[ Page 1653 ]

CONTENTS

Statement

Alleged bribe to Crown counsel. Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1653

Mr. Macdonald –– 1654

Mr. Wallace –– 1654

Routine proceedings

Oral questions

Alleged bribe to Crown counsel Mr. Macdonald –– 1654

Rent controls. Mr. Wallace –– 1655

Revelstoke Dam hearings. Mr. King –– 1655

Appointment of Richard Higgins. Mrs. Dailly –– 1655

Inventory of ski facilities. Ms. Sanford –– 1655

ICBC rates. Mr. Wallace –– 1655

Alleged bribe to Crown counsel. Mr. King –– 1656

Allowance for the handicapped. Ms. Brown –– 1657

Committee of Supply: executive council estimates.

On vote 18.

Mr. Macdonald –– 1657

Mr. Nicolson –– 1658

Division on Mr. Chairman's ruling –– 1659

On vote 18.

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1660

Mr. Nicolson –– 1660

Mr. Lea . 1661

Mr. Lauk –– 1664

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1667

Hon. Mr. Hewitt .. –– 1671

Mr. King –– 1673

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1675

Mr. Wallace –– 1677

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1680

Mr. Barnes –– 1681

Mr. Gibson –– 1687

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1687

Tabling documents

1976 annual report in accordance with Administration Act.

Hon. Mr.Wolfe –– 1689

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

HON. W.N. VANDER ZALM (Minister of Human Resources): Mr. Speaker, we have with us today a group of students from the constituencies of Surrey and Langley, from the Fraser Valley Christian High School, with their teacher Gina de Kamm. I ask the House to welcome them.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to welcome Mr. and Mrs. James Sewid of Alert Bay and Campbell River and Mr. Andy Callicurn of Vancouver, who are in Victoria to discuss the Captain Cook bicentennial. They are in the gallery today and I would ask the House to please welcome them.

Mr. Speaker, I also welcome to the floor of the House Mr. and Mrs. Denis Flynn of Nitinat Camp, Lake Cowichan. I had the honour to present Mrs. Gail Flynn with the Royal Humane Society Silver Medal for Bravery today. Mrs. Flynn, just one year ago, rescued three children, all under three years of age, from drowning in the freezing waters of Lake Cowichan. This was a heroic act of which all British Columbians are proud and I know that all members of this House are proud. We congratulate Mrs. Flynn for her heroic effort.

Mr. Speaker, I wouldn't want the moment to pass without also recognizing that Mr. and Mrs. James Flynn and Miss Patricia Flynn, in-laws of Mrs. Gail Flynn, from Hope, are also in the gallery.

MR. E.N. VEITCH (Burnaby-Willingdon): Mr. Speaker, here in the gallery this afternoon are Mr. and Mrs. Jim Roberts. Mr. and Mrs. Roberts are here for a very special duty today. They are here to deliver an award of merit certificate from the Greater Vancouver Fire Protection Association to fire chief Gains of the district of Saanich, to present to Dionna Higgins in recognition of her outstanding conduct in saving the life of her sister Diana. Dionna extinguished the blazing nightgown by getting her eight-year-old sister into a bathtub and turning on the shower. Diana suffered third-degree burns, and if it had not been for her 1 0-year-old sister's actions, she might have lost her life through this tragic affair that occurred on November 10,1976, in her home in Saanich. I would like the House to bid them welcome.

HON. R.S. BAWLF (Minister of Recreation and Conservation): Victorians are always honoured when we have visitors from outside of our province spend time in this capital city. With us today in the gallery, Mr. Speaker, are Mrs. Marion Hudson from Toronto and Mr. Bill Bailey from Indianapolis. I would ask the House to bid them welcome.

MS. R. BROWN (Vancouver-Burrard): Mr. Speaker, today is International Women's Day and I would like the House to join me in marking this very special day. March 8 was first declared an international working-class holiday in 1910 by the International Conference of Socialist Women to commemorate the struggles of women. This date was chosen because in 1908, on that date, the women in the garment industry in New York went on strike to protest the sweat-shop conditions under which they worked and also to demand the right to vote.

In 1950, on this date, a number of women's organizations in Canada came together to form the Congress of Canadian Women. Canadian women, through our congress, have been celebrating and joining with other women around the world to celebrate this date ever since.

Today, Mr. Speaker, as we mark this day in British Columbia, I would like to draw the attention of the members of the House to the fact that women of all ages and our children in this province account for nearly 50 per cent of the people living below the poverty line, and that although we constitute 32.9 per cent of the work force, we are still concentrated in the lowest-paying jobs - in many instances jobs not covered by any of our labour legislation.

I would also like to add that crimes of violence directed against us, such as rape and wife beating, are on the increase, and that those of us who are native women, immigrant women, lesbian women, old women, handicapped women or non-white women suffer double exploitation and double oppression. In the crucial areas of health, education and the law, our needs are still accorded only second-class status.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to share with the House the words of the charter of the Canadian Congress of Women:

"We women of Canada assert that all human rights are women's rights.

"We maintain that without full equality of women, no human rights can be realized.

"We maintain that until women are free the freedom of all humanity is insecure, for no woman who does not enjoy equality in society can enjoy equality in the family, and therefore her children cannot be raised in the spirit of democracy.

"We further believe that while women are held in a lesser position in society than men, those rights which men cherish are in danger."

HON. W.R. BENNETT (Premier): I ask leave to make a statement.

[ Page 1654 ]

Leave granted.

ALLEGED BRIBE TO CROWN COUNSEL

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yesterday in the House allegations that were contained in an article in The Vancouver Sun were brought to the attention of this assembly. It related to statements made by Crown counsel, Mr. McKinnon, concerning alleged threats and bribery from Alan Filmer, regional Crown counsel.

This morning I met, along with the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) , the Finance minister (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) , and the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) , with Mr. McKinnon and other Crown prosecutors from Vancouver who had already arranged a meeting concerning the delivery of justice in British Columbia. Because of the seriousness of the allegations contained in The Vancouver Sun article and because these would also be discussed at the meeting this morning, I had in attendance Chief Superintendent Gordon Dalton of the RCMP.

From the meeting this morning, two discussions took place: one concerning the allegations contained in The Vancouver Sun article; the other discussion surrounded the delivery of justice in British Columbia and the complaints of regional Crown counsel from the city of Vancouver.

In regard to the allegations, Mr. McKinnon reiterated that the article in The Vancouver Sun was substantially correct and interpreted his statements. We are preparing an order appointing an inquiry under the Public Inquiries Act into the allegations made by Mr. McKinnon against Mr. Filmer. The commissioner under the inquiry Act is to be Peter Butler, LL.B. We hope that they will have an immediate inquiry into the very serious allegations that were contained in the article in The Vancouver Sun yesterday and reaffirmed by Mr. McKinnon.

MR. A.B. MACDONALD (Vancouver East): I have just a few words in reply to the Premier's statement on the eighth probe in two months on the part of this government.

HON. K.R. MAIR (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): You asked for it.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please!

MR. MACDONALD: I think we asked for all eight - the circumstances called for them. But I'd say this: the symptoms we've heard about, which are the charges of outright bribery, are merely symptoms of a deeper problem showing total lack of leadership in the justice field since March, 1976, when the proposals of the Crown prosecutors were laid before the government, including the proposals for contract hiring of senior Crown counsel, which would have saved the province money. There has been no response. On Friday, February 25, these same proposals were again laid on the desk of the Attorney-General. There was no response.

There has been a total lack of leadership, blowing up into this situation in which we're all involved, and the eighth probe of the government in two months. Still we have had no response from the government as to how they're dealing with the problem of breakdown in the administration of justice which I have described, and that is the problem that has to be answered quickly, because, as I say, there's been a total lack of leadership for more than a year at the present time.

MR. G.S. WALLACE (Oak Bay): I wish to appreciate the fact that prompt action was taken in the light of the allegations. I'm more particularly concerned with the point raised by the first member for Vancouver East a moment ago because I spent a large part of the weekend talking to many people in different branches of the administration of justice, and there's no doubt that the problem of the prosecutors is very much the tip of a large iceberg. I found a very distressing degree of unrest on the part of judges, policemen, sheriffs and court administrators. There is no question that they're all trying to do their job diligently and to the best of their ability, but there is some serious lack of co-ordination of the total team of people that have to make our justice system work. I hope that the government now realizes that it is a crisis situation and that this inquiry to solve the immediate problem of a serious allegation will not be used as some kind of further Band-aid when, indeed, we need some radical surgery.

Oral questions.

ALLEGED BRIBE TO CROWN COUNSEL

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Premier. In view of the inquiry that has been announced, which involves charges of outright bribery on the part of one senior agent of the Attorney-General against another, what is the status of these two gentlemen pending the inquiry? Is it justice as usual, or will they be suspended pending the inquiry?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, they're not suspended as of this time.

MR. MACDONALD: Does it take charges of this kind for the persons concerned to get an interview in the Premier's office?

[ Page 1655 ]

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. D. BARRETT (Leader of the Opposition): What's wrong with that?

RENT CONTROLS

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs a question with regard to rent control, particularly where tenants have a rental agreement including the cost of cablevision. An example has been brought to my attention in my riding in regard to the Mount Tolmie apartments on Cedar Hill X Road, where the Rent Review Commission has approved an increase in the cablevision rates, although a 10.6 per cent increase in rents has already been applied as of December, 1976. 1 wonder if the minister is aware of this.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the specific incident, but I am aware of incidents of that sort. I will take the question as notice and bring back an answer to the member.

REVELSTOKE DAM HEARINGS

MR. W.S. KING (Revelstoke-Slocan): I have a question for the Premier, Mr. Speaker. Last week the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) , as chairman of the cabinet appeal committee hearing the appeal against the Revelstoke Canyon Dam, indicated that the proceedings would be held in camera - in secret. I ask the Premier whether or not he is going to instruct that his cabinet members conduct that appeal inquiry in the full light of public scrutiny.

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

MR. KING: In light of the fact that this is a change in policy - these appeal committees used to be held in public under the previous administration -can the Premier tell me what prompted him to change the policy?

APPOINTMENT OF RICHARD HIGGINS

MRS. E.E. DAILLY (Burnaby North): To the hon. Provincial Secretary. On February 24, the Provincial Secretary told the House that Mr. Richard Higgins was appointed at $50 per hour plus expenses in .addition to his pre-retirement leave salary. She stated at the time that the appointment was not made in the usual manner by public order-in-council but by private letter. My question to the minister is: will the hon. minister agree to table the relevant letter or letters?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Yes.

INVENTORY OF SKI FACILITIES

MS. K. SANFORD (Comox): Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Economic Development. On February 15, the minister told the House:

Starting tomorrow morning, my department will start a complete inventory of all ski facilities in British Columbia to make an accurate inventory of the problems caused this year. After we have that inventory well make a special deal to come up with something - I'm not saying just what. But due to its seriousness, I don't think we can leave this to the Development Corporation because, as you know, they run on the basis of loans. They have no jurisdiction over making special commitments.

My questions are: What is the outcome of the inventory? What action will be taken by the department?

HON. D.M. PHILLIPS (Minister of Economic Development): Mr. Speaker, in answer to the member's question I'd like to say that we've received a report that is being dealt with by cabinet at the present time. We will be making an announcement in due course.

ICBC RATES

MR. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Education, who is responsible for ICBC, with regard to the safe driving discount on premiums being awarded to drivers with good driving records during the past year. Since the discount is based on past performance, can the minister tell the House why the discount is calculated on the basis of this year's premium rather than last year's premium?

HON. P.L. McGEER (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, the rates, with the exception of the extra 10 per cent discount that went to under-25 females, are the same as last year.

MR. WALLACE: As a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, I'm referring to such cases where the person moves his residence to a different territory where there is a different rating. I'm referring to changes in classification such as the cancellation of collision insurance. In these cases, this year's premium is much reduced from last year's. I'm asking the minister if he would consider basing the discount on the year in which the safe driving was carried out. Otherwise, basing it on this year's premium, some people are getting a much reduced discount.

