliwack municipal solicitor, David Hinds, in the land dealings. Hinds is now a provincial court judge."

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, at the present moment I don't think that the Speaker requires assistance.

I would like to reply to the matter raised by the hon. member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly). Without determining the motion to be either in or out of order, I would like to comment quickly on the fact that it has been held many times that a matter raised under this standing order, if there will be an opportunity immediately or in the future or in time to discuss the matter, could very well lose the battle as to being in order because of that very definitive suggestion. There are many other grounds on which this motion may or may not qualify in terms of urgent public importance. But I'll reserve my decision on it without in any way prejudicing the member or his position if, in fact, it proves that the motion is in order. I'll deliver a decision as quickly as possible.

MR. BARRETT: Considering the motion, I would like to stress the emergency aspect is that it's an allegation contained in a major newspaper rather than emanating from this Legislature.

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. D.D. STUPICH (Nanaimo): Mr. Chairman, quite apart from the matter that was raised in question period and the matter upon which the Speaker is now deliberating, I think there is this whole question of the B.C. Land Commission and the Premier's attitude with respect to the Land Commission. I speak about this because of a newspaper story quoting the Premier and commenting on the Premier's remarks before he became Premier. It's a newspaper story in The Vancouver Sun dated November 15, 1975, and the heading is "Bennett Vows to Oust B.C. Land Commission."

If it were just the headline, I perhaps wouldn't think it worth bringing it up at this time. Although I have never had occasion that I was misquoted by the news media, I did have occasion two separate times, just a week apart, when one of the columnists called me to apologize for the heading that was put on the

[ Page 1141 ]

story. But in this particular case it's not just the heading; we have the actual story itself in quotations. The lead paragraph:

"Bill Bennett promised Friday that a Social Credit government will strip the powers of the B.C. Land Commission established by the once-contentious Bill 32."

Mr. Chairman, then there is a quotation:

"'If we form the next government, we will return that power to local governments.'"

And finally on this question, Mr. Chairman:

"Bennett did not use words such as 'repeal' or 'amend' in his references to the Land Commission Act, but the fulfilment of his promise would almost certainly require its repeal."

— referring to the Land Commission Act.

Mr. Chairman, I think we'd like to have some assurance from the Premier that he does not agree with the Leader of the Opposition, as he was on November 15; having seen the light of day, having been elected to the office of Premier, he now feels differently about the Land Commission. I bring this up only because it is the same person, and I feel there is sufficient interest in this subject in the community that there should be some assurance from the Premier that he has changed his mind about the ousting of the B.C. Land Commission. That is one of the questions I would like to put to him.

The newspaper story goes on to talk about other election promises of the Social Credit government that I think are worth repeating at this time to find out the current Premier's attitude towards these election promises he made as quoted in the press on November 15, 1975.

I bring this up because of his remarks yesterday when he spoke about the priorities of spending of his government. In this article he mentions: "One of the priorities will be to remove sales tax from building materials so that people will find it easier to own their own homes." Mr. Chairman, you will recall that the only change in sales tax was to increase it. I wonder where on his list of priorities the Premier feels the removal of sales tax from building materials should come.

Another of the promises in this story is help for municipalities. Mr. Chairman, you will recall that was mentioned in the throne speech. But you will recall also — I don't intend to get into the details now — when we get into the budget itself, it would appear that the help is actually negative when it is transferred into actual dollars. There is actually going to be a decrease in the real level of financing for the municipalities as offered by this government. So I wonder again just where his priorities are with respect to help for municipalities in this his second year as Premier of the province of British Columbia.

Further on in the same story; he told a woman who asked him about the social programmes in the Socred platform that there would be no chance to implement programmes that cost money within the next year. But now, Mr. Chairman, we are into the following year, into the second year, and again I wonder about the priorities.

I don't mind, really, no. But I am to talk to you and I think that I'm doing that. You don't have to listen.

Mr. Chairman, the government did give up certain opportunities to get additional revenue that might have given it the money to carry forward with some of its priorities, as described by the Leader of the Opposition on November 15, 1975. For example, it had already been told to the coal companies — and this has been said already — that they were going to pay an extra dollar a ton which would have contributed something like another $12 million. It had already been told to the producing companies for natural gas that they were going to get 60 cents a thousand cubic feet for old gas. Instead of that, the government gave them 65 cents, which cost BCPC perhaps another $15 million. We have been told that we are getting rid of succession duties, which is going to cost us something like $30 million. So we are talking about a loss in revenue of some $57 million a year.

Where are the priorities? Remember the millionaires' Monday budget? Apparently the priorities are for millionaires only. I ask the Premier when his list of priorities is going to change so that he starts looking after some of the election promises that he made on November 15, 1975.

This same newspaper story says: "We must have a government that will provide opportunity for capital and opportunity for employment. We want work and wages." Shades of Duff Pattullo. "We want work and wages..."

HON. MR. GARDOM: He's not that old.

MR. STUPICH: I am. Perhaps the Premier isn't, but I am, Garde. "We want work and wages, not waste and welfare."

Well, Mr. Chairman, I think this is perhaps as good an opportunity as any to compare the record of the NDP administration — as the Premier has tried to do during his remarks in this debate — and the record of the Social Credit government.

Let's look briefly at the record of the NDP. I draw on the government's own publication, the second quarterly report. I am going to deal only with those new Crown corporations, the ones that were established in spite of the opposition, in particular from the minister in charge of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips). I'll deal with every one established by the New Democratic Party.

We look first at B.C. Petroleum Corporation. In

[ Page 1142 ]

the second quarterly report, we are dealing with the results for six months. We find that in that six months, B.C. Petroleum Corporation made a net income of $79,101,000.

B.C. Cellulose, the second one alphabetically, established by the NDP government, in a period of nine months had a net income of $1,106,000.

B.C. Development Corporation in the first six months — net earnings of $410,000.

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Hold Your applause until all have been introduced.

MR. STUPICH: B.C. Steamships — here's a loser — nine months and they lost $27,000.

Let's go on, Mr. Chairman. ICBC auto insurance: In the first six months a net income of $25 million — I hope the Premier will respond when he's recognized, Mr. Chairman, as well as when I'm recognized, but that's fine. In the first six months the auto insurance fund, $25,856,000 net revenue; general insurance, a net loss in that same period of $332,000; a net overall profit in those six months — or income — of $25,524,000.

Dunhill, which was attacked so vigorously, in particular by the member I mentioned previously: the first nine months' net earnings were $958,000.

Kootenay Forest Products, first seven months: $336,000.

Ocean Falls, first nine months: $1,163,000.

Plateau Mills, first nine months: $1,184,000.

Panco Poultry, first six months: $447,000.

Mr. Chairman, if you add all those up — taking into account that some of them are six months, some are seven months and some are nine months — and work it out on an average monthly, you'll find that in the course of the year, by pro-rating those figures — which aren't necessarily accurate but nevertheless it gives us a figure — at those rates of return, the combined income, including the losses — I've included all of them — will be $217,368,000.

Now that's a record of achievement, Mr. Chairman, and I challenge the Premier to produce his list. That's $217,368,000 net income. Mr. Chairman, if you assume that government assets should be earning at the rate of 10 per cent, those assets would be worth $2 billion. But, Mr. Chairman, the total cost of all of those investments to the people of the province of British Columbia is less than the combined net earnings for one year — approximately $217 million. For a one-time expenditure of $217 million we have assets that are earning in this particular current period income of $217,368,000. Now what, Mr. Chairman, is the record that the Social Credit coalition can put up against that after 15 months in office?

Well, let's look at some of these, some of the records. We look at The Province, February 22, 1977, and the heading is "Calgary Hit Hardest." Mr. Chairman, we're talking about the cost of living, and right down on the bottom we find out that Vancouver, British Columbia, still has the highest cost of living in the 12-month average for the whole of Canada. Mr. Chairman, with the exception of one area, the increase in the cost of living in the last period is greater in B.C. than anywhere else.

Mr. Chairman, you will recall that in the dying months of the NDP administration we took steps to see that didn't happen in B.C. We imposed price freezes to control the increase in the cost of living. We did make the AIB programme work for a short period in B.C. But since then it's gone all out of kilter again — all out of balance — and the cost of living in B.C. Is rising higher than anywhere else in the country, due in part, Mr. Chairman, to the heavy user charges imposed by this government and the heavy increases in taxes levied by this government.

Not just cost of living. What about unemployment? Mr. Chairman, there's a story in Monday's paper, the Victoria Times. In fact, it's an editorial I'm quoting from, Monday, February 21, about previously unpublished figures confirmed — and this is interesting, Mr. Chairman — by Manpower Minister Bud Cullen. "Here in British Columbia the official unemployment figures for 1976 were 8.7 per cent or 98,000 jobless." But then there's the hidden unemployment, the unreported unemployment, as far as those figures are concerned, Mr. Chairman, and these:

"...added another 49,000 to the list for a real total of 147,000 unemployed or a rate of 12 per cent for the whole province."

Mr. Chairman, I told you about the record of the NDP in some three years in creating jobs and in maintaining employment. I told you also that the only record the Social Credit coalition can point to is one of tremendously increasing cost of living and tremendous increases of unemployment. It's not just what I have to say, Mr. Chairman; we have economists such as Dr. Leonard Laudadio saying that under the NDP British Columbia was better off economically than the rest of Canada. But under the Socreds this province is worse off. We have Judith Maxwell, director of economic policy with the prestigious C.D. Howe Research Institute:

"In the short term the provincial government has added to the inflation and helped the recession."

Mr. Chairman, those are the only good things I can find to say about the Social Credit government. Now perhaps the Premier would like to try and match our record of something like $205 million cost of assets that are producing in this year $217 million of net income.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to deal with another newspaper story, in yesterday's paper. The heading is again — I realize I'm relying on the heading: "Bennett

[ Page 1143 ]

Charged With Mis-statements." "Premier Bill Bennett was charged Monday with using mis-statements and selected information to give wrong impressions to the people of B.C. Lauk at one point accused Bennett of using half-truths." Well, Mr. Chairman, it's right that he should have withdrawn that because he was only half-right. He was only half-right in saying that the Premier was using half-truths.

If I could deal with some of that, there were two items mentioned in this particular story. The references to B.C.'s export performance, and that was officially dealt with yesterday, I think, by....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. I think the member has been in the House long enough to know that we cannot, under our standing orders, do something indirectly which cannot be done directly. We cannot use the ploy of a newspaper article to lay charges which cannot be laid directly here on the floor except by substantive motion, and I must ask the member to withdraw any imputation of wrongdoing.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw any imputation of wrongdoing.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

MR. STUPICH: Now if I could go on with my remarks, I think the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) dealt sufficiently with what the Premier had to say about B.C.'s export performance and showed that he used the figures improperly. With respect to Dunsky Advertising, I think this was dealt with yesterday when the Premier said the Dunsky agency was favoured with all of the government business. Mr. Chairman, I would remind you that I did withdraw without any equivocation at all, gracefully. When the Premier was asked to withdraw that, or was questioned about this, he said, according to the Blues: "Mr. Chairman, if the Leader of the Opposition is worried about the word 'all,' I'll say then 'the large bulk."' Now that is hardly, Mr. Chairman, what I consider to be an unequivocal withdrawal. Nevertheless, mine was unequivocal and I am not surprised that the Premier chose that particular method of making his withdrawal.

Mr. Chairman, you'll recall the Clarkson Gordon report and the Premier saying that this was going to be a full investigation. He implied that it was a complete audit of government accounts. You will recall Clarkson Gordon saying: "All we were asked to do was add up figures given to us by the Premier and the Minister of Finance." Now I won't say that was a half-truth, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, the matter of the seatbelts was mentioned yesterday, and I think the Premier could then have withdrawn that remark just as gracefully as I did when he saw that they were there. Well, he probably didn't see them in the first place. I think he has reason for saying he didn't notice they were there and assumed they weren't there, because often they aren't in the back seat. But I think he should have admitted it instead of refusing to admit it at that time.

Mr. Chairman, there is something else that's harder to accept, and that is his presentation at the recent Social Credit convention of what he described as "the 1976 NDP budget for the province of British Columbia." That was no half-truth, He knew full well that was no budget. He knew exactly what it was. As Minister of Finance in that administration I had never seen that material put together in one document. Mr. Chairman, how would you describe it? He knew full well that he was not dealing in the complete truth when he described that mess of papers as a budget.

There is the reference attached to the second quarterly report to the employment possibilities: "The government has authorized the Department of Highways to embark on a highway programme of an additional $120 million which will create jobs this winter." Now the Minister of Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) has tried to explain this and tried to tell everybody what the Premier was saying, but the Premier has never once, to my knowledge, confessed to the people of British Columbia that in saying that he either didn't know what he was talking about, or he knew but he hoped that nobody would question it. Mr. Chairman, that's no half-truth.

He said no blacklist left his office. Mr. Chairman, he could have been mistaken. I think he should not have been quite so forceful in saying that at the time. He should have checked, but he said, "no blacklist left my office," without any equivocation at all. He has found out since that it did.

MR. CHAIRMAN: May I interrupt you, hon. member, just long enough to suggest that this particular subject likely has been well canvassed in yesterday's debate. I've made notes to that effect here.

MR. STUPICH: Well, Mr. Chairman, I wouldn't bring this up except that it did come up yesterday when the Premier again said that no blacklist left his office because there was no blacklist. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think you will accept that there was certainly a list that left his office and, at the very least, we would like to know.... The Premier was asked yesterday: "Did you reprimand Mr. Campbell for having passed this list on?" You'll recall when the hon. first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) was talking about the blacklist and said that it was in the Premier's office for 30 days, the Premier interjected to say it was only five days.

[ Page 1144 ]

MR. BARRETT: He knew what it was all about.

MR. STUPICH: So he knew what was going on. He knew there was a list, and he knew how long it was in his office, or he established later on how long it was in his office. Mr. Chairman, if he didn't reprimand Mr. Campbell I think the least we should know — and I think he should answer this question is: did he at least discuss it with Mr. Campbell after the issue was first raised in this House something like 10 days ago?

Mr. Chairman, the legacy of debt — now this really falls in the category of all the rest of it where the Premier was certainly not speaking in half-truths. I could quote from the Blues of February 18 and February 21. I am reading now from February 18: "You can budget in a cyclical way but you have to have the restraint to build up the surpluses in the good years, and to show the judgment of what is a good year, so you'll have the money there for the poor year."

Well Mr. Chairman, let's take a look again at the record of the New Democratic Party government while it was in office. When we arrived in office the public accounts for the year ended March 31, 1972, will show that the total assets for the province of British Columbia were $2,726 billion. They will also show that at the end of March, 1976 — and I have to go to 1976 because there were some dips there and I think we should include that to give the true picture or I'd be accused of not using the bad news as well as the good — the total assets were $3,986 billion, an increase of $1,260 billion in the assets of the province of British Columbia during that period when the NDP was in control of the government of the province of British Columbia.

Capital surplus at the end of March 31, 1972, was $1.679 billion. At the end of March, 1976, in spite of what happened in 1975-76, it was $2.393 billion, an increase of $714 million. Revenue surplus was $99 million at the end of March, 1972. There was a deficit, as the Premier reported in the Blues on February 18, at the end of March 31, 1976, of $261 million, of which, Mr. Chairman, you'll recall, $181 million was a gift to ICBC that ICBC didn't need and still has to this day — still had at the end of December. Nevertheless, there was a deficit.

If we consider we started with a surplus of $99 million and we have a deficit of $261 million, that's a decrease in revenue surplus of $360 million in that period. Special-purpose funds — you know, the mattresses where you hide the extra money or where you put the extra money away for a rainy day — totalled at the end of March 31, 1972, $351 million. On March 31, 1976, they were $552 million. There was a net increase, in spite of the money that was drawn out of these funds, of $201 million.