[ Page 1656 ]

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, this plan was considered by the corporation but rejected as one that would have been extremely difficult to administer in practice. Accordingly, we described our plan to the Anti-Inflation Board and got approval for this approach, which was the only practical way which we felt we could administer a dividend.

ALLEGED BRIBE TO CROWN COUNSEL

MR. KING: I have a question to the Premier, Mr. Speaker. At the meeting that was held today between the Premier and some of his cabinet colleagues and Mr. McKinnon, were any new offers made to Mr. McKinnon with respect to his wages or any other benefits surrounding his association with the Crown attorney's office?

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

MR. KING: Could the Premier report to the Legislature on precisely what was discussed with Mr. McKinnon?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I gave a statement concerning one aspect of the discussions; the further aspect was the discussion of the delivery of justice and the very serious concerns and complaints they have about the system that was introduced by the former Attorney-General (Mr. Macdonald) and the former government. I want to advise the House that that point was made very strongly by the Crown prosecutors in the office this morning. I am glad that the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) gave me the opportunity to bring this point out.

Under question and of concern to them is the delivery of justice. It was the programme introduced by the former Attorney-General, now the member for Vancouver East, that is under question. Mr. McKinnon specifically stated that their complaints started in April, 1974. 1 wish to advise the House that the Crown prosecutors have made a submission which will be considered by the cabinet. We will be dealing with the other concerns about the delivery of justice system that was introduced by the former government and the former Attorney-General. We will be dealing with the recommendations and suggestions of the various component groups who have expressed their concern.

I might point out that today we were given a submission dealing specifically with Crown prosecutors. It was the first opportunity that I had had to discuss it, but they pointed out very strongly that their complaints go back to April, 1974. This government will do something about the delivery of justice in British Columbia

MR. KING: I understand that the charges of intimidation and bribery related to very, very recent events with respect to the administration of justice in the Attorney-General's department. But I want to ask the Premier whether or not he and his committee confirmed the 33 per cent increase in wages that was allegedly offered to Mr. McKinnon at the meeting today.

Interjections.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Before you reply, hon. Premier, I think that all of the members should be guarded at this particular time in the comments that they make concerning a matter that is now before a commission of inquiry so that there will be no way that a judge in charge of this investigation will feel that the case is being prejudged or prejudiced before he even makes the inquiry or investigates the problem.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Premier, there was no suggestion....

MR. G.R. LEA (Prince Rupert): Does he know he's the Premier?

MR. BARRETT: It took you 16 months to figure hat out - that's you.

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, as I answered previously, there was no question of any increasing discussed this morning, merely the discussion of he problem with the delivery of justice over and above the very serious allegations that were contained in the Sun yesterday.

I wish to say that a commissioner will be appointed and, for your information, we have announced that the commissioner will be appointed, but the necessary order-in-council has not yet been processed. As such, the inquiry is not yet officially launched. We took the opportunity to advise the House as soon as we could as to the steps that the government was taking in order to make sure that full public scrutiny can be made on these very serious charges.

INTERJECTIONS.

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

MR. LEA: Don't be nervous.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I want to further say hat....

MR. BARRETT: He doesn't even know he's the

[ Page 1657 ]

Premier.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, I happen to know that you're not.

MR. BARRETT: I know that.

AN HON. MEMBER: And never will be again.

MR. BARRETT: It took you 16 months to figure that out.

HON. MR. BENNETT: It took the people of Coquitlam not very long to figure it out. (Laughter.)

HON. E.M. WOLFE (Minister of Finance): Down the tube.

MR. SPEAKER: Could we get back to the question-and-answer period, please?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I would like to advise the House, and particularly the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) in his attempt to turn the attention from the fact that the problems with the delivery of justice started with the actions of the last government ...

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BENNETT: ... that no other discussion on salary offer took place this morning, but the full investigation and full discussion of the delivery-of-justice system is under review right now by the cabinet and the government.

MR. KING: I just wanted to ask a supplementary: does the Premier have a self-image problem, Mr. Speaker?

MR. LEA: He's worried about it.

MR. SPEAKER: That's an improper question, hon. member.

MR. C. D'ARCY (Rossland-Trail): Mr. Speaker, the Premier has said it's going to be a wide-ranging investigation. Can he tell the House whether or not this investigation is going to look into the question of whether or not there have been bribes, intimidation and threats by the government or its civil servants to other groups and other organizations in British Columbia besides in the administration of justice?

Interjections

MR. D'ARCY: Yes, and since this administration has taken office.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I wish to correct the member. I was very specific about the nature of the inquiry. It's obvious once again that that member for Rossland-Trail, who's never in the House, doesn't listen when he is here.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BENNETT: The inquiry is very specific as to the nature of what is a very, very serious allegation made by one of the Crown prosecutors against a public servant.

ALLOWANCE FOR THE HANDICAPPED

MS. BROWN: Mr. Speaker, I raised a question with the Minister of Finance a couple of weeks ago and he told me at that time that he was evolving an answer. I'm wondering whether that evolution is now complete and if the minister will be able to let me know just how much money went into the general revenue as a result of the government withholding the $22.50 a month from the handicapped people of this province.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I would have thought that the statements made last week by the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) in regard to this matter would have cleared up the answer to this other question. In any event, if it has not made it clear to the member already, I would just like to say this: in view of the explanations that the minister made recently as to where the $22.50 came from and why, and considering the statement made since by the minister on Friday last, with respect to increases for the handicapped at a cost of some $6.3 million, it is very clear that all moneys received have been passed on in the extension of new programmes.

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. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, it isn't often you get a chance to reply that quickly to something said in question period. (Laughter.) You know, the Premier had the audacity to blame the record of the NDP in the justice field for the problems of his government. You know we inherited - and I just want to say a few words about this, but I want to make them very plain - a creaking and groaning

[ Page 1658 ]

10aa justice system when we assumed office in 1972. It was groaning under a growing backlog of cases and inefficiency through the whole justice system.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Vote 18, hon. member.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, but this is the Premier's office and he's assumed these functions. I don't know why I just say this, MT. Chairman. I challenge the Premier to say which of the innovative reforms that we made in the justice system he's going to turn his back on. We developed a whole new sheriffs service. Is he going to disband that, Or turn his back on it? He wouldn't dare!

AN HON. MEMBER: No way.

MR. MACDONALD: We developed an independent judicial council. He will not dare to turn his back upon it We developed a system of public Crown prosecutors. He will not dare to turn his back on that system that we developed, because without it there's no way of coping with the disputes that arise in modern society.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. MACDONALD: We developed a system of orderly trained court reporting which has not been paralleled in the justice system of the province of B.C.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Vote 18, hon. member.

MR. MACDONALD: We took over justice from the administration of the municipalities, which was a hodge-podge system, and showed provincial leadership in a provincial system for the delivery of justice, which this government will not dare turn its back on and return to the bad old days of the Social Credit government that was ejected from office in 1972. So I say, Mr. Chairman, that we also introduced court management for the first time in this province. There has been a failure. There has been a failure in court management, particularly in the provincial court in the city of Vancouver, for the last 16 months. That's where you need strong, independent businesslike management and the response to the various elements in the justice system, and that's where there has been a total failure in leadership on the part of this government. But they will not turn their backs on anything that we did.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. The debate which the first member for Vancouver East is now embarking on is clearly that which is not the administrative responsibility under vote 18. Perhaps the hon. member would find the appropriate time to debate it.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I would just say that the government has responded to complaints identified with the delivery of justice. It's been well documented on TV by judges, Crown prosecutors and others, and we're responding to their complaints.

MR. LEA: Order!

HON. MR. BENNETT: As the Premier, I met this morning with Mr. McKinnon....

MS. BROWN: That's not under vote 18.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, we discussed this meeting yesterday - the meeting in the Premier's office. Related to that meeting, Mr. McKinnon expressed his concern about the delivery of justice system, and he said that these concerns went back to 1974. The government will deal with them. I am aware of them, and I have received a submission which will be discussed by the cabinet.

MR. L. NICOLSON (Nelson-Creston): I'd like to touch upon the meeting that took place today in the Premier's office, and point out that there is a similarity, a parallel situation, brewing in Vancouver in the delivery of justice. It has very complex elements.

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: In Nelson. Where did I say -Salmo?

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: Okay, in Nelson.

The parallel elements are that it involves complications that are outside of the jurisdiction of the Attorney-General and others that are within. It is, in other words, a general problem which I think the Premier should address himself to. I hope that it would not require accusations of bribes and intimidation in order that this problem would get the Premier's attention. I am referring to the Nelson City Police Association and their case, which has been before the Anti-Inflation Board. The Anti-Inflation Board not being under the Attorney-General, I would bring it up, then, under the....

Interjections.

MR. NICOLSON: Well, that's it. It does involve justice. It involves the Anti-Inflation Board and other

[ Page 1659 ]

elements. So that's why I say this should be brought up under the Premier.

I would like to just make the point very quickly that we have here a situation which is leading to a major impairment of the delivery of justice in Nelson.

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

The police commission is clearly under the responsibility of the Attorney-General. Perhaps the member would like to debate it under the appropriate vote.

MR. NICOLSON: Okay, I'll bring up the Anti-Inflation Board, how these two things work together to impair the delivery of justice, and the desirability of a meeting with the Premier, the First Minister.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The matter of the Anti-Inflation Board was debated to quite some length under the Ministry of Finance.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, this is a matter in which both of these elements are working counter-productively. That is why I do believe that it will be of interest to the Premier, just as the meeting yesterday

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, please. I’m trying to help the members to find the proper time to debate these things.

MR. NICOLSON: Yes, I'm quite aware that the hon. Minister of Finance, in terms of general problems with the Anti-Inflation Board, is involved in that. This is where I believe the Premier should take the responsibility of bringing various ministries together, as is his job and duty as leader of the executive council, to perhaps form an ad hoc committee.

I might have sat down by now if I had been allowed to proceed, but I would also ask him to consider these facts. If he looks at the city of Nelson and the other municipal police forces, and if he looks at statistics such as the number of criminal cases per policeman, he will find that Nelson has an incidence more than double that of Vancouver and most of the metropolitan police forces.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think that can be debated under the Attorney-General's estimates.

MR. NICOLSON: He will find that the city of Nelson has had an historical....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think the member understands that this can be debated further under the Attorney-General's estimates.

MR. NICOLSON: Yes, I'm not going to debate hat point any further, Mr. Chairman.

He would also find that the city of Nelson has had an historical relationship in respect to salaries of police constables in parity with their firefighters and also in parity....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, this line of debate is clearly out of order.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, is it out of order hat somebody had his head kicked in in Nelson only last December - a young man of 29 who left a widow? Is that out of order? Is it out of order to discuss things such as this in this assembly? Is it out of order to bring to the Premier's attention that we have a 50 per cent turnover in our police constables? s it out of order to bring to the attention of the Premier that there's a serious problem with the Anti-Inflation Board which is impairing the delivery of justice in the city of Nelson and the delivery of protection to people in the city of Nelson?

Mr. Chairman, I have tried to be very careful to relate this to the various things. I have perhaps tipped you off that I might be walking a little bit of a fine line on this, but I am trying to establish that there's a relationship between a problem with the Anti-Inflation Board, a problem with the delivery of justice - indeed one could even say a problem with firefighters. There's a problem with law and order in his province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, hon. member, and the responsibility of the Chair is to clearly define when the debate is in order, not whether the point you are making is in order in the opinion of the general public. There are times when it can be debated, and I clearly have to rule that now is not the time to debate matters pertaining to the police force in the particular city that you have mentioned.

MR. NICOLSON: I challenge the ruling.

The House resumed; MT. Speaker in the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Speaker, while in committee and in debate on vote 18, it was apparent to the Chair that matters being discussed under vote 18 were not clearly relevant to vote 18, and I so ruled while the 'member for Nelson-Creston was speaking. My ruling was challenged.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, it's not a matter of debate. The Chairman's ruling having been challenged, it's only a matter for the Speaker to put the question to the members of the House.

Mr. Chairman's ruling sustained on the following

[ Page 1660 ]

division:

YEAS - 31

NAYS - 17

Division ordered to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

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

ESTIMATES: EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

(continued)

On vote 18: executive council, $713,648 -

continued.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'd like to remind the members of the House that this Legislature voted to join the federal anti-inflation programme. One of the functions of the federal anti-inflation programme was the installation of the Anti-Inflation Board, which is administered by the government of Canada. British Columbia joined that programme until the termination date announced in their legislation, which was the end of next year, Mr. Chairman. As such, although the Anti-Inflation Board, from time to time, may make decisions that may create some controversy in certain categories they can only be dealt with through the Anti-Inflation Board and are the responsibility of the government of Canada.

In effect, what this Legislature did, as other provincial governments did - Manitoba, Alberta and others - in essence, for fairness within the anti-inflation fight, was to turn their provincial public service, where the federal government didn't have the authority to provide those types of controls, over to the anti-inflation programme, to make the programme apply equally amongst various of our citizens rather than leave this one sector uncovered by the control programme.

While the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) may have been out of order - the Attorney-General's estimates will be before this House sometime during this year. . .

MR. LEA: Garde shudders!

HON. MR. BENNETT: ... in the fullness of time and in due course - I did want to point out to members that although these areas of conflict with certain groups do arise, their concern should be taken to the Anti-Inflation Board. The provincial government did have a cabinet committee to deal with the anti-inflation programme. That committee was headed by the Minister of Finance and, as such, earlier debate on this subject should have taken place during the minister's estimates, It was covered by most members who are aware of this responsibility.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to thank the Premier for at least responding in some essence to my remarks. I would like to talk about the access to the Premier's office, because of the one problem I've tried to highlight, the problem brought about by Mr. McKinnon's actions yesterday and the meeting that came about this morning.

I would like to ask the Premier this very simple question: would he be willing to meet - because this has been to the Anti-Inflation Board and that is part of the problem - in his office with representatives of the Nelson City Police Association? I view this as a most grave problem.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, the Premier's office is open to everyone. I'd be quite willing to meet with any person and any group, within the constraints of my schedule and time in the House, as long as those members know full well that the provincial government does not have the authority to change the policies of the Anti-Inflation Board. I'd be quite willing, if they so desired, knowing the limitations and where their complaints should be aimed, to meet with any group of citizens or any citizen of the province. I would hope that anyone arranging such a meeting, whether it's the member for that area or whether it's them directly - as most people arrange meetings with the Premier's office - would realize the authority with which they're contained in the anti-inflation programme and the ability that the provincial government has to deal with the anti-inflation programme at this present time.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, it's very difficult to know exactly what you can discuss during these

[ Page 1661 ]

estimates because the Premier has made sure that he has no responsibility for anything in his office. What he's done is said: "You've got a question, you ask somebody else. Because what I've done is I've taken no responsibilities unto myself." But I think, Mr. Chairman, that the Premier is ultimately responsible for all of his cabinet members and all actions of government and, therefore, ultimately accountable to this Legislature for the actions of government. So I think a certain amount of latitude has to be given by the Chair when dealing with the Premier's estimates.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the Chair could clarify for the purposes. . . .

MR. LEA: I would like to have it clarified before I speak.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The practice of this House has always been that, under the Premier's vote - under the vote of the executive council - some latitude has been granted. However, in observing the debates over the past few years of this House, it has become apparent that the amount of latitude granted has been on the increase. It has never been intended that it would be established that a new practice should be adopted by this House. It was never intended by the House that it should be adopted, only by leniency of the Chair. It is the responsibility of the Chairman of this committee to be sure that this latitude doesn't go beyond the scope of our standing orders, which clearly define that under each vote only those matters relevant to that particular vote shall be debated. The Chair will do its best to give guidance to the members.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, yesterday the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) took his place and said that, in his opinion, there are a great number of people in this province who feel intimidated by this provincial Social Credit government that's in place today. He also pointed out that a certain amount of it may be paranoia, that people are unduly alarmed by what they see and what they read and what they feel about this new government. But surely it's understandable that people do feel intimidated by a government that has acted in the manner that this government has acted since taking office in December, 1975.

Let's take a look at some of the record. Let's begin with an overview of why people may feel intimidated by this Social Credit government. A cabinet minister, the Minister of the Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) , prior to being elected to this assembly, ran unsuccessfully in a federal election. After losing that election, he said that, in his opinion, people like to be bribed and conned. That was a statement by a politician in this province who is now a member of the cabinet of British Columbia - a man who said that the people liked to be bribed and conned.

HON. R.H. McCLELLAND (Minister of Health): Tell us about Barrett.

MR. LEA: Is it any wonder, when someone accuses this government of bribing or attempting to bribe, that people have a tendency to believe it? That is an unhealthy attitude for the people of this province to have - a tendency to believe that this government would even attempt to bribe someone.

Then, early on in the life of this new government, a memo was tabled in this House. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) sent a memo to the Minister of the Environment saying: "Don Ellsay from Kamloops may be in touch with you. If he is, he's a member of the NDP, and however you treat him is all right with me." That's because he's a member of another political party - again, it's an intimidation. I believe that the Premier has a direct responsibility, as the Premier, for that kind of attitude. It's his responsibility and it should be discussed during his estimates in this House.

Then we have - not necessarily in order - a blacklist. A civil servant sends a letter to the director of Intergovernmental Affairs, who is situated in the Premier's office, saying "These are Social Credit people and these are NDP people. Do what you want with it." The member of the Premier's office passed that memorandum along, along with a letter to the Minister of the Environment. Is it any wonder that civil servants in this province feel that they're intimidated when they know that there is a blacklist in existence at least in one department?

What happened, Mr. Chairman? A civil servant wrote a letter to the Premier's office saying: "Here is the political affiliation of a certain number of people." The Premier didn't kill it. His office didn't kill it right there in its tracks. It was sent on to the minister in charge of that civil servant. Then what happens when the Premier's asked in this House: "Is there a blacklist?" He says: "No, absolutely not." The next day the blacklist is placed in the House by the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) .

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. I think this matter has been well canvassed.

MR. LEA: I'm going to bring up a different aspect to it, Mr. Chairman.

Then what happens? The Premier says he wants to have an investigation as to who leaked the blacklist. It's like the Crown prosecutor getting a phone call from a stoolie saying there has been a murder. The Crown prosecutor then passes that information on to the authorities who are going to deal with it - let's say the Attorney-General's office. The

[ Page 1662 ]

Attorney-General's office, instead of inquiring as to whether there has been a murder and, if there has, who committed the murder, immediately launches an investigation to see who the stool pigeon was who phoned it in. That's what's happened. The Premier now wants to investigate to see who leaked the blacklist - in other words, who was the stoolie who phoned in the murder charge, instead of looking into the murder charge. To this day, he has not said that he is at least concerned that someone in his office in a very high position - not only in government but in his political party - passed that information on. Not, was that an impropriety? Should it have been done, or shouldn't it have been done? But who leaked the blacklist? Who reported the murder? Kill the messenger!

Should people feel intimidated? Court prosecutors are saying that they feel they're being intimidated and bribed. The handicapped in this province are coming over, not to ask for favours, but to ask for a little bit of money - $22.50 - that's already been passed on by the federal government to the provincial government and is not being passed on to them. What does the government respond? They say: "They're politically motivated." You're darn right they are, and so they should be. They should be politically motivated to get over here and get what's justly theirs. But instead of being treated with respect, because it's a part of the system that they should be using, they're told by this government: "Don't be so political. If you want your $22.50 just wait. But if you come over and ask for it, that's being political." Do they feel intimidated, Mr. Chairman?

Is it any wonder that people fear this new government? Shouldn't people in the.civil service, people who have to depend on this government for their only livelihood - the handicapped, the elderly - feel intimidated, Mr. Chairman, by a government that has that list of intimidating record? Shouldn't they? Shouldn't they feel intimidated, Mr. Chairman, by a Premier who won't answer the simplest of questions pertaining to his own administration?

The Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) has been labeled as a stumble burn in this province because he hired Arthur Weeks. The fact of the matter is he didn't hire Arthur Weeks; the Premier hired Arthur Weeks. The Premier placed Arthur Weeks in the Minister of Economic Development's office and doesn't even have the intestinal fortitude to take the consequence of his action.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, may I ask you to perhaps select more moderate language in your debating style.

MR. LEA: Yes, Mr. Chairman. The Premier doesn't appear to be able to stand up and defend his actions in this House, or doesn't even appear to want to.

MR. G.V. LAUK (Vancouver Centre): He's shy.

MR. LEA: I don't believe he's shy.

MR. LAUK: No backbone?

MR. LEA: I don't believe he has no backbone. I just think it doesn't appear that he has any, but I am sure he has. Then when things get really bad, with inquiry after inquiry and incompetence after incompetence pointed out by the official opposition, the hon. Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) and the hon. Conservative leader (Mr. Wallace) , his reaction is to threaten us in the due process, not only once. It took two weeks to train his dogs, but it's taking a little longer to train us. And I say he won't. Then when it was raised during the blacklist affair, his shot across the floor to the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) was: "Maybe we should investigate the opposition. Maybe we should investigate you!" Should people feel intimidated? Have they read about India?

AN HON. MEMBER: Petty dictator.

MR. LEA: Have they read about India? Is there any similarity between the actions of this Premier and what has been happening in India?

MR. W. DAVIDSON (Delta): No.

MR. LEA: Yes.

MR. DAVIDSON: No.

MR. LEA: Yes.

MR. DAVIDSON: No.

MR. LEA: You know, this is the first time you've spoken since you left Delta! (Laughter.)

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LEA: It's negative, like the government he represents.

MR. DAVIDSON: No.

MR. LEA: It's negative, like the government he represents. No, no, no! They say no, no, no to the handicapped; they say yes, yes, yes to the millionaires, yes, yes, yes to the multinationals.

But, Mr. Chairman, who hired Arthur Weeks? Did

[ Page 1663 ]

Arthur Weeks work in the Premier's office, and if he did, who paid him? Did he make telephone calls at government expense and, if so, who was he working for? Who authorized it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. This matter has been well canvassed both by this member and also by the second member for....

MR. LEA: It may have been well canvassed, Mr. Chairman, but the Premier sits there in stony silence, nervously fidgeting through a book because he doesn't want to get up and just tell us that Arthur Weeks didn't work in his office between December 22 and January 8. Just stand up and tell us that this conversation didn't take place. On the day that Arthur Weeks left the Premier's suite where he was working in an office and went upstairs to see the Minister of Economic Development, he came back down and the Premier walked in and said: "How did you make out?" He said: "The job's fine but the wages haven't been discussed."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. This matter has been well canvassed.

MR. LAUK: But the Premier hasn't canvassed it at all.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I must remind you that questions are in order to be asked. We may expect an answer. We may even ask a couple of times for an answer but we cannot insist upon an answer.

MR. LEA: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm not insisting on an answer. All I am doing is asking the Premier to relate to us his experience with Arthur Weeks. I don't see why a northern MLA and a cabinet minister, the Minister of Economic Development, should take the heat for a Premier who won't take the heat that he brought on. I don't see why a minister of the Crown should go down in shame when the Premier won't stand up and say: "I'm the person who hired Arthur Weeks. He worked in my office."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LEA: "I put him in the Economic Development minister's office."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. This matter has been well canvassed and is out of order.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I suppose I should not have expected an answer because when the Premier in this House and out of this House, threatened the opposition with a pay cut unless they became trained dogs....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MR. LEA: Under Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, 17th edition, page 122: "Attempted intimidation of members. It's under the same section as bribery.

MR. G.H. KERSTER (Coquitlam): Twist and turn.

MR. LEA: It says: "To attempt to influence members in their conduct by threats is also a breach of privilege." It goes on to explain: "Examples of this kind of misconduct are publishing statements impugning the conduct of members and threatening them with further exposure if they took part in debates in the house."

The Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) stood in his place and asked a very parliamentary question about committee work. The member for Vancouver East asked the same question. The Premier's response was: "If you don't like it, how'd you like to have your wages cut?" He may not have said it in those words, Mr. Chairman, but that's what he meant. Intimidate the courts, intimidate the handicapped, try to intimidate the opposition. Then he won't even stand up and say: "Yes, I'm the person who hired Arthur Weeks, and I'm the person who put him in the Minister of Economic Development's office."