Add up all these surplus accounts — the capital surplus, the revenue surplus and the special-purpose funds: March 31, 1972 — $2.129 billion; March 31, 1976 — $2.684 billion. There was a net increase of $555 million. Does it really look to you, Mr. Chairman, as though the NDP didn't know what it was doing, that it wasn't saving money in good years and spending it in lean years, that it didn't recognize good years when it saw them and that it didn't recognize a poor year?

Let's go a little more into the details and see what happened year by year. In 1973, for example, quite apart from the budgeted revenue and expenditures, what did we do? By way of non-budgetary expenditures in 1973 to Crown corporations — investments, advances and grants — there was a total of $9 million in 1973. Transfers to special-purpose funds amounted to $85 million. That's a total in that year of $94 million that was put into the mattress.

In 1974 to Crown corporations by way of investments, advances and grants, there was a total of $70 million, and to special purpose funds, a total of $165 million. To other organizations such as cooperatives and grants there was $29 million, for a grand total in that year, which was a good, year — we recognized it as a good year and we put the money away in the good year just as the Premier said we should have — of $264 million in that one fiscal period that was entirely within the control of the NDP. In 1975, $27 million went to Crown corporations, $1 million to a cooperative and $80 million into special purpose funds. It was still a good year — this was running from April 1, 1974, to March 31, 1975 — for a total that year of $108 million.

Now, Mr. Chairman, we come to the bad year — March 31, 1976 — when things were going down. What happened then? We still made grants — $6 million to other than Crown corporations. We still put money into special-purpose funds to the extent of $25 million. Money went to Crown corporations by way of investments, advances and grants, including the amount that went to ICBC, to the extent of $234 million. We have to include that because it's part of the deficit we talked about earlier. In that one year then, when everything was so bad, $268 million was put away into the mattress. In that period a total of $731 million was saved because we were generally in a good period for that time. Subtract from that the decrease of $360 million in the revenue surplus account alone, and we find that instead of being wastrels in a period during which we had control of the province of British Columbia, we actually socked away a net, after paying for the political promises of the Premier, of $371 million.

Mr. Chairman, in addition to what I told you was the cost of those Crown corporations — something like $207 million, perhaps, to produce income of $217 million in one year — we know that the assets of some of those corporations are worth considerably more than that. We know that in one case alone, the

[ Page 1145 ]

case of Canadian Cellulose, it has been said that the assets of that company are worth $0.5 billion. I haven't tried to add up all the rest of them.

Mr. Chairman, the economy of the province was well handled in that period. It was handled along the lines the Premier suggested. We should have recognized the good years and we did recognize them; we should have saved money in the good years and we did save it; we should have spent it in a bad year and we did spend some of it in the bad year, but not as much as this government has spent in the current fiscal period to March 31, 1977.

We know that no money is going into special-purpose funds have been wiped out and that money has been taken into current revenue. We know that three ferries have been sold to some eastern financial moneylenders and that money taken into revenue. We know in spite of all that it will be a bare break-even or a modest surplus, with no money left to do anything like that with.

Mr. Chairman, it is a record of much better management during the course of the NDP government than the record of the Social Credit coalition government. I challenge the Premier to try to show us where his record of high unemployment, of high increases in the cost of living, of no investments in Crown corporations nor advances to them — general deterioration of the economy in the province of British Columbia — compares favourably with what I have told you happened during the 3 1/3 years that the New Democratic Party was the government in the province of British Columbia.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Chairman, I would also like to add my disappointment that the Premier did not support the motion of the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) that the House go into adjournment to discuss the allegations in this morning's....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. The committee has no knowledge, and as a result it's out of order.

MR. LAUK: Can't we debate it?

MS. BROWN: Then maybe I should say to the Premier — certainly as the leader of that government — that it would have been nice if the Premier had himself suggested that maybe there should be some discussion under his estimates of the allegations....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I draw to your attention that you're trying to do indirectly that which is not allowed directly. May I suggest that you move to vote 18?

MRS. P.J. JORDAN (North Okanagan): Try again, Rosemary.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, under vote 18, I'm wondering whether it's possible to discuss some of the Premier's responsibilities. One of his responsibilities surely is to deal with libelous accusations made by the Vancouver Province this morning concerning a matter of the land under the Land Commission which there is struggling to be released in the Chilliwack area.

MR. LAUK: The cookie-jar party.

MS. BROWN: It would have been very nice, Mr. Chairman, if the Premier had taken the initiative and initiated that debate himself, as Premier, under his estimates. But since he hasn't, I can only say how very sad I am that he hasn't. I'm through; I'm not going to say any more.

MR. LAUK: The Chairman is unbiased.

MS. BROWN: Oh, yes, I'm sure the Chairman is very unbiased.

The Premier on Friday, in introducing his estimates, told us that the running of his office actually costs the people of this province only 28 cents each.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's 28 cents a cookie.

MS. BROWN: My argument is that, actually, we're being overcharged because we're all paying 28 cents for a 5-cent and 10-cent administration. That, in fact, I am going to try and prove. The member for Okanagan, who believes in a tight budget, will agree with me when I am through showing that we're paying 28 cents each for a department which really should be getting 5 cents or even a dime because it is a nickel-and-dime operation.

I want to talk first of all about his responsibility for the members in his cabinet. The thing that disturbs is that he seems to be unable to discipline the members of his cabinet — one member in particular who is consistently out of line. This is not my private observation. I was really intrigued — this morning to note that The Daily Colonist has also noticed the contradictions and the problems that the Premier is having with the members of his cabinet. In particular, I want to talk about the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) under the Premier's estimates, Mr. Chairman, because, of course, the Premier is responsible for his executive council and for his government. I am concerned about his lack of control and his inability to discipline that particular minister.

When the minister made his statements about French on the cornflake boxes, the Premier then

[ Page 1146 ]

exercised his prerogative and dissociated himself from the statements of that particular minister. Maybe that was his first mistake. It's not enough just to dissociate yourself from an unruly or an undisciplined member of the cabinet; I think a reprimand, even a very gentle one, should be called for at the same time. Maybe if the Premier had taken the initiative at that time and reprimanded that minister, we wouldn't have had the fiasco which we saw recently when that member moved to take over the Ministry of Agriculture.

If I can remind you, Mr. Chairman, that member made a statement recently concerning egg marketing boards. He said that the concept of egg marketing boards is a pretty rotten system. That's fine; he's entitled to his personal opinion about egg marketing boards. In fact, what he did with this statement was to make the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) look ridiculous, because the statements which the Minister of Agriculture made seem to indicate that he did not share the feeling that it was the concept of marketing boards which was a pretty rotten system.

Once again we find that the Premier, as chief of the executive council, sat in silence and allowed that undisciplined minister to interfere in the organizations and in the happenings of another minister. As a result, the Minister of Agriculture looked ridiculous in the public eye. He was held up to ridicule in the public eye because, obviously, he couldn't handle his department and the Minister of Human Resources had to move in and take over the running of that department for him.

Then, Mr. Chairman, as a result of the Premier's failure, we find that Minister of Human Resources moving in to take over the civil service.

Mr. Chairman, this is all being debated under the Premier's general vote, because what I'm trying to establish is that the Premier is incapable of disciplining an undisciplined member of his cabinet, of the executive council, and as such is not worth the 28 cents which each person in this province has to pay for the running of his department. I'm trying to establish a case here. I hope you will listen, because the Premier is listening and, obviously, he is beginning to understand.

Mr. Chairman, that minister, the member for Surrey, then moved to take over the civil service. Okay. That I can sympathize with, because once you understand, Mr. Chairman, that the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) tried to take over his department by moving into the Belmont Building an executive assistant to be responsible for all services to children in Human Resources, it was just a matter of time before the Human Resources minister felt that he should move into the Provincial Secretary's department and take over the running of the civil service.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, may I just interrupt your train of thought for just a moment, please. The matters being discussed by the hon. member presently ought, in the view of the Chair, to be discussed under the votes of the Minister of Human Resources.

MS. BROWN: No, no, no.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The authorities which we can cite here, particularly the authorities on relevance, say that Committee of Supply does not afford a wide-open range of debate. As a matter of fact, the very essence of Committee of Supply is strict relevance to the matter under discussion. The matter under discussion is vote 18, and we can, under this vote, discuss the official conduct of the minister...

MS. BROWN: Of the Premier.

MR. CHAIRMAN: ...and, in this case, the Premier. We cannot discuss the actions of high public servants; we cannot discuss those actions of ministers for which the Premier is not directly responsible. So I must say that the Chair can allow certain references, but to make an entire debate out of it is out of order.

MS. BROWN: That is not my intention. I've only used five minutes on the Minister of Human Resources.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, madam. That time ought better to be used under the vote of the Minister of Human Resources, and I so order.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, with respect, when it comes to the First Minister of any British parliamentary system, that minister must be responsible for the statements of policy made by ministers.

MS. BROWN: That's right.

MR. LAUK: He is open to question during Committee of Supply on the statements made by those ministers insofar as he is presiding member of the executive council, which is the vote that we are discussing presently.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your point is well taken. This Chair is upheld by the standing orders of this House and the authorities cited. Although it may be the opinion of the member just stated, it nonetheless does injury to the standing orders of this House.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, further on that point of order, the Premier, under our

[ Page 1147 ]

constitutional system of government, is responsible for cabinet solidarity. So I would think the member is entirely in order. If one of the Premier's super-novas explodes, surely that is a matter than can be brought up under the Premier's vote.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your point is well taken. I might cite further from p. 725 on general restrictions on supply: "It is not even in order to discuss whether or not a member should be in the cabinet or which member should be selected in cabinet." On a passing reference, the Chair has allowed even this kind of a reference to go by, but I wanted the House to be aware that we do not have a full range of debate.

MR. LAUK: Over the page it says dealing with Premier Bennett is an exception!

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I'm not having a full range of debate, I'm merely discussing the Premier's incompetence. That's all I'm discussing — his total lack of ability to discipline an undisciplined member of his cabinet. That's not a free-ranging debate. I'm merely using some examples of instances when the Premier should have moved in and discharged his duties as the chief executive officer and he failed to do so.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MS. BROWN: That's all I'm doing. As an aside, I mentioned that the Provincial Secretary had tried to take over the Department of Human Resources and the Minister of Human Resources struck back and decided to take over the civil service. But that is an aside which can be deleted from the record because, in fact, all it shows again is that the First Minister, the head of the executive council, the Premier of this province, who costs us 28 cents each for the upkeep of his office under vote 18, which we are debating, has no control.

They're fighting among themselves and there's absolutely nothing that that minister, who is costing us 28 cents each, is able to do about it. That is the point of what I'm saying. He really should be costing us five cents or even a dime, but certainly no more than that.

I'm not even going to include, Mr. Chairman, the fact that that minister even tried to take over the running of the city of Victoria, because that is really out of the purview of this debate, and I'm not going to discuss that.

On Friday, the Premier, in response to a question on the guaranteed annual income, stood up in this House and spoke for 10 or 15 minutes in support of the guaranteed annual income. He made some very moving statements about his support for the concept of the guaranteed income. In case he's forgotten, I can quote it:

Yes, I do advocate it as a method by which we could strengthen that part of the federal system.... What is needed is a national income redistribution policy...A distribution system on income level, then, for individuals in this country is a far better means of guaranteeing equity than the system we have today.

And he went on and on and on with that.

However, what do we find from the Minister of Human Resources? "The introduction of a guaranteed annual income for Canadians would produce endless limitations and complications." It is not enough that he takes over the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) ; it is not enough that he takes over the civil service; it is not enough that he tries to run the city of Victoria. Now he's contradicting the chief minister himself. And still, Mr. Chairman, the chief minister makes absolutely not one single move to carry out his responsibilities to the people of this province by disciplining that minister and by reprimanding him.

AN HON. MEMBER: It may be going on now.

MS. BROWN: Oh, maybe he's disciplining him now. The real damage, however, is not the damage.... Oh, see, Mr. Chairman, it's working. (Laughter.) Yes, yes. And I really appreciate your permitting me to bring to the First Minister that he hasn't been doing his job so that he can now begin to do his job.

The real damage that has been permitted because of the silence of the First Minister is not what he's done inside the cabinet. That's not where the real damage is. The real damage, because of the silence of the First Minister, is what that minister has done to the children of this province, what that minister has done to the seniors, to the handicapped, to the people in this province who really need services.

And on and on that minister goes. He says the current trend of troubled children automatically being cared for by the state is going to be reversed — an outright threat to the children of this province. He cuts off his services under the GAIN programme. The First Minister sits there while the Minister of Human Resources cuts the services to the handicapped by $19.8 million, cuts the day-care subsidies by 54.8 million, cuts the community grants by $7.8 million. Not a word from the First Minister, not a word from the Premier of this province about what that Minister of Human Resources is doing to people in this province who are in need.

I am sticking to vote 18, Mr. Chairman. I am discussing the failure of the Premier to do anything about that Minister of Human Resources, to say anything to reprimand him. Mr. Chairman, a minister who goes around and brags that he's going to cut the spending in his ministry by $28 million in terms of services to people....

[ Page 1148 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, order, please! You have again embarked on a line of debate which I have ruled out of order. I must ask you to change your subject material to something that is relevant to vote 18.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Pre.... I'm sorry; that was a Freudian slip.

AN HON. MEMBER: She's talking about Premier Vander Zalm.

MS. BROWN: The inability of that Premier to discipline and control the Minister of Human Resources is of vital importance to this province, not just to this Legislature.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MS. BROWN: Now it has to be debated under vote 18. I'm not interested in debating it under that minister's estimates. It's the Premier who is responsible for that minister, and it's under the Premier's vote that it has to be dealt with.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, there is no dispute about whether or not the material that the hon. member is using is correct. What is in question is whether or not it is relevant at this time. Therefore I must ask you to curtail your debate and make it relevant to vote 18, the administrative responsibility of the Premier.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, what I hear you saying is that you are unable to see the relevance, so I'm going to take some time out of my 30 minutes....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! That is an attack on the Chair which cannot be condoned. I therefore ask you to withdraw that remark.

MS. BROWN: Okay, I withdraw the remark that the Chairman is unable to comprehend. There are people in this chamber who do not understand the relevance of what I am saying, so I'd like to repeat myself.

The estimates of the Premier of this province, the First Minister of this province, the chief of the executive council, are up for debate. I am trying to demonstrate that he has failed in his responsibilities to this province by not disciplining an unruly and undisciplined member of his cabinet who is wreaking havoc on the people of this province. Now it has to be debated under his estimates, not under the estimates of the Minister of Human Resources or under the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), or anyone else. It has to be under the estimates of the Premier, the person who put him in the cabinet, who keeps him there, and who is making absolutely no effort to discipline him. Mr. Chairman, the Premier has not said a word. He has not made one single move to curtail the reign of terror which that Minister of Human Resources has unleashed against the poor, the old and the handicapped in this province. In fact, he has condoned it by his silence and by his failure to discipline him or, indeed, to remove him from this very sensitive portfolio.

Mr. Chairman, through you, to the Premier, unemployment is up in this province. There are 112,000 people unemployed and yet the Minister of Human Resources tells us that his welfare rolls are down. Doesn't the Premier ever question? Doesn't he even wonder where those unemployed people are and how they are living? How can the welfare rolls be down at a time when the unemployment rolls are up? What is happening to those people who have no income? How are they living?

I'll tell you how they're living, Mr. Chairman. There was an instance on the weekend when a teacher reported to me about a family in the Vancouver South school district. She noticed that this child was coming into school every day covered in sores and was very unhappy and unable to do his work. She asked the public health nurse to visit and when she visited she found that it was a family that was unemployed, who should be — and who was, in fact — eligible for welfare, but who had failed to apply for welfare because they were so afraid of the reign of terror and intimidation which the Premier has permitted that minister to unleash on the people of this province. That family which was eligible, and is still eligible, for welfare had failed to apply for welfare and the children were going without food. The family was living on almost nothing. When the Premier remains silent, when the Premier does absolutely nothing to prevent that minister's destructive policies, the Premier condones it. This is the reason, Mr. Chairman, why I am discussing this under the estimates of the Premier.

Mr. Chairman, everybody is afraid. Senior citizens are afraid for their Mincome, the handicapped are afraid for their pension, civil servants are afraid about losing their jobs. There is a stench hanging over the Minister of Human Resources and it is seeping through to the Premier himself.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. I would have to ask you to withdraw the remark "stench over the Minister."

AN HON. MEMBER: Try to act like a gentleman.

[ Page 1149 ]

MS. BROWN: I withdraw, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I must further remind you, and this is the third warning, hon. member, that the material you are covering would be more relevant under the discussion of the Minister of Human Resources. I must ask you this third time to please change the tack of your debate.

MS. BROWN: Okay. Mr. Chairman, I am asking the Premier under his estimates: is he really incapable of disciplining the Minister of Human Resources, or is he in some way using him to punish the poor and intimidate the civil servants, the senior citizens and the handicapped in this province? Is this what we are paying for when each of us in this province pays him his 28 cents?

Mr. Chairman, what I am saying to the Premier is that he must move and he must act on behalf of the people of this province now. He must remove the Minister of Human Resources from his portfolio. The damage that that minister is doing in the cabinet is no concern of ours. That is his problem. The damage that that minister is doing to him personally is no concern of ours. That is his problem. But the damage that that minister is doing to the people of this province is of concern to all of us. So, Mr. Chairman, that is why, under the Premier's estimates, we are asking him, first of all, to remove that minister from his portfolio immediately.

What I would like to recommend, Mr. Chairman, is that he give that minister Dan Campbell's job. Since he seems to enjoy meddling in other people's departments, the least he could do is legitimize his meddling. So that's my second recommendation.

The third recommendation, Mr. Chairman, through you, is that I realize that the most difficult task that the Premier would have would be to find someone to put in charge of that department after he has removed the minister. I thought at first that it might be a good idea to give that portfolio to the Attorney-General because it wouldn't be as hot a kitchen as the Attorney-General is in at this time.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I've got enough to do.

MS. BROWN: But I have discarded that idea because I accept that the Attorney-General has no real understanding of need.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, may I interrupt you just one more time? It is out of order in Committee of Supply to discuss whether a minister should be chosen, whether he should be in the cabinet, or which minister should represent the government in respective estimates under consideration. The debate in which the member has been involved is out of order on two fronts. And the member has on three occasions disregarded the ruling of the Chair to bring her debate into order. Therefore I will now read section 19 of the standing orders while the member is seated, and will have to remind the member that the Chair is duty-bound to carry out these proceedings unless the member is willing to change the order of her debate.

"Whenever any member shall have been named by Mr. Speaker or by the chairman of a committee of the whole House, immediately after the commission of the offence of disregarding the authority of the Chair, or of abusing the rules of the House by persistently and wilfully obstructing the business of the House or otherwise, then, if the offence has been committed by such member in the House, Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the question on a motion being made, no amendment, adjournment or debate being allowed, that such member be suspended from the service'of the House. And if the offence has been committed in a committee of the whole House, the the chairman shall forthwith suspend L proceedings of the committee, and report the circumstances to the House. And Mr. Speaker shall, on a motion being made thereupon, put the same question, without amendment, adjournment or debate as if the offence had been committed in the House itself."

I would like to remind the member that to disregard the authority of the Chair is a serious offence in this House, and I have given the final warning. Please proceed.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask you for some guidance. Under the Premier's estimates, I have an opportunity to discuss — I hope — the fact that I do not believe that the Premier is discharging his responsibilities to the people of this province. Am I correct? Am I correct, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, it is not the duty of the Chair to teach the rules to the members. Every member has the responsibility to learn the rules for themselves. It is the Chair's responsibility to enforce them.

MS. BROWN: Okay. Then, Mr. Chairman, I accept that under vote 18 I have the responsibility to discuss the Premier's estimates and whether he is discharging his responsibilities to this province.

This is all that I have attempted to do. I have attempted to show that the Premier has not been discharging his responsibility to the province. I have attempted to show that the Premier, through his silence and through his lack of action, has failed us as a people. I have not been discussing any other minister's estimates, except in terms of supporting

[ Page 1150 ]

the argument that the minister — the First Minister, the chief of the executive council, the Premier — has not been carrying out his duties. That is what I have been trying to do. In addition to that, Mr. Chairman, I have tried to make some constructive recommendations to the Premier.

For this I am being censured. I really am at a loss to understand why I have drawn the wrath of the Chairman and of this House. I have merely tried to discharge my responsibilities as a member of the opposition, to point out to the Premier under this vote that he is failing the people of this province, that he is not discharging his responsibilities, and that through his silence he is condoning behaviour which is destructive — not just inside of his own purview, but outside of it. That is all that I have tried to do.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MRS. JORDAN: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman: with the greatest of respect I would draw your attention to standing order 43: "The Chairman, after having called the attention of the House or the committee to the conduct of a member who persists in irrelevance and tedious repetition...."

This, Mr. Chairman, is the third time that the Chair has cautioned this member and has explained to this member the rules of this House. We have seen a continual and a repetitious performance of her quest for guidance and her objection to your ruling.

As one member of this House, Mr. Chairman, I call your attention to this rule with the view that I personally do not like to see this abuse of the House privileges, and would urge, through you, that that member continue with a responsible line of debate. We are here to debate the Premier's estimates, and we would like to do this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. Your point is well taken. I think that we have drawn the matter to the attention of the person who has the floor, and I sincerely believe that she will now be discussing vote 18.

MS. BROWN: Under vote 18 I would like to suggest that the Premier of this province begin to take full responsibility for the promises made during the election campaign. The Premier of this province promised that senior citizens' benefits would be raised to the highest level in Canada; the Premier of this province promised to establish a denticare programme; the Premier of this province promised to extend Pharmacare to chronically ill children; the Premier of this province promised to end property taxes for low-income seniors and the handicapped; the Premier of this province promised to extend the food price freeze beyond January 1; the Premier of this province promised to subsidize mortgage rates to those groups in need. I have just chosen some of the promises made by the Premier of this province.

The Premier of this province has not carried through on those promises, probably because he has not been in a position to do so. My recommendation is that the Premier would be in a position to honour those promises if he had full responsibility for the ministry dealing with those promises. If the Premier took under his personal care and under his personal attention the department that deals with Pharmacare and services to children, the department that deals with senior citizens, the department that deals with subsidizing people in need, then the Premier of this province would be in position to honour the promises which he made in December, 1975, when he tried to convince the people of this province, and succeeded in convincing the people of this province, to vote for him.

That, Mr. Chairman, is what I have been trying to say to the Premier of this province since I got to my feet. The Premier of this province, if he is really serious about his compassion for people, if he is really serious about his commitment to a guaranteed annual income, on which he spoke so eloquently on Friday last, if he is really serious about his commitment to senior citizens and children in this province who are emotionally disturbed and to the handicapped and the poor, would take over the department which is responsible for those services and deal with those promises himself. He would not continue to remain silent; he would not continue to condone by his silence the mismanagement of the department that is responsible for the services to people.

Mr. Chairman, if the Premier of this province, whose vote we are now debating, is serious about ending the savaging of the people of this province, he would take over the responsibility of the Department of Human Resources himself. This is a direct appeal to the Premier. This is a direct appeal to the Premier on behalf of everyone in this province for him to start taking some kind of responsibility to start putting into action some of the compassionate statements that he has made, for him to stop sitting in silence and condoning the irresponsible behaviour of anyone in his cabinet and, in particular, that minister, who unleashed such a reign of terror against the poor, the handicapped and the senior citizens of this province.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I had my hand up.

HON. MR. GARDOM: It's the first door to the right.

MR. MACDONALD: I want to ask the Premier a question. He hasn't answered the little question I left with him on Friday — perhaps he didn't hear it — about whether or not he intended to reprimand Dnn

[ Page 1151 ]

Campbell. I presume it will be answered in the estimates. Also, I think a second part of that, Mr. Premier, was whether the addition of the political labels on the organizational chart was done in your office before it was sent on, and what you're doing about it. I am sure the Premier intends to answer that question so I don't want to labour it and take a lot of time about it now. It certainly will be answered before the end of his estimates. It's a simple question.

The other question I want to ask the Premier relates to what I thought was his very good action yesterday in terms of his attitude toward commitments of the government of the province of B.C. Quoting from this morning's Province about the Vietnam situation, the Premier said yesterday.... It states here, and this sums it up: "Mr. Bennett's comments were in direct contradiction to a weekend statement by the Provincial Secretary, Mrs. McCarthy, who said one government could not leave any obligations to a future government unless they were enshrined in legislation and she did not see any obligation in this case."

Now obviously the Premier has repudiated, and quite rightly, that very strange doctrine which would amount to breach of contract as enunciated by the Provincial Secretary. I think that's correct. But I want to know what his attitude is toward sanctity of contract.

Let me give another example, which is of vital importance to the city of Vancouver and involves the Provincial Secretary. It's the Premier's attitude I want on this. The City of Vancouver sat down with the PNE board and the government of the province of British Columbia in 1975 and in the B.C. Hydro building and made an agreement whereby the province would pay $250,000 rental for the PNE premises. The PNE would pay to the City of Vancouver $250,000. There was $500,000 in all in constant dollars. The money over a 10-year period was to be spent on social and recreational advances in the east end of Vancouver.

In terms of sanctity of contract, that agreement that was made in the B.C. Hydro building was then formally approved by resolution of Vancouver city council. It was then formally approved by a resolution of the PNE board of directors. Finally it was approved by the provincial government, and the first cheque for the pro-rated year of $178,000 was sent to the PNE.

So if it's important for the children of Vietnam that we honour our commitments, does the Premier think in that kind of intergovernmental commitment situation that there is not a moral and legal commitment on the government? What's his attitude toward the sanctity of these things? I suggest, Mr. Chairman — and surely the First Minister of the Crown has to answer this — that there was a clear legal and moral obligation for the provincial government to proceed with the agreement made which would be of vast benefit to the east side of Vancouver and to the PNE and to the city of Vancouver generally. What was good for the children of Vietnam in terms of the honouring of a commitment made is just as good.

The doctrine enunciated by the Premier yesterday, which quoted the Provincial Secretary, is of course nonsense. A contractual and binding commitment does not have to be enshrined in legislation. They're made every day between governments: the government of British Columbia and the government in Ottawa by the exchange of letters, or by the passage of concurrent resolutions, or by orders-in-council. Those things have to be upheld if we believe in sanctity of contract. Here we see taking place again, through the office of the Provincial Secretary, a breach of legal and moral commitments.

I wish that I had the voice of the mayor of Vancouver along to ask the Premier this question. But he's kind of backwatering on this thing. He's backing off. He's saying, "Oh, we'll negotiate it." But I say no, Mr. Chairman. I want the Premier to answer whether or not he thinks that kind of a commitment made between three levels of government, all duly in office and legally authorized, should not be honoured by his government. I don't want the Premier to get up and say: "Because it was made by the wicked NDP government, the virtuous Social Credit government won't honour it." If that's the doctrine — and it seems to be — that is being espoused on that side of the House, I want the Premier in his estimates to repudiate it and say he's going to see that the Provincial Secretary lives up to the legal and moral commitment that was made in respect to the PNE.

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): Some of the members who were up today asked some questions that should be answered or dealt with. The question of Crown-owned companies was brought up by the member for Nanaimo. I would point out that some of the difficulty in our opposition to Crown-owned companies — especially where they dealt in areas where the minister would have an obvious conflict of interest in running those companies and then administering the rules and regulations by which those companies would do business in the province — was one of the greatest concerns we had as opposition, and one of the changes we've made as government. The most obvious area is in the area of the forest companies that were acquired by the last government. This gets into a point of ethics and responsibility and whether you can allow this type of conflict of interest to take place.

In regard to the operating companies of KFP and Plateau Mills, Ocean Falls and to a large extent Can-Cel, although there was some attempt to show that it operated independently by leaving the

[ Page 1152 ]

directors, you had the Minister of Forests in the last government also being the minister responsible for those corporations. As such, he operated the companies, but he also became not only the referee who adjudicated how they would do business in the province compared to other companies in the forest sector but he in fact had the ability to change the rules and the regulations that could guarantee either the success or failure of those corporations.

One of the most obvious areas of having the ability to change the rules was the area of granting timber or promising forest supply, an area in which you would have to be very, very careful. It was an area of conflict of interest we brought up many times. When we became government, I said we would make changes, and that is why the Minister of Forests no longer has the responsibility for reporting or dealing with these companies. For the benefit of the public, they report directly to the Premier.

[Mr. Veitch in the chair.]

I do say that my concern was also heightened when we became government and found out that the former Minister of Forests, who was re-elected in the general election of 1975 but was somehow persuaded to resign his seat in favour of the leader of his party, did, when he was Minister of Forests, allocate timber or promise special consideration in correspondence that was tabled in the Legislature last year so it would be available to all members. That was in the allocation of timber to Plateau Mills for the construction of their new plant. Not only did he have a letter written in his own handwriting and tabled in this Legislature in which special consideration for timber supply was suggested after he directed them to build a new mill and the directors of that company said they wouldn't build a mill until they were assured of timber supply, but he finally sent them a letter....

But when I was opening the Plateau Mills, in discussion with the directors, some of whom are still there, they said it was obvious that that company couldn't have built the facilities unless they had received special consideration from the minister and the government. This is the type of conflict of interest that often develops when you have the government entering into business that must involve it in the private sector, particularly in an area as sensitive as the forest industry.

I don't want to rehash this. I only bring it up to advise the committee, Mr. Chairman, why these corporations are now reporting to the House through the Premier rather than through the Minister of Forests. It is because of what did take place and what, I feel, was a very bad situation in this province. I want to go further because I think the public can judge the conduct of that former minister — he is no longer a member of the House. But when we have an area as sensitive as the forest industry where the minister has such extreme powers to allocate or write timber sales, then, of course, you must have this sensitivity. We couldn't stand this conflict of interest in this province.

The member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) mentioned all of the Crown corporations or Crown-owned companies that they acquired. He talked about our criticism, and I want to remind him again, Mr. Chairman, why much of that criticism was levelled and of the justification for that criticism that was made known to us and later to the House last year when we became government.

AN HON. MEMBER: You forgot the Land Commission.

HON. MR. BENNETT: There will be legislation dealing with the Land Commission, or amendments possibly. We indicated in the throne speech they may be forthcoming in the House.

I think the Land Commission still exists, Mr. Chairman. It has a board of directors; it is functioning in British Columbia. I think the public will have an opportunity to judge the Land Commission by the way it continues to function in the province of British Columbia. What I wanted to mention was the statement by the member for Vancouver East. It may be the last, from what I hear from your new party president. He's out to get you, and he's got $80,000 to spend to get the nomination.

Mr. Chairman, he made a statement with which I wish to disagree. He said the Provincial Secretary and the Premier were not in accord yesterday concerning the aid to Vietnam. Let me make one thing perfectly clear to the House: one of the reasons we have elections is to change governments and to change policies. It's an avenue the public has to get rid of governments that are unresponsive to the will of the public.