Why not? Because now Arthur Weeks isn't a person the Premier would like to know.

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

MR. LEA: He liked to know him at one time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Would the hon. member please take his chair for just a moment? I read for the member a standing order which he knows very well, standing order 43:

"Mr. Speaker, or the Chairman, after having called the attention of the House, or of the committee, to the conduct of a member, who persists in irrelevance, or tedious repetition, either of his own arguments or of the arguments used by other members in debate, may direct him to discontinue his speech, and if the member still continues to speak, Mr. Speaker shall name him, or, if in the committee, the Chairman shall report him to the House."

The hon. member, unless he deceases or he stops making this kind of speech ...

MR. LEA: The Premier would like that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: "Desists" is the word I want.

... may well have to be subjected to standing order

[ Page 1664 ]

43.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, from my perusal of the debates of this House for the last seven weeks, the question was asked a few times. But I do not see anywhere in the Blues or in the finished ' Hansard debates where the Premier has answered the question. The Premier has indicated he has, but it's not in the debates. Could you refer me to the page number?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Blues....

MR. LAUK: And I think that Mr. Chairman is quite incorrect in referring to standing order 43. Standing order 43 only comes into play when the member is engaged in repetition in debate. You must read "irrelevance and repetition" together. There are numerous decisions of various Speakers of this chamber and others which indicate you must have both.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your point is well taken, hon. member. The Chairman has been in the chair almost incessantly - certainly very consistently - and certainly the Chair is aware that this matter has been very, very well canvassed, not only by the member who presently has the floor but also the member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) .

As a result, the standing order must be brought into play at this time.

MR. LAUK: Well, Mr. Chairman, I have no alternative but to move that the Chairman do now leave the chair.

Motion negatived.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I'd just like to get one thing straight. If I keep pressing the Premier to tell this Legislature why he hired Arthur Weeks and why he put him in the Economic Development minister's office, I will be named and thrown out of the House, is that it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, hon. member. The only reason why the member would be named or asked to discontinue his speech would be because of irrelevance or tedious repetition.

MR. LEA: Okay, I don't consider it irrelevant that the Premier should answer this question. It may seem tedious and repetitious to the Premier but I am sure it isn't to the people of this province. I'm sure it isn't.

The Premier had a man in his office by the name of Arthur Weeks who was being given a secretary paid for by the people of British Columbia.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. I must ask you now to discontinue your speech.

MR. LEA: I didn't bring that part up before, -Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 18 pass?

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman. . . .

MR. CHAIRMAN: The first member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. LEA: Muzzled, eh?

MR. LAUK: I'll defer to the hon. member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) , Mr. Chairman, if you'd only reconsider the unfortunate ruling that you have made.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you on a point of order, hon. member?

MR. LAUK: I'm just saying that if the hon. member for Prince Rupert wishes to take his proper place in debate, I'd be glad to defer. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that there's a fine line between the orders of proper debate in committee and the appearance, however unjustified, that the Chair may be protecting the Premier from embarrassing questions.

I wouldn't think that that's the case. I know that that is not your motivation, Mr. Chairman, and I would certainly condemn anyone who would suggest it. But we must make sure that the appearances are correct.

Although the member for Prince Rupert and the member for Victoria have canvassed this matter, I haven't. I have not been engaged in any repetition of the debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Are you on a point of order, hon. member?

MR. LAUK: No, I've been recognized in the committee, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You are recognized in committee. Please proceed.

MR. LAUK: Thank you very much.

What the member for Prince Rupert, the first member for Vancouver East, the member for Revelstoke-Slocan and so many members on this side of the House have been doing in the last two days....

Interjection.

[ Page 1665 ]

MR. LAUK: The Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) only mumbles from his chair, Mr. Chairman, while his whole department is in complete and utter chaos. The Attorney-General, Mr. Chairman, is a very, very nice person.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We're on vote 18, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: But I'm afraid that anything larger than the number of paper clips in his office is something that he is incapable of handling.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member! We are on vote 18.

MR. LAUK: Well, Mr. Chairman, vote 18 includes the executive council, and it includes the statements made by the Premier with respect to the democratic process.

Even today he shouted over: "Watch out or I'm going to read some letters." What utter nonsense! Can you imagine? He's going to say: "Watch out, I've got some letters." I've got a file of letters on the Premier that it would take me about six weeks to read out in this House, a lot of them from former Social Credit members or from Social Credit members who are clinging on to their membership hoping that the conduct of the Premier will improve.

Well, Mr. Chairman, one point that seems very, very important to the democratic process that has been raised here is that there is an atmosphere of intimidation and fear not only with the civil service. Those people in British Columbia who are dependent upon government - the disabled, the pensioners and other people - are afraid to speak out. I'm not saying that the allegations of this prosecutor who spoke up are correct - I don't know - but the point that should be made is that it's symptomatic of the kind of thing that's going on in this province.

The members of the treasury benches and the front benches are very bored. If the member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) spoke as often on his feet in this House as he does for the Premier's ear, perhaps the people of Delta wouldn't be so upset as they are with his representation of them.

MR. DAVIDSON: Withdraw!

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Are you attacking the member for Delta?

MR. LAUK: Of course I have, and you're applauding it.

Mr. Chairman, it is clear to all of us in this province that the atmosphere is the tone that is set by the leadership of the government, by the Premier himself. The public of this province see that he will threaten anybody in this province because he feels they threaten him. He is a man who grabs power and likes it, but he's not willing to accept the responsibility in a democratic system for that power, Mr. Chairman. He just loves power. You could tell when he shouted over last spring: "Oh, it took me two weeks to train my dogs." At that time we became a little concerned, but not as alarmed as we are today after a repetition of this going on over a year and a half - arrogance in office, threats to the opposition, threats to the minority groups in this province who have no power of their own, who are cut off from the mainstream of life and have no voice in this Premier's office. It's only Crown counsel who make charges of bribery and intimidation who get to see the Premier. The disabled can cool their heels in the waiting rooms; the disabled can stay in their ghettos and wherever they live; the disabled can put up with high rents and being ripped off by landlords.

MR. KERSTER: That's a lie.

MR. LAUK: The hon. member for Coquitlam says that's a lie.

MR. KERSTER: That's right.

MR. LAUK: I'm not going to ask him to withdraw that statement. What I'm going to do in the Minister of Human Resources' (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm's) estimates is produce letters which indicate that your charge is most incorrect. I would expect nothing more from the member for Coquitlam, Mr. Chairman - a member who has not said anything in this House in seven weeks of debate.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: He has not stood in this House and said a thing;

The Premier says neither have I. The Premier is a hard man to learn, and I don't think he ever will learn that the responsibility of high office is not arrogance. It is not to say: "Oh, you lost on December I l." You don't insult us or hurt our feelings; you're insulting the democratic process of those people who elected us to represent them in this chamber. You don't understand what a general election means; you have no idea what it means. Do you think that's a mandate for a total and utter dictatorship?

Here is the Premier who says the members of this House have no right to contribute to policy. He seems very upset that we're even having a legislative session. He didn't have a fall one; he was too shy to have a fall one. Is that unparliamentary? He was too weak-kneed to have a fall session, a little hesitant,

During this session in seven weeks we now have the eighth inquiry. I saw the movie "Network." It's

[ Page 1666 ]

nominated for 10 academy awards. It's on how they'll take on anything to create a television serial. We should have a television serial in British Columbia: "The Weekly Probe." We'll have real newsreel footage of the Premier going before the cameras and announcing his weekly royal commission. I'm almost agreeing with the Premier - there is nothing MLAs can do now. The whole government is in the hands of public inquiries, judicial commissions and the RCMP. There is nothing to question here. We'll all see it in the police report.

Mr. Chairman, in all seriousness, this government is in chaos. They are staggering from one disaster and one scandal to the next. Now this Premier does not seem to want to listen. He continues to wave his hand nervously and call threats over to the opposition. He calls threats to other people: "If you don't like it, you know what I can do to you." He's trying to intimidate us, and what is a man who tries to intimidate? What is that kind of person? We all know the kind of person who tries to bully other people. They don't feel too secure, do they, when they try to bully other people? Is that what it is, Mr. Chairman, through you, to the Premier - you're not comfortable in office? Too much power for you?

AN HON. MEMBER: His Dad would have loved it.

MR. LAUK: There is a point where a man fit for the Premier's chair is staggered by the responsibility of it, not the irresponsibility of it - staggered, and not impressed with himself, but impressed with the responsibility. The Premier's chair belongs to the man who feels for all of the people in society - not just the majority, but the minority groups, the powerless and the voiceless in society. The Premier's chair belongs to a man who knows justice almost by instinct and not privilege. This is the message we're trying to get across to the hon. Premier in his estimates, and one of the reasons they've been taking so long. He should be a man who will have the courage to stand up before the public and say: "I've made a mistake." Of course, that would take a long time in this particular case because he's made so many, but he should have the courage to do so and not hide behind judicial inquiries. He says: "Well, you asked for them." Yes, we asked for them because we didn't trust the government to operate any further.

The Premier's upset. In a fit of pique he pulled his vote and went on to something else. He stamped his feet and turned red. Then he came back a little later, somewhat repentant. The Premier made a statement on Friday threatening the opposition and then came in a little repentant yesterday, a little defensive. He started talking about parliament and the democratic process. I hope he listened carefully to the statements made by the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) and the second member for Vancouver

East (Mr. Barrett) , the leader of the NDP. I hope he listened carefully to their statements. They sounded a bit like a lecture - a primary - on the democratic system, but that's exactly what the Premier seems to need.

The Premier has every requisite for his office except one - humility. That's the most important. It's with humility in a democratic system that we get just government. It's with humility that he'll get re-elected. The reason I'm tipping him off to that great secret is because I know he'll never get it. It's a magnificent struggle, but he's never going to achieve it. He's been conditioned, and that's unfortunate.

In any event, Mr. Chairman, I would submit that the Premier's estimates should not be passed because he has not been responsible to this committee. Even today he showed contempt for the House. On important questions raised in this House he went and had a press conference before he came to the House. I confess that I know that he doesn't mean contempt for the House - he just doesn't know. He doesn't understand. He doesn't want this chamber to sit, Mr. Chairman. He doesn't want committee work. He doesn't want meddling, elected MLAs involved in the process of government in this province. They are meddlesome. They are an embarrassment to his government and to him personally, and he doesn't like it. He's irritated and, like Louis XIV, he wishes he could wave his hand and dismiss them. Thank God we're living in a democratic system where people with courage do not have to be intimidated.

Now I don't know whether this prosecutor is right or not. It might be a whole lot of baloney and we'll find out, hopefully, through the inquiry, but that symptom is a great symbol in this province. I wish I could convince the Premier, Mr. Chairman, that it is rampant throughout the province - fear, intimidation, . the civil service unwilling to speak out.

What happens when ministers do not receive candid advice from the civil service? It's disaster. When they just get yes-men afraid to criticize, afraid to say no, it's disaster. It's a dictatorship.

These are the kinds of things that the opposition is very concerned about. We're not concerned about ourselves when he says he's going to cut our salary. Who does he think he is? Does he think he's going to intimidate the opposition? It's been worth two days of debate at least. What does he think he's doing? Is he going to produce letters? I've got a file of letters on the Premier and I blush when I read them.

MR. DAVIDSON: You blush 0 the time.

MR. LAUK: Some of them are an outrage, but I keep them on file.

Interjection.

[ Page 1667 ]

MR. LAUK: No room in the basement, but I keep them on file.

This is the kind of thing - intimidation and bullying - that I think the Premier should try to control in himself. He'll gain more security in office, and that way he'll provide more justice to the people of the province.

Inteijections.

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

HON. MR. BENNETT: If it's not too much trouble for the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) - but then everything's too much trouble for the member for Prince Rupert - I'd advise him, as I advised the House the other day, that each cabinet minister has been responsible for hiring his own staff. They've undertaken that responsibility, as I have. The people they hire were in the estimate book last year as they are this year. The categories are well known and people can be matched up with salaries. As such, I want to reiterate again: I don't hire people for other departments. But I do, from time to time, as I would with the member for Prince Rupert after the next election when he's looking for employment and I see him on the street. I'll ask him: "Did you get the job?" I'll be concerned about him. If he says, "Yes, but I'm worried about the salary, " I'll even be concerned about that. But, Mr. Chairman, that doesn't mean I'm in the process of hiring the member for Prince Rupert when he avails himself of the opportunity that will be available for him.

MR. LAUK: You could do a lot worse, and you have.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Now the question of access to the Premier's office came up. I covered it in this Legislature several times during the estimates, not only the office in Victoria but as an MLA in my own constituency. We take great pains to allow everyone in my own constituency to have access to me as their MLA, and nobody's denied that access. I said that yes, it does place an extra responsibility and it is extra time taken from my duties as Premier. But mostly it has denied me the opportunity to be with my family. I'm willing to take that lack of a normal family relationship because I knew it went with the responsibility of government. I don't complain about the hours I put in because I believe we have a responsibility to the people of this province to be accessible.

Time has limitations on all people in all offices. But within the limitations of the clock, the hours of the day, the sittings of the Legislature and the other duties, anyone can get an appointment with the

Premier, either in the constituency or in Victoria. You don't have to make a protest or make 'threats through the newspaper. You get an appointment, as thousands already have, as citizens of the province who have some legitimate concerns.

During this debate we did discuss the role of the MLA. I did throw out some suggestions yesterday. We should discuss the roles of the MLAs and whether they should live in their constituencies, whether they must work in their constituencies, or whether the House did feel they should be full time and not do any other work at all. I guess full time means full time. I guess part-time means that you also have another job, carry on another profession and charge for it at the same time. How each MLA then interprets the words "full time". . . . There's a good opportunity for us to identify how we interpret the words "full-time" and how we apply ourselves to them in meeting our responsibility to our electorates as MLAs.

I've yet to hear various of the members of various of the categories on different interpretations say how they do it. We did have the member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) mention that she considered herself a full-time MLA, that she didn't carry on any other business or profession, and that her sole time was dedicated to the people of North Okanagan. She recognized that responsibility. I've yet to hear from others. I look forward in the continuing debate in this House for members to identify how they interpret the role of the MLA.

MR. LEA: What about Arthur Weeks?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Certainly, Mr. Chairman, members of this House were never threatened when there was consideration of one of the alternatives to members, as many other jurisdictions have -single-sessional pay.

One of the members brought the subject up today in committee about no fall session last year. Well, Mr. Chairman, we didn't have one in 1975, a year in which very serious problems were before the people of British Columbia, a year in which the government of the day didn't share all of the problems that were mounting with the people. We had September, October, November to call a session. What did we have? A one-day sitting when we were summoned to deal with a labour dispute and discharged by the government of the day after all the members had been assembled at great expense. At that time we had high unemployment. In fact, there was rampant inflation. In fact, it was just a few short weeks after we sat that the government of that day was called down to Ottawa to deal with inflation at a Thanksgiving dinner at the Prime Minister's house. But that wasn't shared with the members of that

[ Page 1668 ]

Legislature at that time. No session was called.

What happened was that as the problems mounted and became apparent to the last government, rather than share them with the people in our Legislature, they didn't have the fall session they talk about. They called an election in what is a very inconvenient time for most people in British Columbia - the middle of winter, in December. A snap election....

MR. LAUK: A snap election! You don't know what you're talking about.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Sure - a snap election. Mr. Chairman, I never heard them saying then that they felt bad because they hadn't called a fall session.

AN HON. MEMBER: Let's talk about now.

HON. MR. BENNETT: We sat last year, Mr. Chairman - a new government elected in the middle of winter - as quickly as we could, but we sat late. We sat in March, and we had a sitting that extended longer into the year than was normal. The new government needed more time to deal with the people. But this year we called the earliest session that has ever been called in the history of this province. In fact, today we have done more business and have the committees appointed and have legislation not only before this House but some passed, than before we even sat last year on March 17. There is ample opportunity in the remainder of this year, Mr. Chairman, for the members of this House to apply themselves to estimates, debate and a lot of legislation that will be forthcoming. They'll have every opportunity to debate, to propose legislation and debate estimates. Nothing has been denied them.

When it comes to committees, the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) said that although he had some reservations about the way the committee system had worked in the past, he had seen one committee work. That's one committee that was appointed by this government that he held out as a model - the committee that was appointed by this House on a commitment of this government that we'd have an all-party committee to appoint an audit or-general. We will have a further such committee to deal with ombudsman.

I want that member for Oak Bay to have faith that other problems before this province. . . . The Legislature will be given additional opportunity. That member for Oak Bay was quite correct the other day in his remarks when he said that he didn't want committees set up frivolously just for showcases. I agree with him. The responsibility is not to have committees just as a showcase but committees that can actually have some opportunity to do the public's business.

MR. WALLACE: And have the government act on the recommendations.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, the member for Oak Bay says: "Have the government act on the recommendations." You have a committee now on an auditor-general; you'll have one on an ombudsman. There will be other committees of the House that sit and have an opportunity to bring in reports.

I thank the member for Oak Bay for giving credit to this government for appointing what was in his view the first committee he has seen that has met the spirit of what he thinks legislative committees should be about. It's exactly what the member said, and I thank him for that compliment. But it's not a compliment to the government, it's a compliment to the members who serve on that committee. For once they're able to bury their partisan differences and work towards coming up with a solution. I think the member for Oak Bay was really congratulating the members of the committee, members who had buried their partisan differences and were prepared to work towards a solution for British Columbia in a non-partisan way.

You'll never completely remove politics from this Legislature, because the politics of parties is the clash of ideas. The clash of ideas is why we have debates in the Legislature and why we have alternate programmes we present to the electorate, alternate approaches to government. I will say that this government has been responsive to the needs of people because the very committees that the member for Oak Bay commended yesterday and Friday will provide the type of safeguards for individuals in their right to know and their right to be protected, such as auditor-general and ombudsman, positions that have never been provided for in this province before. They have not been brought in by any government. They were talked about by some parties in opposition, but failed to be delivered when they were government. This party developed a commitment to the voters and introduced - made sure it was introduced - in the last session.... Those positions, hopefully, will be filled and functioning before next we meet the people.

Other commitments to our citizens have been made, not just to minority groups but to the greatest minority of all - that's the individuals, one at a time. We're not a series of conflicting groups in this province to be played against one another, or to be used as political pawns. In reality, we are a province of individuals of various backgrounds, religions and various capabilities. Society must provide for all people and provide services for those who are disadvantaged and for those who, through no fault of their own, do not have the ability to support themselves, but one thing we do provide is the greatest opportunity for individuals, and that is to use

[ Page 1669 ]

to the fullest their talents to provide for themselves and their families.

MR. LAUK: God provided that - you didn't.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You, as government, tried to take it away through restriction. Part of the concern of the last election, Mr. Chairman - I don't want to get into that - was the fear that the rights of individuals and property ownership and the ability of big government to deny it.... Mr. Chairman, that was taken away.

Just the other day during my estimates the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) was talking about the observatory in the constituency of the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt) . He was suggesting that the government had ways of dealing with those people, ways of invoking government pressure to make sure that things didn't happen. Yet I would hope that the Minister of Agriculture will speak in this debate about one such suggestion that came up that I think characterized the difference between the NDP approach to government and the role of government in ours. I was shocked at the suggestion that that member gave this House and the government as to how the land surrounding the observatory should be handled.

MR. LAUK: You twisted that, though.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I said rather, as we have suggested to the federal government, that they purchase the land that belongs to individuals.

MR. LAUK: Bill, tell the truth.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the Minister of Agriculture has all of the information at his disposal. I would hope that he will get up and speak in this debate and provide all the information concerning that, as the member in whose constituency it is and as the member who remembers the actions of the last government in dealing with the land use application and the approval of that land use application by the last government. Then they come in and the member who was part of that government that approved it comes in and asks us to use other methods in order to prevent that land use contract from being honoured or utilize& Mr. Chairman, the rights of the individual should be paramount to any government.

MR. LEA: But not over society.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, legislation that we have brought in with the position of ombudsman to protect people's rights; the position of auditor-general, to protect their right to know; the public reporting that we have brought about in quarterly financial statements; the, disclosure of the affairs of the Crown corporations as part of those quarterly financial reports so that never again will we have the type of cover-up and lack of information.... It was such a shock in early 1976 to find out the condition of our Insurance Corporation and other Crown corporations. What a shock it was to the people of B.C.! What a shock it was!

MR. LEA: It sure was!

HON. MR. BENNETT: But quarterly financial statements, not only letting the people know about government but about their Crown corporations, will never allow this situation to happen again.

What about individuals, and the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) , whose estimates will be in this House in a few days? He has looked at programmes and ways in which, by proper application, we can get more money from the government of Canada on the shared-cost programmes. He has even gone back and looked at, as in the case that was before this House just the other day, how programmes improperly applied for or not applied for or improperly administered rob the ability of this province to get all the money that was due us as custodians for those in need from the government of Canada.

We also see - and it was covered in this debate earlier - that in regard to incentive programmes from the government of Canada, British Columbia hasn't had its fair share. The figures are now well known by all of us in this assembly and by the people. On a per capita basis during the last government, B.C. was shortchanged. We have, Mr. Chairman, specific proposals under the DREE programme and incentives under ARDA and other areas of creating economic thrust in this province before the government of Canada so that on the due date, April I of this year, we will be able to fully partner the government of Canada in British Columbia's thrust for greater economic prosperity, for greater opportunity for our people to try and do something about an unacceptable unemployment level.

Mr. Chairman, all of these actions of this government have been in response to the needs of people, but as individuals, not as groups to be played against one another and not as groups to be used as political pawns.

MR. LAUK: Like millionaires?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, the responsibility the government does have is to the individuals out there and not just those who would appoint themselves as spokesmen for specific groups. It's to the individuals who make up the total of

[ Page 1670 ]

British Columbia that this government feels its commitment now and will feel its commitment in the future. We won't play the power-broker game with self-styled spokesmen for groups. We will always deal with the people who should be the ones who feel the benefit or need the benefit from government. We will always deal directly and not through these power brokers or middlemen who try to attain some sort of political power as self-styled spokesmen for groups.

MR. LAUK: Disabled persons?

HON. MR. BENNETT: We feel our responsibility is to the over two million British Columbians. They're the people we represent in this Legislature - over two million British Columbians.

MR. LEA: What about the rest?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Individuals - not groups, not cast into a certain category, but individuals. I think that is our greatest contrast with the official opposition as they have presented their concerns in this Legislature and on the hustings. That's a lot of what the election was about in 1975. It's a lot about, I guess, what future elections will be about in this province.

I hope that many concerns that are still before us - needs for people - can be met, if not in this year, next year or the following year. Hopefully all of the areas that were identified as being in need of individuals or in need of greater efficiency for government will have been solved by the time we next meet the people. We'll be dealing with new problems, new benefits, new areas in which government can serve the people - not rule them, but serve them - and where government can have more efficient use of the taxpayers' dollars so that the people will receive benefits of all of the money that comes to government.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, that was an interesting discursive speech by the Premier. It was rather repetitive - tedious and repetitious under standing orders - but I didn't raise that.

You know, the Premier has a little trouble getting his facts straight. One other time I had occasion to lecture the Premier for not only attacking me when I was not in this House - which was, a more uncharitable person would say, an ungentlemanly thing to do. But he managed to have selective use of the facts. He's talking about shared funds with the federal government. That's what he's talking about. And he says we failed to get as much money as we should have from the federal government.

Do you know that what really happened, Mr. Chairman, is that we didn't wait around ...

HON. MR, VANDER ZALM: You goofed!

MR. LAUK: ... like that Minister of Human Resources while people in this province suffered to raise their rates.

MR. DAVIDSON: Hogwash!

MR. LAUK: We didn't wait around to get agreement from those fancy-pants, city-slicker ministers in Ottawa. We raised their rates. We didn't let them suffer one minute longer than they needed to, and we raised their rates. Then we went to negotiate afterwards. Don't hand us that poppycock, Mr. Chairman. This is just an excuse for cruel and insensitive inaction on the part of that Minister of Human Resources. That's all it is. What a bunch of nonsense. When we acted for the people who are disabled in this province and the old age pensioners, we acted quickly. We were not elected for any longer than three weeks and we called a legislative session to raise the Mincome to a livable rate in this province. They had been ignored for 20 years in this province.