AN HON. MEMBER: Right on!

HON. MR. BENNETT: Whether it's on the municipal level, the provincial level or the federal level, people elect new governments and throw out old ones so they can have a change in policies. It is a well-known fact that in these elections governments can't commit future governments, because future governments are elected to make changes. However, yesterday we were dealing in a very sensitive area that was not a commitment of a government but was a commitment of this Legislature. There is a strong distinction. It was a commitment that went beyond politics; it was a commitment made unanimously by a legislature on a basis of human need. That commitment as legislation will be kept.

[ Page 1153 ]

The Provincial Secretary was 100 per cent correct when she said governments cannot commit future governments, because new governments are elected to make changes and to pass not only new legislation, but to negotiate new contracts. Where they find a willingness to negotiate, then such negotiation may be carried out.

The former Attorney-General and first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) did attempt to bring up a current negotiation that may be more properly brought up, Mr. Chairman, under the estimates of the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy).

One of the members who spoke previously was talking about using the Premier's estimates as an opportunity to express lack of confidence in various of the ministers. I must advise this committee, Mr. Chairman, that all the ministers of this government have the complete confidence of the Premier, but the members of the opposition have every opportunity, during estimates, to express their lack of confidence in the ministers. They can do it during their estimates, and it's an opportunity which we availed ourselves of when we were opposition. Then there's the further opportunity when an election comes to make your case to the public, as we did, and had many of those ministers not come back as ministers and many of them didn't come back to this chamber at all. That's the highest court of Political action with the public, the people of British Columbia. The ministers in this government — that's what estimates are about — will be accountable to this Legislature and you may have your chance — to the member for Vancouver-Burrard — to make your questions known when estimates are up and give the minister concerned an opportunity to respond. It's very easy to attack them when they don't have the opportunity to rise to respond. But during their estimates you have the opportunity to also have them respond to your statements and your suggestions or allegations.

When it comes to the guaranteed annual income or negative income tax, Mr. Chairman, quite clearly my statements are on record, not only during this committee but in representation made formally at conferences to the government of Canada or to our other First Ministers. As such, it's the position of British Columbia that, as Canadians, there is a much better use to which our money could be put in meeting income support to individuals in this country, and I've said that we need to rationalize the various income support programmes that are presently available on a federal and provincial basis. I said we should add to that, on a gradual basis, the pool of money that now is called equalization payments, that is paid to governments to support areas. I say that that money should be phased into that pool of money to bring the support directly to people. You couldn't bring it in abruptly, Mr. Chairman — through you to the member — because governments have predicated a whole structure on the amounts of that money. But it could be phased in and it would be a more worthy way of dealing with the taxpayers' dollars in meeting our commitments to people.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I wish the Premier would perhaps talk to the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) on this subject, because I listened to his words very carefully. He says a new government may change the policies of the old. Very true. He says a new government may negotiate new contractual agreements. True. But can a new government break the contracts of an old government?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. MACDONALD: The Premier is taking a very cavalier attitude towards the sanctity of contracts. This was an agreement among three levels of government.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: No, I don't think you said that, but I don't think you appreciate.... I'm not suggesting it's the same thing exactly as the Vietnam situation. That happened to be all the members of the Legislature. But there was a contract here whereby the three levels would support the PNE and pay rent at the rate of $500,000 per year to the city of Vancouver. A contract! Now does the Premier say that a contract can be broken, and that you can force the mayor of Vancouver to go back on his statements and then have to get into some new negotiations and come out with a much smaller sum? I say that's breach of contract, and if the Premier doesn't clarify it I'll have to go up to Vernon and explain there that, notwithstanding that these are the businessmen, they do not respect sanctity of contract, and do not respect the sanctity of commitments made by the previous government.

AN HON. MEMBER: Kelowna.

MR. MACDONALD: Perhaps the Premier wants to clarify that point. As I read it, you agree that you can break a contract because you're a new government.

HON. MR. BENNETT: If the member for Vancouver East is alluding to Vernon as being my home town it's just about as far away from where I live as your residence is from where your constituency is.

Interjections.

[ Page 1154 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The hon. Premier has the floor.

MR. BARRETT: She used to be friendly with you, or vice versa.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. BENNETT: What I said is that this government has the ability to change policy, introduce new legislation, and negotiate new contracts, and renegotiate old contracts.

MR. MACDONALD: No.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You can renegotiate old contracts, Mr. Chairman.

MR. MACDONALD: That's breaking contracts.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Now as far as the specific instance that the member for Vancouver East brought up, I said I wouldn't refer to that specific contract which more properly could be dealt with under the appropriate minister's estimates. So I'm not referring to the contract that he mentioned in his statement here, but I do say as a matter of policy that he well knows that governments are elected to make change. Governments are thrown out when they've made changes that aren't acceptable to the public.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

MR. BARRETT: No, no, no, no!

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry. On a supplementary? No, there's no such thing in committee, hon. member. (Laughter.)

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I've recognized the hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, come off it!

AN HON. MEMBER: Hey! That's Digger!

MR. R.L. LOEWEN (Burnaby-Edmonds): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

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

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I recognize the hon. member for Burnaby-Edmonds.

MR. LOEWEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, shame! Boy, oh boy!

MR. LOEWEN: Mr. Chairman, I come before the House this afternoon with a heavy heart. I spent two and a half hours this morning with one of my constituents...

MR. MACDONALD: One of your clients.

MR.LOEWEN: ...who has spent the last five or six years of his life working very hard to build up a business that at the present time is creating 50 jobs. This gentleman has built up a business worth approximately $800,000 to $900,000 with total liabilities of $500,000 to $600,000. He has just recently been put into receivership. I asked many questions and called his banker and his accountant and looked into his situation fairly deeply. I have, on several occasions, mentioned in this House I've been given the assurance from the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) and other members of the government that there is a real concern in this area, and I appreciate this. However, this particular situation points out to me the tremendous need for us to move much further into the field of merchant banking and venture capital.

Here we have a true example, a real example, where there is a need for us to move into the merchant-banking field and, in fact, look for the proper legislation that would enable secondary industry to do its job.

MR. BARRETT: We passed it. It's on the books.

MR. LOEWEN: If you would have passed the necessary legislation, my constituents wouldn't be in trouble today.

MR. BARRETT: It's on the books!

MR. LOEWEN: My constituent wouldn't be in trouble today. I am suggesting, dear member, that we have a need for making the facilities available so that we can combine the dollars, the management and the youthful enthusiasm to create jobs and develop this economy. In this particular case, we have an industry that's well on its feet. It has the enthusiasm, it has the ongoing management, it also has the dollars. But it does not have the stability, the mature management, the lasting management that is necessary to give the financial institutions the confidence to carry it through the difficult periods. As a result, some 50 people will likely have their jobs taken away from them, and this company will likely go through a

[ Page 1155 ]

distress sale.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I hope you are going to relate your remarks to the vote at hand, vote 18.

MR. LOEWEN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Again I might say that all this corporation needs is a true equity partner to help it through these difficult periods and we would save these jobs. I appeal to the government to move in this area and help my constituency and help the economy of British Columbia. Save this gentleman's dream, save his life savings and make it possible, again, for this company to stay in existence and serve beautiful British Columbia.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, what incredible lack of information. On the Premier's desk and on the Minister of Finance's (Hon. Mr. Wolfe's) desk is a report that has been hidden from the people of British Columbia on this very subject. You're appealing here to this Legislature when in actual fact, in the spring of 1975, legislation was passed in this House to do exactly what you are asking and it was attacked as being socialist.

Don't give him a hand signal to sit down. He's the first guy who has shown some desire to question what this government is doing.

MS. BROWN: You'll discipline him but you won't discipline him.

MR. BARRETT: You see that? Mr. Chairman, we see the old hand signal: "Sit down, Digger." In your case, it may even be more: "Go down, Digger — all the way."

Mr. Chairman, on the Premier's desk and on the Minister of Finance's desk is a hidden report that deals with this very subject — a hidden report prepared on financial institutions, delivered to the Premier in February, 1976, and suppressed for one whole year, allowing equity position in financial institutions that would compete with the private banks that don't give a fig for indigenous business in this province.

When we raised that, where were you in Burnaby, my friend? Where was the Premier? He was the Leader of the Opposition, and he attacked that socialist idea that there should be a financial institution to share in equity to allow beautiful British Columbia business to survive.

Mr. Chairman, that member and the Premier can only plead ignorance of their responsibility on existing legislation, which they fought. The Premier went around this province, through you, Mr. Chairman, saying that it was an NDP plot to take over the credit union movement.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): Hear, hear!

MR. BARRETT: That's right, Mr. Chairman, and while the Premier said it was an NDP plot to take over the credit union movement, while they use these words and attacks, businesses that belong in this province, that hire British Columbians, that keep the economy going, are going down the drain because the big-business government got elected — not a small-business but a big-business government got elected.

Mr. Chairman, we find a pathetic appeal by the member who now runs out of the House. Where is he running to?

MS. BROWN: He'd better run!

MR. BARRETT: Where's he running to? He got the signal: "Take it out." He got the signal to bury it, that's what he got. He got a message, and that hand went across like this. We saw what you were doing — silencing your own poor little backbencher.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame on you!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would you kindly relate your remarks to vote 18?

MR. BARRETT: Look at that. Mr. Chairman, he got the hook.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: He got the hook, and now he's going to find a shovel. You know what he's going to be told: "Bury it, brother."

On that Premier's desk, through you, Mr. Chairman, is a report that has been suppressed that would allow an equity position or private borrowings to take place over a short capital period to allow small businesses to survive.

We hear this pathetic appeal from the member turned on deaf ears. Legislation was already passed in this House to do that very thing that member fought against. "Socialism!" they screamed. In every corner of this province they screamed it. Now when there is trouble, now when they ask for help, they come into the House and they say: "Can we have a bit of socialism, please?" What hypocrisy! What hypocrisy, and on the desk of the Premier of this province sits that report that has never been made public, never will be made public. Why?

What are the interests in the Bank of B.C. — the private bank? Allegedly some help to the people of this province? None whatsoever! The board of directors of the Bank of B.C., instead of delivering a bank oriented to British Columbia's needs on private

[ Page 1156 ]

investors' basis, has delivered no other bank than a competitor. We need a public bank in this province. We need a say in the banking field. One of the most stifling things to private investment in this country is the private banking system, and do you know where I learned that from, Mr. Chairman? Guess where I learned that? I used to read William O. Douglas, was it? No, it was Major Douglas — it was the different Douglas — and Aberhart and Manning when they used to talk about social credit.

Do you remember social credit? That used to be a philosophy about reforming the bank system. Now it's just a cover name for the gang in power. Social Credit used to believe in an alternate banking system, and yet hidden on that Premier's desk is a report that would give an alternative financial institution to help the small businessmen of this province, and we hear this pathetic plea: "Help this man in Burnaby."

It could be done. The legislation could be proclaimed. This government could help the small businessman. Instead of that, we find this poor member abused in this House by hand signals to sit down. I am glad it wasn't an indecent gesture you got, but in effect it had the same result, Mr. Chairman. That report is on the Premier's desk, and that is what I'm talking about. On his desk! A secret, hidden report submitted to you in February by the credit unions of British Columbia — that special committee that was set up.

MS. BROWN: Leak it!

MR. BARRETT: You know where that report is. Trebell? What do you want to say about Frank Trebell? Say what you want to say. Stand up!

MR. KING: Don't whisper.

MR. BARRETT: Don't whisper. Don't talk to that guy — he's had his own Trebells. (Laughter.) He's had his own troubles. Who am I to question it, Mr. Chairman?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If you could relate your remarks to the vote at hand, hon. member....

MR.BARRETT: Mr.Chairman....

Interjections.

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

MR. BARRETT: That's right, and they're picking on me, Mr. Chairman.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Stop them from picking on me, Mr. Chairman. What a pathetic situation we have in this province with over 112,000 unemployed, small businessmen going down the drain, and then to have a discussion under the Premier's estimates — an appeal for financial assistance — when the very legislation has already been debated and passed in this House, and a hidden report has been suppressed for over a year that was submitted by that committee, including George May of the B.C. Central Credit Union. That report has been on the Premier's desk, on the Minister of Finance's (Hon. Mr. Wolfe's) desk, for a whole year. I am going to have to go into Burnaby and look up this person who came to the MLA, and tell him: "That poor MLA dug his political grave today by getting up and questioning the Premier about a hidden report."

AN HON. MEMBER: Digger's in trouble today!

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I certainly feel that if the Premier would like to stand up now and indicate he is going to make the report public, and also go on to say that he is going to give support to the small businessman instead of to the major corporations, I would be pleased to waive my place. Otherwise, I would like to talk about something that is going on in the province at this very moment.

Mr. Chairman, there's a question right now about a major subdivision around the White Lake Observatory, very close to the Premier's riding. The White Lake Observatory is just outside of Penticton. It's a major radio observatory. If those government members don't know about it, it was built in 1959. Surely the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) knows about it.

In 1959, Mr. Chairman, when that observatory was built, it was surrounded by a ranch, or ranching country. No other interference in that area.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I believe this could be more readily allocated to the minister in charge of environment.

MR. COCKE: The minister in charge is the Premier. This is intergovernmental affairs, Mr. Chairman, and I believe that that's in his office. You know, Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: You will kindly relate it to that, will you?

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I would like to say something while I'm standing here, having been rebuked by the Chair. I have stood here for the last two or three days and I'm sensing that the Chair in

[ Page 1157 ]

this House is trying to silence the opposition.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, order! That will not be accepted.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, that's a....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I will ask you to withdraw that remark.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, how can I, when I've sat here....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, hon. member. I ask you to withdraw that remark. The Chair is not running interference for anyone and this is casting disrepute upon the Chair.

MR. COCKE: If the Chair is not running interference, then I'll be pleased to withdraw the remark, but I sure hope I don't see any further evidence.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you will withdraw that remark unconditionally.

MR. COCKE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will you withdraw that remark?

MR. COCKE: I'll withdraw the remark.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Unconditionally, thank you. Proceed, hon. member.

MR. COCKE: Well, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the Premier has not gone on record in this matter. The Prime Minister of Canada has, however. Mr. Chairman, the Prime Minister of Canada has really dug a hole for himself. Years ago, and as only he could understand, in 1959, the government of Canada felt it important enough to go along with the great scientists of the world and put in a very, very isolated area one of the most important radio observatories in the whole western world. When they did that, Mr. Chairman, they had no worries. Cows wandering around don't provide any radio interference. Back a few years, B.C. Hydro even moved a line to see to it that there would be no radio interference. But now, Mr. Chairman, something different is happening in that area and I believe that our government has to go on record and has to oppose the position that seems to be being taken by the federal government in the whole question of this radio observatory.

Let me just show you what's happening at the present time. Yesterday, in The Vancouver Sun, there was a discussion on the whole question. A group makes a last-ditch try to protect the radio observatory — a group of private citizens. "Volunteers," they're referred to as over there oftentimes. A group of private citizens is appealing, not only to the regional district — this is part of Intergovernmental Affairs — but also to the federal government, to change their position. Now the Premier's been very vague. He knows about it and he's made a vague statement or two in the valley and those statements, I think, have rather been in support of the people who are in opposition to this new incursion into the area — an incursion, Mr. Chairman, that I suspect will ruin the radio observatory and the work it does.