We didn't go to Ottawa and say: "Please give us our share. People are suffering." We made sure that the people were taken care of because that was our priority, not fancy-pants, two-bit politicking in this Legislature, and trying to use selective facts to hoodwink the people of this province. You look at the people out there now, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Premier. They know that they were hoodwinked. They know. They only made one mistake, Mr. Chairman. They're not going to make that mistake again.

MR. DAVIDSON: Wrong!

MR. KERSTER: They made it in'72.

MR. LAUK: What a bunch of nonsense. And isn't it nice to know that the disabled are individuals? We'll go out and talk to our disabled friends: "The Premier can't give you a liveable wage. You've got to continue to live in this hovel, but you've got to know that he's very interested in you as an individual."

MR. BARRETT: For your vote.

MR. LAUK: Isn't that nice? And let's go to all the unorganized people who are working for peanuts in society, and say to them: "The Premier doesn't want to deal with organized groups. The Premier likes to deal with you as an individual." Why? Because he respects individuals, Mr. Chairman? No. lf he respected individuals, he would respect their right to organize in groups, in a political situation. But he does not respect individuals. We respect individuals. We respect them to organize in political groups

[ Page 1671 ]

because that's where power is, particularly with a government that has no ear for anything other than votes.

MR. BARRETT: That's what democracy's all about.

MR. LAUK: And certainly, what's a political party? Do you call this back bench individualists? (Laughter.) What kind of a joke is this?

MR. BARRETT: He doesn't even know their names.

MR. LAUK: You haven't even taken Basic Philosophy.

MR. BARRETT: He doesn't even know his own name.

MR. LAUK: Your father, if you'd see him once in a while, could tell you that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please address the Chair.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman....

AN HON. MEMBER: The cabinet's deserted him.

MR. LAUK: Individuals indeed!

AN HON. MEMBER: They don't want to stick around.

MR. LAUK: This party, traditionally, since 1933, has respected the rights of individual people because it's individual people who need rent, who need food who need jobs, who need to have a proper education for their children in this society.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: What a bunch of nonsense!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: Another high-flying speech by the Premier to avoid confronting specific questions and issues; another high-flying speech, and it gets him nowhere.

MR. KERSTER: Stand up and say that.

MR. LAUK: Oh, we'll go and talk to the disabled and the old-age pensioners - in your riding as well -and we'll tell them: "Don't worry about increased rates for your pensions. Don't worry about still having to eat dog food at the end of the month. The

Premier thinks of you as an individual."

MR. BARRETT: Here's my best wish from Kelowna.

MR. LAUK: He stood up in this House just a moment ago. Mr. Chairman, and was taking credit for the talents of British Columbians.

MR. BARRETT: Huh!

MR. LAUK: He said: "We allow them to express themselves in their talents as individuals."

MR. BARRETT: Isn't that nice of him?

MR. LAUK: This is the arrogance which I was talking about earlier this afternoon that this Premier doesn't even recognize. He's taking credit for everything but the weather, and we know why he's not taking credit for the weather today.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's raining.

MR. LAUK: But this is the kind of thing - absolute irrelevance, tedious repetition in debate, and not answering the questions. And you wonder why we spend so much time on the First Minister's estimates, Mr. Chairman.

He still says that it was just a friendly little chat with Arthur Weeks when he worked for two or three weeks in the Premier's office, and he won't admit it. He acted as if he didn't even know the man. He said: "Well, I might recognize him if I saw him on the same side of the street." He was his executive assistant when he was Leader of the Opposition for two years.

AN HON. MEMBER: Nixonesque.

MR. LAUK: Yes, I should say so.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that the Premier is ill equipped to deal with philosophy, because philosophy is not some flighty metaphysical contemplation of one's navel; it's not getting away with selective use of information translated into homilies and cliches. Real philosophy is based on the knowledge and sensitivity to real people, and that's what this Premier has not been able to cope with.

HON. J.J. HEWITT (Minister of Agriculture): Mr. Chairman, I just want to get up and make a few remarks in regard to the comments that were made by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) last week. The Premier, of course, has alluded to them just a few minutes ago, regarding White Lake Observatory.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did he order you to get up?

[ Page 1672 ]

HON. MR. HEWITT: No, Mr. Member, I was going to get up last week and I was going to get up yesterday, but the member for New Westminster wasn't here. The member was up in the Okanagan Valley attending a teachers' seminar. Then last night, he was kind enough to appear on television in the Okanagan and make the same stupid statement.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. minister, Please relate your remarks to vote 18.

HON. MR. HEWITT: I would withdraw that remark, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you.

Interjection.

HON. MR. HEWITT: No, as a matter of fact I'm not, but I'd like to clarify the problems that are caused by misinformation, Mr. Member, and irrelevant debate.

I would like to go through the comments that were made by the member for New Westminster regarding the White Lake Observatory and regarding what has been talked about intimidation. The member for New Westminster made a number of statements a week ago. He stated: "I believe that our government has to go on record as opposing the position that seems to be taken by the federal government in the whole question of this radio observatory." That's not a bad statement and I could live with that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. minister, could this perhaps best be debated upon the estimates of the Agriculture minister?

HON. MR. HEWITT: No. It was brought up during the Premier's estimates. I'm just clarifying the record.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, but with great respect, not everything that has been brought up under this estimate has been relevant.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Well, Mr. Chairman, there has been reference regarding intimidation, and I think I would just like to clarify a comment or two that was made, if I may.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just show that it's relevant to vote 18.

HON. MR. HEWITT: It says in Hansard, and I quote from that member for New Westminster: "We can see to it that there is no land-use contract in that area." That is a statement that he made in this House last Friday. We can see to it - which really means that the provincial government should be able to see to it over and above the Regional District of Okanagan- Similkameen. He has made statements that are referred to in the paper that we should insist that no land-use contract be given for this area.

Mr. Speaker, my background is regional district politics, and I can tell you that I chaired the public hearing regarding the White Lake Observatory, at which time we had all representatives there, including doctors and scientists from the White Lake Observatory. Their input was appreciated and much valued. I can tell you that I chaired, as acting chairman, that meeting of the regional district, at which time the land-use contract was approved.

But then, Mr. Chairman, the thing that I would like to clarify for this House, for the press and for the public of the province of British Columbia is that after we gave that approval, naturally the land-use contract must come before cabinet. I have here before me order-in-council 3259, which was approved, signed on October 10,1974, by the Minister of Municipal Affairs, James Lorimer, and by the presiding member of the executive council, Eileen Dailly ...

HON. MR. BENNETT: The NDP approved it.

HON. MR. HEWITT: ... which approved and made valid that land-use contract and that file on No. 169 of the Okanagan-Similkameen Regional District.

Who was in the cabinet at that time? Who was privy to all the relevant facts of that land-use contract? I bring this out at this particular time to show you some of the irrelevant debate and some of the quotes about intimidation that are being made without fact and without background. I only wish the member for New Westminster was in the House to hear this, and I hope he's listening to it on his speaker in his office. He can stand in this House and make these statements. Yet he talks on television and says this government should do something about it when he and those members over there were in power in 1974 and had every opportunity to stop that development.

I can tell you that the Regional District of Okanagan-Similkameen in the land-use contract, which I have a copy of here, has four pages of conditions for the development at St. Andrews-by-the-Lake. They deal with the protection of the observatory, protection regarding the electrical power distribution system in that development, electrical installations and household appliances, electrical equipment....

AN HON. MEMBER: Order!

HON. MR. HEWITT: Yes, I would suggest order, Mr. Member, because the problem with this House

[ Page 1673 ]

half the time is the irrelevant debate from the opposite side of the House. In many cases - and I can refer to a number if I had the opportunity - on which, during the Premier's estimates, Mr. Chairman, comments have been made, it appears to me that it is opposition by what they read in the press, irrelevant comments, comments made by that member from, I think, Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) , who states that he sees members of a commission walking to the Attorney-General's department, at which time he never did. Unfortunately he was never corrected on it. There are comments being made, Mr. Chairman -and as a fairly new member in this House I just want to bring it to the attention of the members of this House - by the opposition which are sometimes not valid, which are not relevant to the debate, and which only delay the progress of this House.

MR. KING: To come back to vote 18, and become relevant, I would congratulate the Premier on his statement that he does indeed recognize individuals in the province. I, like my colleague from Vancouver Centre, am impressed by that recognition by that Premier. I trust that he will now be prepared to make some statement of government policy regarding those 112,000 individual British Columbians who have been suffering unemployment over the past four or five months.

Mr. Chairman, I've raised this matter previously with the Premier. He is the leader of the government, he is the chief executive officer of the province, and I think that it is incumbent upon him to give some indications of what direction and what initiatives the government is planning to come to grips with this tremendous problem that faces so many individual British Columbians and their families. If we want to analyse it on an individual basis, Mr. Chairman, I would say there are probably in the area of 250,000 individual British Columbians this afternoon who are without gainful employment and without any secure source of income. I think if the Premier is genuinely concerned for individuals, their rights and their security, then he must make some statement regarding what his government intends to do.

I think the situation is becoming more grim and more stark in terms of the unemployment statistics in this province. I anticipate that when the new employment statistics come out next week - I believe around the middle of the month -unemployment in this province will not have diminished but will have climbed to a new record high in postwar years. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we will be looking at unemployment of between 117,000 and 120,000 in the province of British Columbia. It certainly grieves me to make that kind of dire prognostication, but I believe that it is the case. It grieves me even more, Mr. Chairman, when I find that we've been in this session for over seven weeks. We have been alternately debating the Premier's estimates and, before him, the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) . As yet we have no indication, no statement by the government of precisely what programme, if any, they have to come to grips with this tremendous human hardship, this tremendous loss of productivity in the province of British Columbia.

I reminded the House before of the stark and shrill cries for legislative remedy that would emanate from government benches if this kind of idleness were created by labour disputes. We have 120,000 people unemployed. That's more than the total number of employees involved in the forests and the heavy construction industry in the province, and we have not had one statement of intent of purpose by this government which had all the answers during the last election campaign.

Mr. Chairman, I do not feel that this House has any. obligation to hasten the minister's estimates through committee. I do not feel that this House has any obligation to provide the Premier with his salary in the absence of any recognition of any statement by him, as leader of the government, that he has sensitivity and feeling and plans to put these people back to work in the province of British Columbia. There has not been an indication. This government that was supposed to be businesslike, this government that was supposed to be competent in terms of administration and economic policy sits there in silence, Mr. Chairman, and has none of the answers, not even in the way of any short-term employment programmes - no statement. There's not an economic development of any consequence on the horizon in the province of British Columbia.

When questioned, the Premier finally is prompted into a response which usually zeros in on attacking the previous government or criticizing members of the opposition for drawing these unpleasant facts to his attention. While he may feel that that diverts the attention from his responsibility as the Premier to deal with the problems that are current and real and human, which he was elected to do, I can assure him that he is not going to discourage the opposition members from insisting that he and his colleagues come to grips in some real way and in some dynamic way, with the real and most profoundly deep-rooted economic problems that have faced this province in postwar years.

Interjection.

MR. KING: Yes, we read the papers. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that maybe the government members have stopped reading the papers because they carry nothing but unpleasant news in terms of the state of the economy in the province. The Victoria Times of yesterday contains a report from the Canada

[ Page 1674 ]

Manpower office in the city of Victoria indicating unemployment in excess of 10.2 per cent, indicating the slowest rate of growth, the most dormant and stagnant economic situation in postwar years and really alarming calls for action from the local office of Canada Manpower. In the Premier's own riding of South Okanagan, in his own city of Kelowna, unemployment is shown to be in excess of 20 per cent. The same is true in the southern Kootenays.

I am not impressed with standing here and debating philosophy or what the difference is between the NDP and the Socreds, or that coalition, or whatever it is. I know the differences. We don't have to debate it here. But I think what is of more concern today is a basic responsibility of every legislator in British Columbia - no matter which side of the House he sits on - to come to grips with a human problem, a human tragedy in the province of British Columbia.

Mr. Chairman, we are constantly exhorted by this government, and certainly cabinet ministers among the government, to temper the demands which we make on the economy. Trade unions are exhorted not to make demands that might inflate the cost of living in the province of British Columbia and might impair our competitive position in world trade. I say that's a fair concern. Of course we have trading problems; of course we rely heavily on exports. But what effect on our trading reputation, what effect on the stability of the economy of British Columbia, what long-term profound effect does the loss of production of 120,000 working people have in the province of British Columbia? The cabinet members are very fond of getting up and saying let's not get involved in any more strikes and lockouts, that the lost productivity impairs our competitive position in world trade. Lost production is lost production whether it comes about through unemployment or whether it comes about through labour disputes.

I'm just overwhelmed and amazed that the Premier lashes out politically, responds politically, to every call that is uttered from this side of the House no matter how it is framed on behalf of people who are suffering like they have not suffered since the dirty '30s in British Columbia. It's true. It's not only the working people who are unemployed. We have seen vivid accounts of the plight of small business all over the province. The rate of bankruptcy, both personal and corporate, has reached new and unprecedented proportions in this province. We see the tourist industry in a stagnant state, largely because of the unfeeling and unnecessary rate increases which this government introduced with respect to virtually each and every government service - ferries, automobiles, general taxation, health care, fuel oil costs, even duties on hydro rates. This has compounded the economic problems which the province faced in any event.

I'm just absolutely shocked and amazed when I find that this government is prepared to sit here and respond in petulant political fashion by referring to previous administrations, by attempting to shrug off their current responsibility by every device possible, but blatantly insisting and refusing to come to grips with the problems which are now before us, which are a stark reality now, and which they were elected on the promise of coming to grips with and solving.

Mr. Chairman, all I ask from the Premier is a clear statement of what he proposes to do over the next year - over the next six months, even. I don't think that's too much to ask, Mr. Chairman. When I go back to my riding I want to tell the people in the Nakusp area, where unemployment now is in excess of 20 per cent, what the prospects are for the next six months or for the next year. They have lives to plan. They have obligations in terms of homes to maintain, children to educate and provide health care for.

Is there going to be an opportunity for people to work and live in British Columbia or not? I think the Premier has that obligation to answer, to give some clear statement. That's what he is elected to do.

Mr. Chairman, I can only interpret the lack of such a statement as an inability to govern, an inability to provide leadership. Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, the reason for that inability, that complete idleness of the Premier and his government, lies in the scandals which have confronted the government over the past number of months. I concede, Mr. Chairman, that it must be very difficult to focus one's attention on the profound economic issues that are facing the province when the Premier and his government are constantly buffeted hither and yon between one scandal and another, when he is constantly required to get up -usually to the press first and to the House secondarily - to announce yet another inquiry into some allegation of wrongdoing against either one of his ministers or their department. Mr. Chairman, I think the Premier has to think very seriously about his ability to govern and keep control, not only of the political reins in this province but certainly of the economic reins.

Mr. Chairman, we've got an inquiry into the Grizzly Valley affair; we have an inquiry into the MEL Paving scandal on the British Columbia Railway; we have some kind of an inquiry into the racetrack deal of Captain Harry Terry; we have an internal investigation by the Attorney-General's department into the leak of confidential information from the Minister of the Environment's (Hon. Mr. Nielsen's) office; we have various and assorted other internal investigations into land deals through the Municipal Affairs ministry. Now as the latest thing, Mr. Chairman, we have the most serious allegations which I have ever heard in the province of British Columbia with respect to political interference: we have the allegation of bribery and intimidation against the

[ Page 1675 ]

Attorney-General's department.

Mr. Chairman, just as an aside in this matter, I've looked at the vote of the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) - it's vote 29 and it has yet to be debated - and I find under the Public Inquiries Act we have a vote in the sum of $280,000. 1 doubt, Mr. Chairman, that that sum is going to be adequate to meet the cost of one inquiry that has already been appointed by this government. I suspect we're going to have a deficit budget next year occasioned by the unprecedented number of inquiries, royal commissions and internal investigations that have been commissioned by this Premier to try to keep his political House afloat. It's a little wonder, Mr. Chairman, that the cabinet and the Premier have any opportunity to come to grips with the real issues in this province. Those real issues are government policies dealing with the stagnant economy. They are the issues.

So, Mr. Chairman, again I appeal to the Premier to give this House some statement of what he anticipates doing. We've heard the Minister of Economic Development say that the current rate of unemployment is going to continue over the next year. I submit in all seriousness to this House that if we have between 115,000 and 120,000 British Columbians unemployed over the course of one more year, we are going to inherit a storm of social unrest and problems that will be crippling to the province of British Columbia. I do not think we can afford to sit here without a serious debate, without a serious recommendation laid before the House by the government in terms of coming to grips with this basic and fundamental responsibility of government to provide jobs, to provide a strong and vibrant economy for the people of British Columbia. That's what the Premier refuses to do, that's what his Economic Development minister has refused to do, and they attempt to use every political diversion available to them to escape the responsibility which is squarely and clearly theirs.

I ask this, Mr. Chairman: what will be the cost in terms of the criminal justice system if people do not have the wherewithal over a protracted period of time to maintain their homes, to provide the responsibility that is squarely and clearly theirs?

What will be the cost in terms of the criminal justice system if people do not have the wherewithal over a protracted period of time to maintain their homes and to provide adequate clothing and food for their children? These are the questions that face the province in a real way.

I pointed out earlier, Mr. Chairman, that many of these people have been unemployed for so long now that they have run out of unemployment insurance benefits. Surely even the Premier would not recommend that they cast themselves to the tender mercies of the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) . I think they would find but very bitter succour from that direction, Mr. Chairman. In any event, Human Resources was never intended to provide an alternative to gainful employment for 120,000 workers in the province of British Columbia. There has to be some government action and we have seen none. This is the most scandalous thing about the current session of the Legislature, Mr. Chairman.

Interjection.

MR. KING: Well, perhaps the most scandalous thing, then, is a contrast of those 120,000 workers unemployed while the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) , in charge of ICBC, provides what he calls a "stipend" of $3,700 a month to his friend to offer some advice and guidance in the administration of ICBC. Perhaps that's the biggest scandal. I wouldn't argue that point.

It is scandalous to me that there is no government statement regarding some direction or regarding some stimulus to the economy, which is essential to give our people the self-pride and self-dignity of finding gainful employment and returning to work and keeping their families in a self-sufficient way. That is the challenge to this government, That's what they promised to do when they ran for election. I just cannot support the passage of the Premier's salary while he is unwilling to provide any blueprint for extending salaries to the working people of the province of British Columbia.

HON. MR. BENNETT: That's either the third or fourth time I've heard that speech from the member for Revelstoke-Slocan during my estimates, and it's a good speech. He does it well. I would like to just make some observations, because I've answered most of those questions before. I'm sure he's aware of that.

In regard to the inquiries, there have been no allegations of wrongdoing against ministers. I wish to correct that statement made by the member for Revelstoke-Slocan.

MR. KING: Do you not consider your minister responsible for his staff?

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

HON. MR. BENNETT: What we have are some public inquiries under Municipal Affairs that don't come under the Provincial Secretary's vote. In those cases where complaints against municipal officials in various areas are made by individuals, then Municipal Affairs has, as it has in the past, the ability to send in an inspector to deal with the situation. Those, of course, deal with the responsibility or the duties of officials of that municipality or city or regional

[ Page 1676 ]

district. There are a number of them. What we do have are inquiries that have been created by some allegations and they're there to find out the true facts, not to judge people in advance. 1, like every other British Columbian, await the results of such inquiries. I still await some inquiries. Some whom I expected to give testimony have failed to show up. It will be up to them as to whether they did have something to offer or whether, indeed, in this public life, there is just politics being played.

AN HON. MEMBER: No show.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I covered the area of unemployment and employment strategy, dealing not only on a provincial level but on the shared-cost programmes. We dealt with the student employment. We dealt with the lead time necessary to create the type of economic facilities that can employ people. We talked about what has been, is continuing to be and will be an even greater problem in the future if it's not corrected now, and that's B.C.'s lack of productivity and its inability to compete. In our province, the main. basis of employment is in industries in which we export and in which we must compete against other countries and other areas of the world.

MR. KING: How can you compete with 120,000 unemployed?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, if people cannot afford to buy our goods and if we continue to price ourselves out of the market, then that situation will grow worse. British Columbia has had a record of - for the most part - being able to absorb what has been the fastest growth rate in Canada. That's not something that's been encouraged but something that has happened because of migration and population development in our province.

Last year, in 1976, this province, in what was a difficult year in Canada, created 29,000 new jobs -more new jobs by far than we created in 1975. Yet we still went behind because 3 1,000 new people came into the labour force.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's not true.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Twenty-nine thousand new jobs were created last year in 1976, but that was not sufficient. At the present time with our productivity and our inability to compete, our ability to employ people as quickly as they come into the labour force, let alone those who don't have employment opportunity, is severely restricted. This government is attempting to deal with it in a series of economic moves to bring on stream new areas to provide employment because we cannot rely just on the old areas of forestry as a base. We've got to look to new areas to pick up the slack. I've dealt with these earlier in the estimates, Mr. Chairman. I don't want to be redundant and real with them again and again, but I felt I should reiterate those points.

There are areas where stimulation is going on in certain aspects of our industries, such as tourism and travel. Already a highly visible programme of tourist attraction is taking place and I'm sure that can be well discussed in the minister's estimates, as can be economic activity in mining and petroleum industries, agriculture, energy, transport and forests, because those ministers' estimates have yet to come before the House. But as the Economic Development minister (Hon. Mr. Phillips) advised this chamber - as I have advised them - in general strategy this government has been working on its own and in some areas in concert with senior governments to broaden our economic horizon, to give a greater opportunity to new commodities, to create areas of employment because the old areas cannot be relied upon to create enough employment. That's already obvious.

The Minister of Economic Development was right, because Canada is in a difficult year this year. While British Columbia is forecasted to do better than other parts of Canada, it will not be sufficient to create the type of employment to make large dents in the large unemployment that faces this province and the large unemployment that faces Canada.

MR. LEA: What are you going to do?

HON. MR. BENNETT: To the member for Prince Rupert, who has come back to the House, it has been well covered earlier in estimates - the plans and proposals and the activities this government has to create employment opportunity in this province. For those members who remain in the Legislature and listen, I will not be tedious and repetitious to them and repeat it for those members who absent themselves frequently.

The member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) , perhaps a bit facetiously, was saying that people were poorer today than they were in the hungry '30s or the Great Depression. That's not true. While we have an unemployment problem, as does Canada, as do many of the nations in the world today, the standard of living of our citizens has been protected by a number of programmes and mechanisms to guard against just such economic recession and economic difficulty that has hit the world. People today do have - although in many areas it's unacceptable - a standard of living far in access of what they've had before. Many - and I consider this the great majority of our citizens - have a standard of living not dreamed of 25 years ago, when you see the recreational pursuits, the style of living, the length of work week that's required of them that they have

[ Page 1677 ]

achieved, the many, many material and other benefits that were not anticipated in our society 25 years ago or immediately following the Second World War.

The North American economy, the Canadian economy and the British Columbia economy have performed far beyond the expectation of anything ever anticipated for the benefit of the people. There are still areas of need in our province, in our country and in America. But I say that the system that has allowed these economies to grow has been beyond expectation. Things we take for granted now were never dreamed about then, and things that we don't anticipate now can be taken for granted years from now if we can caution ourselves as individuals to show the type of responsibility to not make the type of greedy demands beyond the ability of our economy or the world's economy to support.

I mentioned that the rest of the world does not owe British Columbia or Canada a living. British Columbians can't demand the type of benefits that many of us have, and many of our people have, to the detriment of the rest of the world because we lose our productivity, as we have, and we can't compete. Merging nations, merging societies or provinces or other areas, are able to take those markets away from us with lower costs because they're not making the demands for more and not making the request to work less to provide it - that means their dollars or investment capital are working less, their management is working less and people in general are working less to provide those benefits to their society in general. Mr. Chairman, all of this should be apparent to most of the members of the Legislature.