Mr. Chairman, let me give you a few of the facts on this question. Right now there's a condominium resort development that, I suggest, is a threat to the area. This resort development — I'll go into that in a moment or two. But I'd like to tell you some of the people that opposed this condominium resort development. A wire was received from Sir Martin Ryle, Nobel Prize winner, Cambridge University. What did he say about this development? He said: I'm horrified to learn of a proposal for a large housing development near a radio observatory which has pioneered vital advances in galactic research." He went on to say: "This work is only possible with a carefully chosen site and a long-term protection."

You know, Mr. Chairman, going back to this story, one of the members from the regional district board, district administrator Jim Rheaume, said:

"But the federal government never put up a plug nickel." — he's right. "The scientists didn't get much support from Ottawa. We're doing everything possible to protect the observatory with the land-use contract, but short of robbing the man" — now listen to this carefully — "of his right to use his land, what else can we do?"

Mr. Chairman, when this outfit, which incidentally is the second outfit to buy this land since that radio observatory was built, bought that land, the observatory was there and apparent. Now we're supposed to turn around and protect his sacred right to develop this property just because he owns it now. But he didn't own this property when that radio observatory was built.

I've known that radio observatory since the time it was built. I was up there. I was a friend of one of the engineers who used to work on it. I think it's a sensitive area and I think if we're trying to provide some kind of backup for the scientific world then we should protect it. Even if the federal government won't, we should insist as a government, because we can. We can see to it that there's no land-use contract in that area; we can do that. So I appeal to the Premier to look up the facts on this question and support those individuals up there who are in

[ Page 1158 ]

opposition to this development.

Sir Bernard Lovell is at the Jodrell Bank. What did he say? He said: "The Penticton radio-astronomy site is unique." Get that — unique! You know, Mr. Chairman, I'm not too fussy about the fact that the Premier seems to be ignoring this question, which is an extremely sensitive question and an important one.

"The Penticton radio-astronomy site is unique in its isolation — and that's important — and freedom from electrical interference. For the sake of international science, I urge you to protect the site from the threatened development."

He went on to say, Mr. Chairman:

"The radio-astronomy establishments in England at Jodrell Bank and Cambridge are protected by a restricted zone for developments by planning authorities. These precedents should be invoked in consideration about the Penticton site, which is at present far more favourably situated than the English observatories."

So this is important. Scientists around the world are the ones who are supporting the people who do not wish this development to occur. There's a long telegram from the National Research Council and from D.W.R. McKinley, but they're all the same. They all say exactly the same thing: "Protect the land."

Mr. Chairman, there has been an investment of millions and millions of dollars of taxpayers' funds into that observatory. Right now I can suggest to you that as of February 16, 1976, the budget — this is just the operating budget — was $400,000 a year. There is a staff of 15. Seven have degrees in science or engineering; five have PhDs. This isn't an industry, particularly; this is a scientific necessity. If we're really interested in science, then I think we should be interested in seeing to it that this piece of science is protected.

This letter goes on to say: "Each of these projects is sensitive to man-made interference. In the case of A and B, A is synthesis mapping of individual sources of 1,420 megahertz with two telescopic instruments on rail lines." This is their study of the galactic patterns.

You know, Mr. Chairman, the Premier is quizzical. Maybe all of us don't understand this, but it is important that man know something about his universe, very important. I suggest to you that if we've spent these millions of dollars to understand our universe better, then it strikes me we had better spend a few moments of our time in protecting that investment.

I suggest that there has been little or no support from the federal government. They want to sort of turn their backs on this whole question in the Okanagan. I say the federal government could very easily have shown some protection immediately. How could they have done it? They could have purchased the whole area. As it was they let it go from a ranch to a developer when they could have done this before. I now suggest they must do it.

They must make it into a wildlife sanctuary, a wildlife sanctuary that is no threat to the area and no threat to the observatory. Remember, Mr. Chairman, we spent $2.25 million on the Reifel Bird Sanctuary in Richmond. Mr. Porter, one of the owners of this property, offered the property for sale at one time for $500,000, but no action was taken and he sold it to other developers. So now the federal government have spent their millions. Incidentally, they spent $0.5 million on opening Mirabel airport, as I recall. Yet nobody seems to be willing to protect a very important piece of scientific equipment.

I think it's time that our provincial government and this Premier indicate that he's going to take a real interest in this. Particularly I note that it's very close to his own constituency. He can drive there within less than an hour. If he ever wants a guided tour up there sometime, I'll see to it that he gets one.

Mr. Chairman, the Premier has indicated that I have a summer home. I don't have a summer home up there; I have some property on which I live during the summer in my motor home, but it has no influence. Whether or not there's a subdivision way back in the mountains is of no significance to me. What is significant to me is that there is protection for a scientific piece of equipment that's noted to be one of the best in the world. If the Premier has something to say about it, I'll sit down right now.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member is bringing up items which are primarily federal. I am aware of the site, although it is in the Minister of Agriculture's (Hon. Mr. Hewitt's) constituency. I have met with the various concerned citizens' groups and I have involved myself in some of the correspondence with the government of Canada. I have sent out for my files but I'm not sure whether this information is contained in my constituency files or here in Victoria. These are the types of meetings that I do arrange with the residents when I get the opportunity to go back to my constituency, not only of my own constituency but of the valley, so that they aren't left unrepresented. I've got a clear lesson before me from the former member for Coquitlam (Mr. Barrett) of what happens when you neglect your constituents when you're in the Premier's office. I am involved in this situation with them.

I can't quote from my files because I'm not sure they're here. I've sent to see if they're in my office, but I do believe they're in my constituency office. I have had more than one meeting with the group and I have exchanged a fair amount of correspondence with them and some to the federal government.

[ Page 1159 ]

MR. COCKE: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm pleased that the First Minister is in contact with the people in the area. I'm sure that his contact likely by now would be giving some kind of direction. The Premier stood up and indicated that he's been in contact, that he has an interest, but he didn't say which way he's going on this question. I want to know if the Premier is sufficiently interested to intercede. I believe sincerely — as a matter of fact, I know — that we could stop it immediately as a government. This government can stop it just like that. A land-use contract has to come to this government. The Premier, just by the signing of his name on a sheet of paper, on an order-in-council, can stop this development in this very sensitive area.

Mr. Chairman, let me just go on for a second or two, just to give the Premier a little bit of the background that I think might jog his memory. In this whole question there are three regional district hearings. After these three hearings in which the people in the regional districts stood out firmly against the development scheme, Mr. Porter — that's the original developer, as the Premier will remember — went to Ottawa accompanied by his lawyer and architect. The visit resulted in the withdrawal by the National Research Council of their previous objection to Porter's plans. On returning to British Columbia he asked for still another hearing. This time the regional district, being informed of the National Research Council's surprising capitulation to Porter's demand, decided there was little use in standing firm when Ottawa proved too weak, and therefore granted the contract he required. The people — and I'm talking about the people who are in opposition to it — refuse to accept such a solution.

Mr. Chairman, I am in total agreement with those people. The fact is that they are taking more seriously scientific progress and the need to protect an investment of taxpayers' money than the government of Canada itself, and up to now the government of British Columbia.

Don't indicate to me that this is a question that cannot be resolved by the government in power in British Columbia. I see no reason for this government being the least bit reticent about making a decision to send a note to Pierre and to say: "We're not prepared to capitulate as you have over your own investment. We're not prepared to see a good piece of scientific property go down the tube."

The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) has been in his place a very short time as House Leader. He's been away resting. Now suddenly he becomes impatient.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: I know you are. I really appreciate your help.

There are problems with the land-use contract, Mr. Chairman. There are significant numbers of people who are in opposition. I would just like to suggest to you that Dr. Carmen Costain, acting for Dr. John Galt, who was in Europe, hurriedly drew up an advisory contract to be submitted for perusal to the regional district. You know what they did? They said: "Bury the lines." And the Minister of Agriculture knows perfectly well what I'm going to say now. Burying the lines isn't going to take away the electrical disturbance there, not a bit of it. Even the cars coming into the area create electrical disturbance.

Remember, astrophysical observatories have problems with a street lamp three, four or five miles away. I'll tell you, a sensitive radio observatory has real problems with any kind of electrical interference. What did they say they'll do? Well, they're going to police it. Do you know who's going to have to police it? The poor old staff up there who are supposed to be studying the stars. They're going to have to police the electrical interference. They're going to have to trace it down, find whence it emanates, and go and try to fix it up. What a bunch of rubbish! The Science Council of Canada should hold their heads down in shame on this question. They copped out completely.

Because they know if they take the experts' opinion — and normally scientists do, and the Science Council should.... Shouldn't they take the evidence of Sir Martin Ryle, Nobel prize winner? Shouldn't they take the evidence of Sir Bernard Lovell, who is very definitely the world's most eminent scientist in this particular area? No, Mr. Chairman, it's not good enough. They say they can look after it but they can't look after it. There's no way they can. I suggest to you that the way to look after it is to see that there are little animals running around there, and that's all if we really want to protect a very important piece of scientific work. I don't think, Mr. Chairman, that if I named all the groups that are supporting this situation, it would do a lot of good, other than to say this: that virtually every important group in the Okanagan Valley with any kind of sense of a protective nature toward scientific work or, for that matter, those that are interested in the environment, are all, without exception, in favour of stopping this condominium site from developing.

Mr. Chairman, I do hope that the Premier will be able to give us a specific answer. I just want to say that this observatory was established in 1959 in an area where housing development seemed absolutely impossible — if not impossible, certainly unlikely. Mr. Porter must have been aware of that when he purchased the property in 1963. It's 1963, Mr. Premier, when you're looking through your files. So it strikes me that there's a contradiction that the federal government is saying that it is concerned. I read Trudeau's letter. I couldn't find it today, I wish I

[ Page 1160 ]

could have.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You mean you have troubles with your files, too?

MR. COCKE: I've got one. You've got one too. You remember in that letter — I'm just paraphrasing what he had to say — he was concerned about the property rights. He was concerned about the property rights of those developers. Those developers knew perfectly well in 1963 when they bought that property that that property was sensitive property. They bought a ranch. There was no protection for that kind of land in those days. Thank heaven for the NDP later. So, Mr. Chairman, I suggest to you that the Premier immediately rush down to his office, send off a wire to Prime Minister Trudeau and tell him to.... He'll get it when he gets back from his visit where he's accompanying Mr. Gibson to Washington.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: The member for North Vancouver. I apologize abjectly for that.

MR. WALLACE: You'll notice he didn't invite me!

MR. COCKE: Scotty, don't you worry. You hang around long enough and he's going to invite you, too.

AN HON. MEMBER: He didn't even invite the Premier.

MR. COCKE: He didn't even invite George.

Sorry, Mr. Chairman. This is a serious matter. I believe that the First Minister, through his other ministers and on his own behalf, can immediately stop this abuse of development — and I'm talking about scientific development — immediately. I hope that he'll stand up in this House and tell us just how he's going to go about it.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I've already advised the member that there is some correspondence from the Premier to the federal authorities. I would point out that the provincial government in 1960 set up a reserve of 919 acres of Crown land by order-in-council — that was September 9, 1960 — and provincial Crown lands encompassing the site were reserved for this purpose. The problem, as the member suggests, is with privately owned land. You can attack those who own private land in this province, but the right of private ownership and land ownership is one of the rights that was partly discussed in the last election, and whether the government would have the ability to use its power to attack those rights. I think one of the things we talked about was confiscation by taxation or bending the rules, but we did make a submission.

One of the submissions that has been discussed by governments...and this problem didn't start during our government. The first discussion of this problem arose in 1971, and the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) was a cabinet minister in the last government that, for three and a half years, allowed this problem to fester. One of the suggestions has been that the federal government, in respecting private property rights to protect its observatory, and they're able to make the scientific judgments, would purchase private lands from individuals who are Canadian citizens — they're not just B.C. citizens — for what is a federal government scientific facility. This province, in 1960, did set aside a reserve — the size of reserve, I guess, that was requested by them for this site — which was 919 acres.

I've supported the committee's applications to the Government of Canada. Those files are apparently in my constituency office in South Okanagan where most of the correspondence and meetings have taken place with the group who are concerned about this in trying to get the federal government to realize their responsibility in this area. It involves more than the provincial government. It also involves powers and opportunities of local governments, and local governments have been given authority to deal with problems in their own areas and provide planning, but in this area our representation has been to the Government of Canada, and quite rightly so.

Apparently the request was not made, and I don't have any further information other than that the request they made to the provincial government in 1959 or 1960 did result in the 919 acres being set up as a Crown reserve for them. The land was provided from the Crown. The problem now is, and has been since 1971, with private ownership of private owners — that is, British Columbia and Canadian citizens — and their applications before their local governments. I think a suggestion that has been made, and that hasn't been dealt with during all of this period of 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975 and 1976, is in resolving this and getting the federal government to purchase their lands to protect their rights as well, because citizens do have some rights.

It's dangerous to suggest that governments look for loopholes to come down on citizens in some other related sphere of government to take the pressure off a level of government that isn't reacting in meeting its proper obligation. I do know that I have correspondence supporting that position to the federal government — it's just that I'm not able to read it to the member here. But I do assure the member that the positions I have taken in the past in meeting, with these will be further dealt with now that he's brought this matter to the floor of the

[ Page 1161 ]

Legislature. There is a proper course of action. The most honourable course of action would be for the federal government to recognize its obligations.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, a few points. First of all I want to commend the Premier's commitment on the Vietnam issue, and I want it very clearly understood by everybody in British Columbia that we're talking about children. I've already received correspondence today — although we only debated this yesterday — which clearly shows that the people who have written are quite rightly concerned that the money this province would provide to Vietnam could find its way into the wrong hands. I mentioned yesterday that we're all very well aware of the measure of corruption that persisted in Vietnam during the war, and presumably to some degree since.

Among the documents I've tabled in the House today, some of the papers are responses from responsible medical people in Vietnam who provided our committee with clear proof that the money had been spent in various ways and had, in fact, been provided to the particular children, whether it was through the vehicle of midwifery kits for nurses or the pediatric clinic in Da Nang.

I think it's very important that the kind of material that was tabled in the House today can be made available to anyone who wants to look at the record. It should surely, in some way, reassure people across this province that we are handling our commitment in a responsible manner and seeking the goal that was behind the original resolution which was unanimously passed in this House on April 18, 1973.

I might just finish that comment by saying, Mr. Chairman, that one of the reasons the committee stalled on its activities in 1975 was that just prior to the end of the war there was a very considerable flare-up of activity and it was felt that it would not be an appropriate time, with the country as a whole more unstable again than ever, to try to deliver the supplies which we had in mind.

I notice from the clipping I got out of the library today that the headline in the newspaper on April 30, 1975, said: "Jubilant Communists Hoist Flag Over Saigon." It was just prior to that that we had come close to making a decision as to how the fund should be allocated. In the wake of that event I think it made a lot of sense and the committee, as I recall, was unanimous that further inquiry and investigation should go on before the final sum of money was disbursed. It was not too long after that point in time that we had an election. I hope that brings the Premier and this House up to date with what went on that issue.

In talking about the Premier's responsibilities, I'd like to touch on one or two areas which are so crucial — to the success of a government and to the well-being of a modern society. We've all perhaps, as the Premier said yesterday, used harsher words than we mean sometimes in debate, and we tend to paint things in black or white. I'm as guilty of that as anyone when it comes to some of the language I used yesterday, which I perhaps would reconsider, if I had the chance. But a government is neither "all head and no heart" or "all heart and no head."

I think the real challenge to this new government is to try and provide this province with a blend which exhibits both a businesslike awareness that money doesn't grow on trees but.... At the same time, it should reflect by legislation the aspirations that many people have in our province and in our country today, in the simple matter of trying to improve the dignity of living and trying to develop human rights. We've gone some distance in that direction already — I recognize that.

But this government, to date, has been somewhat disappointing in not articulating its commitment to some of these human areas, many of which do not cost money. For example, Mr. Chairman, we desperately need a childrens' bill of rights in this province and in Canada. One could surely never have a more stark and tragic example than the kind of front-page story that appeared in The Province yesterday regarding the way in which children can be so readily victimized by sexual perverts or child molesters. I'm not about to launch into any long harangue or debate on that, but simply say that it's a very difficult problem for society to resolve.

I'm not suggesting that there is any easy answer because I gather — and I'm glad the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) is in the House — that the real problem is at what age the evidence of children can be accepted in a court of law, evidence which might result in an adult spending many years behind bars. Incidentally, Mr. Attorney-General, I can recall when I was about eight years old giving evidence because I was the only witness to an automobile accident. This was in Scotland.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Did it hit Hadrian's Wall?

MR. WALLACE: No, it didn't involve Hadrian's Wall. But it just struck my memory when I read yesterday's newspaper that apparently in that particular jurisdiction it was possible for children to give evidence. I didn't swear on oath, as I recall, but I was simply asked if I knew what the meaning of the word "truth" was.

All I'm saying, Mr. Chairman, is that this government could show some exciting leadership in this particular area of the rights of children. I have just picked out perhaps the most distasteful and sombre aspect. There can be few areas of human behaviour where one feels so perturbed by the wrongdoer as in the cases I have mentioned.

[ Page 1162 ]

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: A member interjects that it is the tip of the iceberg. That may be so. But one of the disappointments of the throne speech of this government was that it did allocate a paragraph on page 7 to the treatment of children, but the whole paragraph refers to the treatment of the delinquent offender and the need for security facilities.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I believe the debate that you are entering into would require legislation. Therefore it would be out of order in the Committee of Supply. We are not on the throne speech. Would you return to vote 18, please?

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I would like your clarification. Are we not permitted in the Premier's debate on estimates to talk about the general thrust, direction and commitment of government in the areas of human need?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, hon. member, but anything that requires legislation cannot be discussed in committee of supply, as you are quite aware.

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Chairman, I have the utmost respect for you in the chair, but I think that has to be one of the very narrowest interpretations of debate in this House that I have heard all the years that I have been here. When I have listened over the past several weeks to the wide-ranging way in which other estimates have been discussed, I really feel that that is being a really restrictive interpretation of our rules.

But I will leave it at that point and say that the Premier and the new government have tremendous opportunity, despite much of the criticism, which of course revolves around their handling of dollars — important as they are — to take some of these new directions, particularly in relation to individual rights and freedoms in society, which can of course be abused. And the way in which parents raise children can be very sadly abused in a variety of ways.

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair.]

It would seem to me that this is a tremendous area where this new government could show that it has a great deal of heart and compassion as well as an understanding of the fact that many of these problems are almost hidden in great measure from the rest of society. As one of the members interjected, the kind of offences I have mentioned may well just be the tip of an iceberg where there is a need for government to take some initiatives.

I think we should all express, as I have done on several occasions, the tremendous work done by Justice Berger through the commission on family law.

Without intruding on the rules of the House, I hope that some action will be taken in regard to these recommendations.

I was not in the House to hear whether the Premier responded to questions about the Land Commission, but I have discussed that area with various people. One of the suggestions that I thought contained a great deal of merit — assuming that there is a basic commitment to the preservation of farmland — is that perhaps the Land Commission should not spend its time on applications that deal with first-class types of soil — 1, 2 and 3, for example — but instead give preference to soils which are not prime agricultural soil and where housing or commercial development might not seem such an unusual suggestion.

One of the other areas of this government and the Premier's responsibilities which has been disappointing — not because of the Premier's direct responsibility, but because of his lack of response to events — is in the performance of several of the ministers.

The Premier has stated this afternoon that they all have his confidence. They may have the confidence to do their job, but again their responsibility extends, in my view, beyond doing a competent job to presenting themselves as members of a team under the leadership of the Premier of the day.

The kind of example that I would like the Premier to respond to was the report on February 9, right in the middle of a debate on the B.C. Railway, that an unnamed cabinet minister had made certain statements. These statements had some very significant content to the effect that the capital requirements for BCR would be $1 billion in the next five years, and that this had been discussed in cabinet. In fact, BCR might be sold to CNR.

I would just like to ask one or two. questions in regard to that. Does the Premier feel that it is a reasonable and an acceptable thing for one of his ministers to in effect breach the secrecy of cabinet? Or if the material that he was announcing was not secret, would it not make much more sense for him to have given us this information in the House, particularly since we were right in the middle of his debate?

The minister was in Ottawa meeting with various ministers recently, and I'd like to know if that specific item was discussed: the possible purchase of BCR by the Canadian National Railways. I mean, is it a serious consideration by the Premier as part of his overall strategy for further development of this province? Did he discuss it in Ottawa? And what is the point in the negotiations if, in fact, it is being actively discussed?

We regard this government as having been elected in large measure because it appeared to be able to run a businesslike administration. It would seem to me

[ Page 1163 ]

that if we're losing $70 million a year on the railway and if there's tremendous capital investment required, surely we could do very well to use that capital for the other very urgent purpose in this province, namely to provide available incentives to develop new industries and new jobs. I know very well that the Premier and before the Premier his father, stated many times in this House that, of course, the purpose of the railway was to do that very thing: to open up British Columbia for future development. But I think the evidence bears close scrutiny as to whether that kind of capital might not be better used in developing a wider range of new types of industry in British Columbia with a significant increase in jobs and therefore some assistance in our present unemployment problems.

I have referred to the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips). I think the Premier also has a responsibility to show leadership in regard to the kind of statements that have been made by the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer). I won't recite all of the examples, Mr. Chairman. But he certainly spelled out a very decentralized view of Confederation in this House not too long ago which in a very remarkable way reflected exactly the attitude of the province of Quebec, which has provoked a great deal of the divisions within our country at the present time, to the effect that where we can have consensus the federal government can hold power, but where the provinces cannot agree then the power should be in the hands of the provinces. And that seems to be a position very similar to the separatist position.

Yet we have had the Premier state that he firmly believes in preserving Canada as one nation. And I don't think it is an example of leadership where the Premier, believing firmly and sincerely as he does in Confederation, would not make some public comment or reaction to what is clearly a conflicting statement by a very important minister in cabinet, namely the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer), whose share of the budget spending is very considerable indeed. I don't think the Minister of Education did himself any credit either with his performance in question period this afternoon when he used semantics which do not do the government as a whole any credit.

I mentioned earlier on, Mr. Chairman, that a Premier of a province may feel — and quite rightly so — that individual cabinet ministers have a right to their opinion, but as a member of a team reflecting the overall general thrust and direction of that government, it can cause grave misunderstanding, if nothing else, among the people of the province. I'm talking, of course, of the fact that federal-provincial sharing has been a topic of great concern. There was a recent conference and we had a long debate about its impact on health services. But now we find that all the federal sharing for the handicapped is not being passed on to the intended recipient. Here again, the Premier has taken no position on that. We have had statements by the minister directly concerned. But the point I'm trying to make is that the Premier is responsible for the overall policy of the government and for meeting the commitments that are presumably entered into in good faith when the federal government sits down and negotiates with the provinces, as happened in these important cost-sharing areas for health and education and social assistance.

I can just say, Mr. Chairman, that if there's one subject about which I am receiving a very large amount of mail, it is this particular example of where this government appears to be either hardhearted or cheap in not making available federal allocation of funding, that is provided with the understanding that it would go to handicapped people in the recipient provinces and is not, in fact, being passed on to the recipient.

The Premier is clearly on record in many debates in this House already — and quite rightly so — as having said that you can't provide services to people beyond a certain point if you don't have the money. I couldn't agree more about that. But in this particular instance, all the evidence indicates that certain moneys are being made available, in this case for monthly allowances to handicapped persons, and yet the money is not being transferred to the recipients.

These are some of the reasonable questions one can ask the Premier as the leader of the government and the leader of the party. Does he not have an obligation to speak out or to correct what appears to be conduct of cabinet ministers which is not in keeping with the stated government policy as outlined on various occasions by the Premier himself in this House?

Lastly, I just want to ask the Premier a little bit about the very contentious matter of the Kitimat pipeline. I witnessed a television interview with the Premier, and as I recall his words seemed to be at first blush, "the pipeline offers British Columbia very little, " or words to that effect. I'm not sure if these are precisely the words, but the minister seemed to be very unimpressed by what it might do for British Columbia.

Of course we had the statement in the press just the other day that there are relatively few jobs. There was quite a headline in the Vancouver Province, saying "Few Pipeline Jobs." Most of the workers on the pipeline would be highly skilled pipeline workers from Alberta; the impact of creating jobs on the lower mainland unemployed in British Columbia would be very slight. Of course, we are very well aware that an alternative proposal has been put forward by Atlantic-Richfield and Trans Mountain. One would have to also recognize that it was, I think,

[ Page 1164 ]

the chairman of Trans Mountain who made these pessimistic statements about the jobs that would be created by the Kitimat-Edmonton pipeline. I'm not so unaware of the fact that there are vested interests involved here and Trans Mountain is extremely eager that their alternative be considered so that oil would come down to Cherry Point and the Edmonton-Vancouver flow would be reversed.

I don't plan to get into the whole debate on that per se, but I think there are so many contingent factors around the Kitimat pipeline discussion that I wonder, first of all, if the Premier can tell us at what point he expects British Columbia at least to take a definite position in regard to the advisability of the Edmonton-Kitimat pipeline in the interest of British Columbia.

Where does the final authority lie? I know that the National Energy Board is holding hearings, but from what I've read that seems to be very much a rather pragmatic, practical assessment of how it will be built and where it will be built and the route of the pipeline and the throughput, et cetera. On the other hand, I gather that the federal minister, Mr. LeBlanc, has given a commitment that there will also be an environmental impact study. But in the meantime, British Columbia as the province in whose territory this pipeline is going to be built seems to have very little to say about it. Could the Premier give us some information?

I notice that the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications (Hon. Mr. Davis) made a speech the other day; he was talking about the whole business of oil supplies to Canada and the particular position of British Columbia. I just want to quote one of the comments and ask for the Premier's response. Mr. Davis stated:

"Oil comes to Ontario and Quebec by pipeline which crosses U.S. territory. We depend on the U.S. for the use of their land, their right-of-way, their land bridges, and this puts Ontario and Quebec consumers in a poor position relative to the U.S. The result has been much diplomatic activity in Ottawa recently as the new Canada-U.S. pipeline treaty nears completion."

I wonder if the Premier could tell us, in the light of that kind of comment, to what extent decisions on the Kitimat-Edmonton pipeline are contingent upon trade-offs with pipeline interests in the eastern United States and in eastern Canada. I would presume that the Premier discussed this when he was in Ottawa.

I have several other questions I would like to ask. The Governor of Washington, Dixie Lee Ray, makes no bones about the fact that, as far as she's concerned, the primary requirement for the people in the state of Washington is to receive oil. If that means bringing tankers into Cherry Point, so be it.

In the light of these rather firm policy positions taken by other surrounding jurisdictions, I wonder if the Premier could either tell us what the B.C. government feels at this point should be our policy in the best interests of British Columbia. Is there some date down the road by which the government expects to be in a position to announce this policy?

Everybody all around us — the federal government, the people in Alaska and Washington — seem to have a very clear understanding of what their policy position is on this issue of the conveyance of Alaska oil either by that pipeline or by sea to Cherry Point, and from there by an extended pipeline to Edmonton. I just wonder what future discussions and negotiations the Premier has in mind with these neighbouring jurisdictions.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, the member for Oak Bay brings up several points concerning CNR, Confederation, ministers, oil off the west coast of Canada and potential oil entry on the west coast. He has mentioned — and I think it's a fact that this isn't a fact — that everybody else seems to have developed a position on this but British Columbia. The fact is that everybody else's position keeps changing.

We have presently proposed three proposals: there's the northern tier; there's the new proposal that Trans Mountain is involved in; and there's the proposed Kitimat pipeline. It's interesting to note that if we made up our mind, which we couldn't have done with the very sketchy information we had a few months ago, on representation put forward by Trans Mountain.... At that time they were part of the proposed Kitimat pipeline; now they're talking a very different position.

The member also made a strong plea about being Canadians. At this point British Columbia is involved in discussions with the government of Canada on that very role. Is there a Canadian position that British Columbia must understand in preparing to intervene in the three proposals that are now before the public? They're not necessarily all going to be heard by the National Energy Board, but I hope that all proposals will be heard by them. British Columbia is going to be an intervener. In order to be an intervener we now have a new proposal that's being suggested on which research is being done, not only by the government departments that are obvious to the members, but by government agencies. They are also doing and have done some preparation for information to guide the government into making a decision on the type of intervention it will make.

I must point out that several of the problems can't be solved by British Columbia. The first problem that alarms us all is tanker traffic off the coast. I guess if we had to think back, the time to present Alaskan oil going down our coast was when it was first suggested that the pipeline be constructed across Alaska to provide oil for those tankers which were obviously

[ Page 1165 ]

going to go to American ports. That was the time to talk, I guess, pipelines, using Canada as a land bridge as a more acceptable way of dealing with the American oil supply to American consumers. However, that's been a fait accompli for some time.

We have to consider also that some of the American action is because of what Canada has done. Canada has changed its oil policy. The oil that flowed from Alberta through the Trans Mountain pipeline created the refineries in Washington state. They were built because of the oil supply from Canada. When this supply is cut off, of course, those refineries are looking elsewhere to maintain employment and for their supply. They don't need to consult us — that's one of the problems. They're very close to us. They're in a fragile water area that affects not only their own land but ours. They're in a very fragile area, yet the facts are that British Columbia has no ability except to raise objection to them directly.

Primarily, the way to deal with the governments of other countries where we have very serious concerns is through our federal government. One of the strong parts of being a part of Canada is the diplomatic relations that our country has with other nations, and the ability to make our voice heard. When they make their voice heard, it isn't some distant voice, it's the voice of British Columbians also. We've been in discussion with the government at Ottawa, with the appropriate ministers and with the Prime Minister himself over our concern with the oil-tanker traffic coming into these sensitive areas.

I've suggested that we may be faced with making a decision on what is the least unacceptable of three unacceptable proposals. It may be that in the national policy British Columbia may be asked to make decisions. That's why, in preparing our intervention, we've called upon the government of Canada.... In its international negotiations, what trade-offs is it looking at, if "trade-offs" is the right word? What negotiations are taking place in the way of a continental energy policy? What discussions are taking place on Canada's relationship to these supplies? We have asked them what they can do to protect British Columbia's interest to do with this tanker traffic, where the only way of a meaningful chance of success of an objection is dealing through the government of Canada dealing directly with the government of the United States.

As you know, the states' governments themselves have very little ability to control even their own policy. The former Governor of Washington state brought in legislation that of course was beyond the competency of the state's powers under their constitution. It was overturned in the courts. It is still being heard, but, there again, they felt concerned about tanker traffic in their area too. We now have a new governor, and the Washington state people have made a conscious decision to elect a new governor, whom I hope to meet with some time at the earliest possible convenience to Governor Ray. She has apparently espoused a different policy concerning the tanker traffic in the area.

That's why British Columbia didn't arrive at a position and then look for evidence. What we have is all of our bodies collecting evidence, because the proposals keep changing. New proposals are being added, like the new proposal which was just suggested. The intervention will have to be prepared, and I am hopeful that the discussions we have opened up with the government of Canada will provide enough information for us to prepare for this intervention and deal with it in British Columbia before we take it to the National Energy Board. That's the position on the Kitimat pipeline.

A member asked if the possibility of selling out the British Columbia Railway to the CNR was discussed in any meetings. No discussions are going on, nor was it discussed by myself. Discussions between the railroads are going on routes and concerning existing proposed agreements where minutes have been signed.

The proposed northwest agreement — discussions are going on. Discussions are going on a northern transportation system. Discussions of the lines cooperating in the provincial and national interest are going on, and those discussions are continuing.

As far as the ministers of this government are concerned, and particularly in our Confederation, the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) does mention that in this sensitive time in Canada's history, many different viewpoints or shades of view are coming from various areas. I say that's good for Canada, because now when Confederation may be threatened by talks of separatism from Quebec, many people propose no action, many just stand around and wring their hands. I say it's a time for discussion. If ever there was a time for new ideas and a time for proposals, that time is now in Canada. We shouldn't be afraid of anyone speaking out or making suggestions. We should be afraid of those who express concern and those who oppose but have nothing to propose.

I'm not afraid of debate because I have confidence in the very nature of the strength of the country itself. It has nothing to do with politics; it has to do with the faith in the people and in the very reason that this country was formed and why it has continued to survive. If ever we've recognized the need for a federal system, it's in the very type of negotiations, some which I have discussed now, relating to energy and international policy with which we have a country that is well accepted and well respected in the world — a country people are willing to negotiate with and know that our word is good. I believe one of the strongest reasons to keep this country together is the respect we have earned in the rest of the world. And that's why I'm not afraid

[ Page 1166 ]

of debate either within B.C. or within Canada or within Quebec on various alternatives of how to strengthen Confederation. I think it's a time to listen, it's a time for people to discuss, and it will be a time for leaders to lead and for Canadians to act.

MR. WALLACE: I'll just indulge in the privilege of the House to introduce in the gallery Mr. Frank Oberle, who is the MP for Fort George–Peace River and the president of the Progressive Conservative Party.

MR. SKELLY: It appears that the more the Premier gets up to clarify the position of the government on the Kitimat pipeline, the more confused and fearful people in this province are becoming. He talks about the Northern Tier proposal and the Trans Mountain proposal and the Kitimat pipeline proposal and the potential for oil entering on the west coast. Well, that potential is only two and a half months away. I understand that the National Energy Board will be holding hearings beginning in May of this year.

Almost everybody, as the Premier has said, has formulated a position on this pipeline — everybody in the province, in the northern states, and the people who will be served by that pipeline — everybody except the government of British Columbia over whose territory that pipeline will run for 700 miles. The people are fearful about what might happen should that oil port in Kitimat be built and should that pipeline and the oil port be constructed. We still have not had a clear position by this government, the government most affected by the decision of whether or not to build that pipeline.

As the Premier rightfully states, we're forced into decision-making as the result of decisions made by the Alaska government, the United States government, and the oil companies involved back in 1968. The government of British Columbia at that time took no position, Mr. Chairman, made no statements about their position on the Alyeska oil pipeline back in 1968 when the present Premier's father was Premier of this province. As a result, we're faced with the profit imperatives of an oil company that wishes to transport its oil from Prudhoe Bay on the north slope of Alaska to the end of the pipe at Valdez, and British Columbia is one of the provinces that is being forced to accept a decision by these oil companies — or by this particular oil company — as to how that oil will be transported through the west coast of North America. That oil company was aware as far back as 1968 that when the pipeline was completed there would be a glut of oil on the west coast of North America and that all the oil that Prudhoe Bay field would produce would be required by eastern and mid-eastern refineries in the United States.

It's two and a half months until the National Energy Board holds the hearings on the advisability of building the pipe and on obtaining a certificate of public convenience for the pipeline. British Columbia does have jurisdiction over whether that pipeline is built. We own the land. That pipeline will be running over British Columbia territory for 750 miles, and I'm wondering: has the Kitimat pipeline consortium made an application to the government of British Columbia? Have they been in touch with the government of British Columbia, with the Minister of Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen), who's responsible for the lands of this province, to discuss an application to obtain a right-of-way for that pipeline over lands owned by the government of British Columbia? If the present government and the present Premier took a stand that that pipeline would not be built over British Columbia territory, we would not be dealing with an application for the Kitimat oil port and we would not be dealing with the threat of tanker traffic through very dangerous waters along the north coast of British Columbia, tanker traffic which threatens the whole environment of this coast between Dixon Entrance and Queen Charlotte Sound.

The Minister of Environment appeared to be mystified, he said, in response to a question from the responsible member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) about the federal government's jurisdiction and the federal government's programme for cleaning up oil spills, yet the federal government itself seemed to express no mystification on that point. People from Environment Canada say they can't afford to clean up an oil spill in that area — they don't have the manpower to clean it up, they don't have the money to clean it up — and, in fact, people from Environment Canada have stated that they have no intention of cleaning up an oil spill on the north coast of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: An impossible task.

MR. SKELLY: What we're going to be losing is the whole environment of the coast of this province between Dixon Entrance and Queen Charlotte Sound and in fact if a spill takes place...and a spill has been projected, not by SPEC, not by environment groups, not by public-spirited citizens, but by the United States Coast Guard. Based on their figures and their experience, a spill will take place — "a major oil-spill disaster," using their own words — once every four years, a spill disaster that will wipe out the marine resources on that central coast for a decade.

Mr. Hall of Trans Mountain Pipe Line has said that none of the labour to be used on that pipeline will probably originate in British Columbia. Most of it will come from people who are experienced in pipeline construction from Alberta and the prairie provinces. We'll be sacrificing the environment of this province

[ Page 1167 ]

on 1,000 miles of coastline. We'll be sacrificing the marine resources and the fishing industry of this province for decades and, in fact, over the life of the pipeline — say, 25 years — for generations. We'll be sacrificing an industry for generations, if not forever.

Indian rights have not been considered. Indian rights to the marine resources have not been considered, and yet the government, two and a half months away from the National Energy Board hearings, says that they haven't come up with a position on the Kitimat pipeline. Now the Premier made a statement a few days ago out in the hall that, well, possibly we have to be Canadians first and we have to consider the trade-offs that are necessary, that maybe we should be prepared to accept the least worst proposal.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I didn't say it like that. I said the "least unacceptable."

MR. SKELLY: The least unacceptable proposal. He never established quite clearly what the least unacceptable proposal was. That would have been a step towards forming a government position. But he said that we might have to accept the least unacceptable proposal in order to obtain other concessions for Canada.

What does that mean? Does that mean that he has adopted the leaked report of the Energy Commission, that we are willing to take the Kitimat oil port and the potential for an oil spill once every four years — an oil-spill disaster, as the Coast Guard calls it — in exchange for assurances of Alberta crude oil? Is he willing to accept the Kitimat oil port proposal to avoid increased tanker traffic into Puget Sound and the threat of oil spills in that area, even though vessel traffic management systems in the Prince Rupert area and the north coast area are not scheduled to come online until 1981? Even then they will only have shore-based VHF facilities, according to the information I received from the Coast Guard, whereas we will have a fairly positive traffic control system into Puget Sound.

In any case, acceptance of the Kitimat oil port does not preclude additional tanker traffic into Puget Sound. Our understanding is that the Kitimat pipeline will accept only 300,000 to 600,000 barrels of crude oil and that there will still be a surplus of 300,000 to 600,000 barrels that will have to be coming into the western ports of North America, either through Puget Sound or through other oil ports on the western coast. What I am asking the Premier is that if he hasn't adopted a position, he should be adopting a position very shortly because the environment of this province is seriously threatened by the lack of any government position on this matter. The reason the whole debate is continuing is because of the fact that the Premier hasn't said: "Look. This pipeline goes over 750 miles of British Columbia territory. We are not going to allow our territory to be used to transport United States oil." Then the issue of the Kitimat oil port would be dead. That's what the people of this province are asking, Mr. Premier.

All we are asking for today is that you come out and make a statement that you are not prepared to sacrifice the north coast of this province to other needs, such as assurances of Alberta crude oil to the prevention of tanker traffic into Puget Sound, which is not an assurance in any case. We are asking that you come out clearly today with a statement that you are opposed to the pipeline between Kitimat and Edmonton. You will put the minds of a lot of people in British Columbia at ease, and you will assure jobs in the fishing industry on this coast for generations to come. That is what we are asking for right now — a clear statement.

MS. BROWN: Earlier this afternoon, in speaking on the Premier's estimates, I raised the issue of the Premier's inability to discipline undisciplined or irresponsible behaviour in his caucus. I just want to say that as a result of an experience that we all had in this Legislature just over an hour ago, I realized how wrong I was. In fact, not only is the Premier capable of disciplining his caucus, but in fact, he does discipline his caucus. We were a witness to that when the poor little member for Burnaby (Mr. Loewen) dared to stand in this House and, under the Premier's estimates, asked that the government of the day look into the banking business.

We saw that with a very swift movement of the hand that member was silenced — maybe forever! (Laughter.) Because we certainly have not heard a word out of that member since that hand moved on the part of the Premier. As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, that raises an interesting question. Since the Premier is capable of disciplining his caucus, and since the Premier in fact does discipline his caucus, why has the Premier failed to discipline the member of whom I spoke earlier?

The Premier gave an answer to that question in his response, when the Premier said that he supports the action of all of the ministers in his cabinet.

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: I just want to say, Mr. Chairman, how very disappointed I was to hear that, because in fact the Premier was the court of last resort for the people of this province. This is the reason why I appealed to him, rather than trying to appeal to the minister himself under his estimates. It certainly makes me very sad to know that the Premier is not going to move to take any action on the appeal which I made to him on behalf of the poor and the senior citizens and the handicapped and the children with

[ Page 1168 ]

emotional problems in this province.

What I want to do, however, is thank the Premier for responding to some of the other questions which I raised. I want to say that I'm not debating with the Premier the evils or the non-evils of the guaranteed annual income — that I'm going to debate with the Minister of Human Resources. The only thing I tried to bring to the Premier's attention was the fact that his very laudable position on the guaranteed annual income is not shared by that minister, who is going to be responsible for any input into the formulation, certainly at the federal or provincial level, of legislation dealing with this very important issue. I certainly hope that the Premier, in disciplining in the future, will make his speech of Friday on the guaranteed annual income and his statements today required reading for that minister whom I mentioned earlier.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Rosemary, if I want to discipline anyone, I'll check with you first.

MS. BROWN: Oh, no. That would be an educational exercise, Mr. Premier.

The other thing, Mr. Chairman, that I want to raise under the Premier's estimates is that the Premier mentioned, in responding to the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace), our role in the province in terms of our voice being heard on the international scene. Certainly this is....

MR. KING: Where's Digger?

MS. BROWN: He has disappeared, perhaps forever, too, as a result of that disciplining.

Certainly our relationship with the rest of the world is something that should be of primary concern to all of us, including the Premier. I want to say how pleased I am that he has made his commitment to reinstate the committee on funding for the children of North Vietnam.

Mr. Chairman, I want to also bring to his attention the fate of the fund which was to give agricultural aid to developing countries, which the Minister of Finance recaptured in his first budget, and ask him whether he wouldn't reconsider that too. For the benefit of the Premier I just want to restate that that fund was used, certainly in one instance — in the case of the people of Lesotho — to establish the development of a poultry business so that the children of that country had access to eggs. It certainly was not used in terms of any revolutions or overthrowing any governments or anything in that respect. I'm going to raise it under the estimates of the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt), but wondered whether the Premier would like to take that into account too.

However, there are two other areas concerning our relationship with the rest of the world which I would specifically like to discuss with the Premier. One surely must be: what is our relationship with the government and the country of Chile at this point? As you know, Mr. Premier.... Sorry, Mr. Chairman. I have to remember that the Premier is "he" and you are "Mr. Chairman."

As you know, Mr. Chairman, the national government of Canada has spoken out very strongly about the violation of human rights which is presently in existence in Chile. The government of Canada accepts Chileans as refugees from a former government which they do not support. Despite that, I find to my horror that the province of British Columbia is doing more business with the country of Chile than it has ever done before. I want to quote some statistics for you.

In 1974, in terms of thousands of dollars, the figure in terms of imports from Chile was $603, in 1976 that figure went to $4,904. That is quite a remarkable increase, Mr. Chairman, for us to be making with a country whose government we disapprove of, a country whose government, the national government of Canada tells us, is violating the human rights of its members, and a country from which we are accepting refugees. I realize that it is quite possible that the Premier is not aware that this kind of business is going on, that British Columbia, in fact, stands third in all of Canada in terms of imports from Chile. So I want to bring this to his attention, especially since he mentioned his concern that our voice should be heard in the international markets and in the world decisions. Because we speak for the people of British Columbia and, in fact, when Canada speaks, it speaks for British Columbia too.

Just as an aside, I want to point out that one of the things that we are importing from Chile, of course, is grapes, some of which are served even in the restaurant here in the Legislature.

The other area which concerns me in terms of our relationship with the rest of the world surely must be the government's and the Premier's decision to re-establish trading in South African wines. Mr. Chairman, that sanction is the one way in which we can show another government that we disapprove of the way in which they relate to their people. The sanction is not really an economic tool. It is more a moral tool than it is anything else. It is the way in which one country passes moral judgment on another country. When the New Democratic Party government decided to terminate the importing of South African wines, it wasn't because we thought we could wreck the South African economy by refusing to drink their wines. It was because we wanted to make a public statement that we disapproved of the way in which the South African government related to the majority of its people, to its majority group, to the black people in that country.

[ Page 1169 ]

It is quite possible that in his interest to improve world trade or whatever, the Premier and his government reinstated their relationship with South Africa. That is why I'm raising this issue and bringing it to the Premier's attention. I hope he will respond. I've heard the Attorney-General's response. But I'm interested....

Interjection.

MS. BROWN: I am not going to fight with the government if it decides to use its sanctions against any country of which it disapproves. You make a moral decision. If there is a country of which you disapprove, Mr. Attorney-General, please, I recommend.... Because South Africa and the way South Africa relates to its majority people is of primary concern to me, Mr. Attorney-General. If you are concerned about the way the Soviet Union relates to its people then surely, Mr. Chairman, the Attorney-General is quite capable of making that recommendation himself.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, Madam Member. Now....

MS. BROWN: I wish he would not interrupt me when I'm trying to deal with vote 18.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I wish he wouldn't either.

MS. BROWN: Mr. Chairman, I'm trying to speak to the Premier in terms of his statement about our relationship and our responsibility to the rest of the world. The Premier sets the tone for that government. He is the one who is up front. What the Premier says, he says on behalf of the government. How the Premier speaks sets the tone for how the world or the rest of Canada views this province, because he is the leader of the government of this province. This is why I'm asking the Premier, in his capacity as spokesperson for all of us, to say to the government of South Africa: "We disapprove." And the one tool that he has with which to make his voice heard on behalf of all of us is to reinstate the sanction against the selling of South African wines in the government liquor stores.

MR. BARBER: As the Chairman knows, I've recently been tracing the curious history of the Premier's political intervention and meddling in the operations of B.C. Rail. Last week I traced the curious history of the Premier's dealings with Mr. Jerry Neben of DeLeuw-Cather Engineering of Don Mills, Ontario, and he promised that we would be bringing forward further evidence of this Premier's political tampering. I have such evidence and will be bringing it forward right now. This Premier campaigned, Mr. Chairman, on the promise that he would intervene in no political way whatever with the Crown agencies, boards and commissions of government. His party campaigned on that promise. Indeed, most specifically one of those promises was that political interference of any kind would be removed altogether from the sphere of influence being wielded against those organizations.

He argued that those corporations should be neutral politically — unbiased and objective. He said that he himself would never dream of intervening, of meddling or tampering. Of course, we found out that that is simply not the case. I drew to the attention of the House last week, and have yet to be contradicted by the Premier or the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), the case of Mr. Neben who, as you know, met in the office of the Premier through the intervention of Mr. Charles Maclean at the request of the Premier in the summer of 1976.

During that meeting they discussed a number of matters related to B.C. Rail. During that meeting the Premier became interested in the administrative and other qualities that Mr. Neben had to offer and suggested as well that the Premier felt that Mr. Phillips, the minister, might want to talk with him. Sure enough, within a short period of time, after discussions with the Minister of Economic Development, at the request of the minister, Mr. Neben was offered the job of chief executive officer of B.C. Rail. Mr. Neben accepted that offer and, indeed, was in the process of drawing up a contract for a period of service anywhere from two to four years. The maximum time of that contract was to have been four years. Mr. Neben accepted that offer in good faith. The offer that the Premier had made through the meetings held in his office and the instances of political intervention were, at least as far as Mr. Neben could understand, I'm informed, intended honourably and to have been dealt with honestly.

The information that I'd like to present today to the House, that I expect as well will go uncontradicted as it was last week, demonstrates that once again this Premier has intervened politically. It demonstrates that once again this Premier has meddled in the affairs of B.C. Rail. It demonstrates that once again he did it incompetently.

I mentioned last week that they offered a job to Mr. Neben. It was accepted and then they withdrew it at the eleventh hour. Well, it turns out they did the same kind of thing again. I will release today details about the other gentleman who was offered the job, who was asked to meet, and who for various reasons — including the intervention of one Arthur Weeks — finally found himself left out in the cold.

This Premier runs a very peculiar political operation, Mr. Chairman. He tells the people that he engages in no interference, and then he holds secret meetings in his office and offers very important senior jobs in the management of B.C. Rail to people

[ Page 1170 ]

like Mr. Jerry Neben and the other gentleman whom we'll talk about shortly.

One of the problems this Premier has with credibility is the fact that we know about these meetings. We know about these and other meetings that have taken place, and we'll be talking about them in the future. We know whom he met with, we know what they talked about, we know what job offers were made. We know how the Premier and his minister intervened politically in the first place, bungled it in the second, and now have egg all over their face in the third, because we know and they didn't think we would know about it.

I'd like very briefly to recount what happened in the Premier's office. I'm sure the Premier knows about this. At his request — it was recorded in the Blues when he responded to questions I asked in question period last week — he indicated that he met with several people to discuss the operations of the railway. We already know that he met with Jerry Neben and Charles Maclean. We already asked the Premier whether or not he discussed with Mr. Maclean questions of settlement out of court, or in any other way, of the MEL Paving suit. The Premier tells us he's not quite sure what was discussed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. The Chair will have to determine quite quickly whether or not the material you are using now is going to in any way prejudice other hearings that are being conducted. I would just caution the member that you would make the job of the Chair much easier if you would run your material through the screen.

MR. BARBER: I'm doing that, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you for your close attention. The only hearing that I expect might in any way be involved in its jurisdiction in the area that I'm raising has yet, of course, to meet. It has been constituted; it's under the chairmanship of Judge McKenzie. It has not actually met and I'm sure there is no infringement. If you sense one coming, do warn. I'm certainly not referring to the hearing presently in session in Vancouver which also involves one Arthur Weeks.

If I may continue: they met; the Premier intervened; a job was offered to Mr. Neben; it was withdrawn at the eleventh hour. My information is that an intervention of a very odd sort occurred there. It appears that a Mr. Arthur Weeks got his finger in the pie. Having learned that the Premier had intervened, having learned that the Premier had arranged the meeting with Mr. Maclean and Mr. Neben, having learned that the Premier asked Mr. Neben and the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) to get together, and having learned that the Premier approved the offer of a job as chief operating officer of the B.C. Rail to Mr. Neben, Mr. Weeks suddenly realized that the control he formerly exercised, the influence he formerly possessed, was no longer his.

Mr. Weeks suddenly realized he was losing control of that aspect of the empire and began to make phone calls. He began to hold corridor conversations. Mr. Weeks began to intervene. He got his fingers in the pie because he feared that he, Mr. Weeks, and the Minister of Economic Development were losing control of the situation. I am informed that in fact there were arguments between the Minister of Economic Development and the Premier in regard to who should be involved in this particular course. I am informed that there were substantial arguments.

I will continue. After it became clear to Mr. Weeks that this control was slipping through his fingers, this rather odd objection about the citizenship of Mr. Neben was raised. It was raised not by the minister and not by the Premier, but by Mr. Weeks. Mr. Weeks was apparently successful in persuading them that this was a major political objection.

The fact is, of course, that Mr. Neben's wife is French-Canadian, of long-time Canadian citizenship and Mr. Neben is eligible for Canadian citizenship on April I of this year. However, Mr. Weeks managed to conjure up the dark spectre of political danger and persuaded both the minister and the Premier that the offer to Mr. Neben should be withdrawn.

For whatever reasons, the Premier and the minister chose to accept the advice and the interference of Mr. Weeks. On the basis of whatever that good man had to offer, the minister, with the consent and the approval of the Premier, phoned Mr. Neben and withdrew the offer. After that offer was withdrawn, on the advice and the curious intervention of Mr. Weeks they then looked elsewhere.

I would like to repeat in this House what I've said before: in our view Mr. Neben is, in his profession, an eminently well-qualified gentleman. As you may be aware, Mr. Chairman, I've had numerous conversations with people in the railway industry, and their unanimous opinion was that Mr. Neben is a tremendously well-qualified gentleman. They, like we, were shocked and disappointed that the Premier would meddle, and that having meddled, he couldn't even do it right. The offer that was made had to be withdrawn because, as it turns out after all, someone named Arthur Weeks decided to put his hand back in the pie. They couldn't even do it right.

Who's in charge over there, Mr. Chairman? They couldn't even get it done right. The Premier meddled and came up with a Mr. Neben. Mr. Neben didn't look too bad. Arthur Weeks meddled; the Premier lost Mr. Neben and so did we. It seems to us that not only are they interfering but they're botching it. Not only is there political manipulation but they don't even know how to do it right. Not only have they been tampering with it but they themselves have been

[ Page 1171 ]

tampered with by one Arthur Weeks, who sure enough talks them out of hiring Mr. Neben.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you asked me to remind you when you were approaching the area in which you would be prejudicing other evidence, and I assure you now that you have reached that point.

MR. BARBER: All right. I'll take the tack of discussing the case of the second gentleman who was approached through the Premier's office to consider taking the position of the chief operating officer of the B.C. Rail, Mr. Chairman.

They decided they would look elsewhere, having botched the case of Mr. Neben. They approached a gentleman who acted as the operating head of the Pennsylvania Central Railway during its period of bankruptcy. This gentleman was approached at the Premier's request and was asked to consider meeting in British Columbia to discuss taking the leadership and the role of chief operating officer of the B.C. Rail. This gentleman is now operating the Pennsylvania Railway unit railway system in the eastern states of the United States of America.

This gentleman, like Mr. Neben previously, also has a high professional reputation. This gentleman, like, I understand, Mr. Neben, is, to say the least, embarrassed by the way he was treated. This gentleman is, to say the least, a little annoyed with the way he was given such cavalier and poor treatment by the cavalier and incompetent Premier whom we are describing.

This gentleman, as I say, was approached during the period of bankruptcy of the Pennsylvania Central Railway to resolve and to reorganize significant aspects of that operation. We understand that he did so quite successfully. As I say, he's now in charge of the unit railways operating for the reorganized Pennsylvania Railway in the eastern United States.

This particular gentleman has an interesting qualification in that he happens to be a Canadian. This particular gentleman happens to be a Canadian citizen presently working, and for some time now in the United States of America. So one could only presume that in this instance the previous objection of citizenship did not apply. Therefore, as a result of the Premier's instruction, a meeting was arranged between this gentleman and the Minister of Economic Development. I am informed that later the Premier intended to meet the same gentleman on the same basis that he met Mr. Neben.

The curious thing about the way this gentleman was treated by these incompetent people opposite, Mr. Chairman, is that this meeting didn't actually take place. They blew it. They botched it altogether with Mr. Neben after the meetings took place. In this particular case, they couldn't even arrange the meetings properly. The Premier asked that the meetings take place. One Arthur Weeks was asked to set them up. Once again, we are informed that Mr. Weeks, the strange eminence in all of this, decided that his own bailiwick was being threatened by the intervention of the Premier and managed to make sure that the meetings never actually took place.

This gentleman from Pennsylvania, a Canadian citizen, Mr. Chairman, arranged to come to British Columbia. He first arranged to come to Victoria; he was then told he should go to Vancouver.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The hon. member will soon show how this relates to vote 18.

MR. BARBER: I certainly will, because I'm describing the incompetence of this Premier. I'm describing his meddling; I'm describing the extent to which not once but twice this Premier meddled and failed to pull it off in the operations of B.C. Rail. I'm discussing the failure of leadership on the part of this Premier. I'm discussing his failure to honour a campaign promise to allow the board of B.C. Rail to operate with neutrality and objectivity.

It is our information that four meetings were arranged and then postponed with this gentleman from Pennsylvania — Victoria, Vancouver, Victoria. Finally, I am informed, Mr. Weeks got on the telephone and, through the intervener, asked the gentleman in question to meet in a motel in Fort St. James. This evidently was the only place where the hon. minister could meet. The gentleman from Pennsylvania finally said: "This is ridiculous." He was not prepared to go through with it.

An offer that evidently was emanating once again from the Premier's office had once again been blown by the Premier. Once again Mr. Weeks had intervened; once again it fell through; once again British Columbia was embarrassed in the world of the railway industry of North America. They were embarrassed by the treatment extended to the Canadian citizen presently running the railway in Pennsylvania.

It's fairly clear, I think, Mr. Chairman, that this Premier simply doesn't know what he's doing when it comes to tampering with the B.C. Rail, because he's tried and he hasn't been able to pull it off. It's fairly clear that the Premier's great friend, Arthur Weeks, his research assistant when he was in opposition, had a most extraordinary role to play in all of this, a role which most of us would think was not entirely straightforward...

MR. LAUK: Mr. Fix-It.

MR.BARBER: ...a role which some of us would wonder whether or not was entirely honourable.

I call on the Premier, Mr. Chairman, to tell this House whom else he met with, before I have to do it.

[ Page 1172 ]

The Premier indicated that he met with a number Of people last summer. The Premier told us during question period that he discussed a number of matters related to the B.C. Rail. The Premier has left B.C. Rail up in the air and its administration hanging, wondering just how many of them are going to survive future meddling on the part of the Premier.

We know about two cases — there have been other meetings. We know about two cases, and we understand that the intervention continues.

I would like the Premier to table the minutes of the meeting of the board of directors of B.C. Rail when the MEL settlement occurred. I would like the Premier to tell us who was there and how they voted. I would like to know if the minister was there and how he voted. I would like to know if the Premier offered any political instructions whatever. I would like to know if the Premier cares to repudiate, as he did not last week, the information which we have presented indicating that he did meet with Mr. Neben, that indeed that job was offered, that he did advise that the gentleman from Pennsylvania, a Canadian citizen, also be met with, and that once again Arthur Weeks managed to make sure that that didn't happen either.

The Premier has been neglectful and incompetent; the Premier has attempted to interfere, and he's botched it. The Premier has not honoured a significant campaign promise, which was that the operations of B.C. Rail would be dealt with under conditions of neutrality — no politics whatever. The Premier is embarrassed to discover that we know about these meetings. We think that it's time the Premier came clean.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'm being attacked for meetings that didn't take place and for appointments that were never made. The vicious attack by the member for Victoria is very succinct. He is attacking the government for meetings that never took place, appointments that were never made. What other amazing non-event will he announce next? (Laughter.)

MR. BARBER: Let me reply. No, I'll stand up. The Premier seems to have missed the point. (Laughter.) Let me make the point again. Does the Premier deny that he met, through arrangements provided by Charles Maclean, in his office last summer to discuss with Mr. Jerry Neben the position which he might take and was later offered of chief operating officer of the B.C. Rail? Does he deny that? Do you deny that the meeting took place?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please proceed, hon. member. The only way the Premier can answer is if you take your chair.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The second member for Victoria has the floor. Please proceed.

MR. BARBER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We had a good laugh in our caucus, too, when we realized that not only had the Premier attempted to intervene but that he had botched it. He gets the worst of both worlds. Not only had the Premier instructed that these meetings take place with the gentleman from Pennsylvania but, thanks to the political interventions of one Arthur Weeks, the Premier's orders were not carried out.

The Premier seems not to understand the nature of the debate. First of all, he met in secret with Mr. Neben and offered him the job, and they botched that. Thus he can properly be accused both of intervention and incompetence in the operations of B.C. Rail. Secondly, just as significantly, he ordered that meetings take place with this other gentleman presently operating in Pennsylvania.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. With great respect, I think this material has been well canvassed.

MR. BARBER: And the answer is not well provided at all. Laughter is no serious response at all to charges of incompetence of this order.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. BARBER: If I were the Premier I would try and laugh it off too, Mr. Chairman. He'd have no other response. He hasn't denied that the meetings took place. He hasn't denied that his orders weren't carried out. He hasn't denied that Arthur Weeks intervened. He hasn't denied that the minister offered the job to Mr. Neben. He hasn't denied that the job offer was withdrawn at the eleventh hour. He hasn't denied the cavalier treatment accorded to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.

The accusation is two-fold, Mr. Chairman. The accusation is that he meddled and tampered politically with B.C. Rail, and the second accusation is that he did it so badly it did not succeed. So he laughs about meetings that never took place. But the reason they didn't take place is because he's an incompetent. That's why they didn't take place. His orders were not carried out; his decisions were not implemented. Arthur Weeks got involved, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania wonders whether or not everyone treated by the government of British Columbia is treated as badly as he was.

The Premier, of course, would prefer to laugh it off. It's easier to treat it as a joke. I wait to hear the Premier deny that he met with Mr. Neben; I wait to hear the minister deny that the job offer came

[ Page 1173 ]

forward; I wait to hear the Premier deny that the gentleman from Pennsylvania was dealt with precisely as I've described; I wait to hear the Premier deny that he intervened and bungled it at the same time.

I rise to move that the House....

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: I rise further, on tippy toes (laughter) — even higher.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARBER: I'm 6 feet, 5 inches instead of 6 feet, 3 inches.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. I am anticipating a motion.

MR. BARBER: Well, I am glad that the Premier is so amused. I don't imagine he will be amused when we report to this House the other meetings that took place in secret last summer, and when he calls inquiry No. 8 and wants to talk to Arthur Weeks who, I am informed, is the principal source of this information, although I have never met the gentleman myself. I imagine he will put on a good face and try and laugh.

But he won't get away with it.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, earlier today the hon. member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) asked leave under standing order 35 to make a motion for the adjournment of the House to discuss a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely a newspaper report that a certain committee had alleged possession of evidence of wrongdoing surrounding applications for the release of farmland from the agricultural land reserve.

I refer to the 1973 Journals at page 155, wherein Mr. Speaker Dowding held that when the estimates of the minister concerned with the subject matter were yet to be considered, the motion could not be allowed. As the subject matter would fall under the purview of one or more ministries — namely, Municipal Affairs and Housing, Agriculture, and Environment — whose estimates have not yet been considered, opportunity will follow for debate of the matters raised.

Accordingly, the business of the House may not now be set aside pursuant to standing order 35.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:02 p.m.