We've enunciated policies in this debate by the Minister of Economic Development and by the other ministers responsible for -various portfolios in which economic activity will take place. Members of this assembly will have an opportunity to question those ministers in detail.

I've outlined those programmes before, and we're not just stopping there. This government is continuing to work to create new initiatives and opportunities. We're hopeful that in 1977 British Columbia will lead Canada in productivity, in gross provincial product, in output, in economic growth. We're hopeful that with the initiatives that have been shown so far the negotiations that are underway and the new plans that are under discussion, employment opportunities and the opportunity for economic growth will be available in this province.

We know that our people want the opportunity to work and produce. This government is working towards giving them that opportunity. We haven't run from the fact that we have continuing high unemployment - one which we're working to resolve.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: How? Tell us.

MR. WALLACE: I've listened very carefully to the Premier's comments this afternoon over a wide range of issues. I would like to respond to some of them, and ask one or two other questions.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair. ]

The Premier this afternoon has stressed in his approach to his role as leader in this province not only the importance of the individual in society, which I heartily agree with, but he's talked about his government and his commitment to people. I'm encouraged by that, except that there remains this glaring inequity regarding the elderly citizens of this province who cannot live in their own homes. I have seen three governments in this province, both ' before and after elections, make the kind of commitment that the Premier made this afternoon. But we still have a segment - a minority segment admittedly, but a segment of pioneers in this country - who would not be impressed by the Premier's comments this afternoon.

It's rather ironic that one of the reasons I agreed to run for the Social Credit Party in 1969 was at the asking of this Premier's father. I remember a very enjoyable one-hour discussion that I had with the Premier's father in the then Premier's office. One of the areas we covered in considerable detail was the need of the elderly citizens who had to be accommodated in some institution when they could no longer live in their own homes but who, at the same time, did not require all the detailed care of a hospital.

That was eight years ago. I've seen three governments come and go and make the same kind of commitment to people. But today I'm not impressed, if I have to judge by the actions of these three governments rather than by the verbal commitments that I've heard three times on three election platforms.

I don't really get upset by being so often criticized because this seems to be an issue I'm always talking about. As long as I'm in this House and as long as the government of the day doesn't keep its commitment, I will continue to talk about it.

I hope that the Premier, in answering some of my comments, can give us some general commitment or some general outline of his sense of priorities. There's one group in our society that is not receiving a fair share of whatever this province can afford. I agree. with the Premier that we can't afford all the things that we would like or all the things that we feel would be desirable-, I acknowledge that argument. But there has to be a greater definition of this Premier's priorities when he talks about commitment to people.

I've highlighted the senior citizens in nursing homes who are certainly not receiving their fair share of what provincial resources that we do have. I hope

[ Page 1678 ]

that I don't have to stand here year after year; I've done it for eight years and sometimes it becomes tedious and repetitious.

With the greatest of respect to the Chair, I feel that while we will be debating this in detail under the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. McClelland) , the Premier has repeatedly said in the last day or two in his estimates that this government which he leads does have a sense of the needs of the people and the primary requirement of a government to acknowledge the needs of individuals and the aspirations and views of individuals. The trouble is that the group I am trying to speak for is not in much of a position to speak for themselves. They are elderly, disabled people - disabled in a variety of ways - and they can't come and demonstrate on the front lawns of the Legislature. They don't have much political clout. In fact, most of them, because of their disabilities, can't vote, So I'll leave it at that for the moment, Mr. Chairman. I hope the Premier might respond.

I think the Premier, while he has taken many positive steps in the time that he has been in office, might just take one suggestion which I offer in good faith and in a non-partisan spirit: that is, I do wish that 16 months after the election he would stop blaming the NDP for everything. I listen to the community, I listen to hotlines and I read the newspapers and the Premier, in months gone by, has had justification on many issues to point out that the performance of the former government left something to be desired. But if he wants to keep talking about democracy, Mr. Chairman, the people of British Columbia decided, in fact, that the former government left something to be desired and they elected this government. Perhaps for three months or six months or nine months - or even for a whole year - the Premier had some justification to remind the province that the former government showed many warts and scars and deficiencies.

But why have us, even as late as this very day, trying to justify the problem that the Premier was landed with in his office today - in relation to the prosecutor's office - by blaming it on the institution of certain new procedures by the former Attorney-General (Mr. Macdonald) ? I demonstrated very clearly, by tabling a brief that is a year old, that the prosecutors were asking desperately for the Attorney-General's department to at least give them a hearing and to sit down and discuss matters. The Premier has said repeatedly that he wants there to be access to his office and to the office of his cabinet ministers, and that's encouraging. But the record shows that the reason the minister got stuck with this meeting this morning - whether it was the issue of the prosecutors or any other issue affecting another minister, the Premier should never have been stuck with that meeting this morning - was, in fact, because there had not been any reasonable access by the people concerned over the course of the last 16 months.

I know we are not going into a long debate on that issue because I can tell the Premier that I have documentation of the various letters and requests that have gone back and forth between the prosecutors and the Attorney-General's office. Weeks, sometimes two months, would go by before they received a response to asking for a meeting with the Attorney-General. As I say, we haven't time to go over all that and I don't want to be repetitious. Anyway, I know the Premier hasn't the time to become acquainted with the whole history of this issue. But I think the Premier had reason to feel less than enchanted at the idea that he finally had to hold the kind of meeting he had today simply because others in his administration had not been making themselves available to some legitimate demands - in this particular case, on the part of individuals employed under the Attorney-General's administration.

I think the Premier, while perhaps choosing to look forward and talk in positive terms on behalf of his own government, will, I hope, learn from some of his own style which, in the past year or so, has certainly damaged his credibility. I am thinking particularly of the various episodes that have already been mentioned, such as when $120 million for highways one day suddenly became $40 million the next day, and when the Premier made the statement that higher ICBC premiums created safer drivers. The fact that various people cannot any longer afford collision insurance is surely a factor that relates a great deal to the costs of ICBC. Then we had the example of the Premier waving the so-called NDP budget at the Social Credit convention. Again, this is another example where the Premier allows his credibility to come into question. I would suggest that if the Premier could finally lay the NDP bogeyman of 1972 to 1975 aside and emphasize what this government believes in - what it plans to do, what its programmes will be - this would be the kind of leadership that we expect and certainly the kind of leadership that I would be very happy to support.

I don't mean by that that I'd be rushing back across the floor to join the Premier's party, but it would certainly give me a greater sense of spending my time usefully in this House if we didn't spend so much time listening to the government and the official opposition blaming each other for what happened between 1972 and 1975.

I would like to say just a few words since the Premier seems keen to find out what individual members consider their role in this House to be. I just repeat the strong conviction I have that the individual in society today certainly needs an alert and active group of representatives in this chamber. It's all very well for all of us to support the concept that they

[ Page 1679 ]

should have access to the representatives - I certainly fully agree that they should - but how they can have access to us on a part-time basis I'll never know.

I wish, Mr. Chairman, I could get it through some people's heads that 1, for one, have not practised medicine at all for over three years because I've given up the profession of medicine as long as 1. am here as an elected representative on the provincial political scene. I would go further and say that I don't think the public can have it both ways either. I find this session that there are so many demands on my time via the telephone, by letters, by requests for meetings, by requests to speak publicly, that there is no way that I can possibly do all these things, even working full-time.

Interjection.

MR. WALLACE: The member for Esquimalt (Mr. Kahl) says maybe the answer would be to resign, and you would have my wife's full support on that, I'm sure. But that isn't the point. I took on the responsibility of getting elected and I'm not complaining. I'm like the Premier - I know I took on long hours and I'm accustomed to long hours. There's no objection to that. I work as hard as I have the resources to work. But the public are always asking for a higher standard of representation. They want good people in the Legislature, and they want them to work hard, and they want to be sure they're not overpaid. You know, we just have to look at this in balance, too, in our modern society. I feel that while we're here primarily to look after the rights of the individual, somehow or other the MLA doesn't have too many rights.

I think there's a real danger in all this bad publicity, perhaps in the aftermath of Watergate, that the MLA or the MP should be some person whom the public can have access to 24 hours a day, seven days a week. We all know what it's like to be phoned Saturday or Sunday in the early morning and late at night at our homes. My phone's listed in the phone book. But when we're talking about the role of the MLA and our obligation to look after the rights of the individual, I just think it's about time the individual out there in society realized that we MLAs have a few rights too. We are not, and cannot be, some kind of machine where you put your dime in and you get your MLA on the other end.

I'm ready to say that in public. I'm not standing here just in this debate. I think it's about time some of these things were said publicly. The Premier, I think, might have erred in making some suggestions about options regarding salary since some MLAs were reputed not to be pulling their weight, but I just want to repeat that in my estimation - and I say this from eight years in this House - as far as the parliaments I've participated in, the great majority of MLAs work extremely hard. Despite all the cracks we throw across the floor about absenteeism, and "welcome back" and so on, the great majority of legislators attend this House extremely diligently. I don't think we do our own image any good when we get into some of the debates in the very negative and destructive way that we've done in the past day or two.

As far as I'm concerned, it's very much a two-way street. If the public want the kind of high standard of representation and the diligent, full-time, hard-working MLAs they say they want, well, there's got to be a certain measure of recognition of what that entails. The Premier talked today about whether or not individuals should be doing other jobs while they're trying to be MLAs. My personal feeling is that in today's society, and in the context I've mentioned where the public expect us to be available day and night, seven days a week, under these circumstances it makes it impossible to pursue another job.

On the other hand, 1, for one, believe that we have every right in asking for a very substantial remuneration for the work that we do. I don't propose to put myself in some category as any kind of second-class citizen just because I choose to be a politician. There's too much tendency in the public, and through the media, to make the politician the favourite target for everybody's barbs and to blanket us all with the sins of a few. I'm not the least bit amused by that. I don't know how often professional groups - whether it's doctors or lawyers or dentists -quite rightly get annoyed when two or three of their brethren may fall by the wayside. But it seems to me that in the political arena that seems to be the yardstick.

I don't think that we should perhaps be so ready to listen to debate in this House which emphasizes some of these shortcomings and some of the negative aspects of the role of an MLA and not stand up and say some of the positive things. When I look around here, I know very well what some of these back-bench MLAs do in terms of hours of work and what it's meaning in terms of economics to their families. So let's not be any bit aloof or shy in telling it like it is.

One of the points that I would like to say a little bit about, Mr. Chairman, relates to the AIB controls. I know that this has been raised on many occasions, but yesterday the federal Minister of Finance announced that the budget would be brought down on March 31. The Premier has tried to articulate in recent weeks the fact that the federal government's position seems to be a little difficult to define, and I think that's putting it charitably. There has appeared to be a difference of opinion on controls between the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) and the Premier, if in fact the provincial government is left to consider bringing in their own controls once the

[ Page 1680 ]

federal government pulls out. I'd just like to ask the Premier a specific question as to whether in the week or two since we last discussed this under the Minister of Finance's (Hon. Mr. Wolfe's) estimates, he has had any more up-to-date communication from the federal government as to whether they have reached a decision as to when controls would come off. I'm not asking whether the Premier knows what that date is, but one gets the impression from yesterday's press reports that the federal government has probably made its decision as to when it wants to take the controls off. I want to know whether it has informed the provincial government, or whether the Premier in turn has taken any initiatives to correspond with the federal government on the removal of controls within the last week or two.

Another area that I'd like to ask a specific question about relates also to information that has appeared in the press regarding the government's attitude towards two-year contracts. There's an article in today's Province which suggests that the government may be anticipating a compulsory piece of legislation or amendments to existing legislation which would make all contracts two years in length by compulsion - that they would outlaw, in fact, a one-year contract. Again, because the Premier and the Minister of Labour took a strong position at the Social Credit convention that they were not anti-labour, and since that public statement by the Premier has served, in some respect, to reassure the union movement in British Columbia, I just wonder if the Premier....

In view of the fact that controls are probably going to be removed at an early date, and since it is the whole question of the success, or lack of success, of controls and the government's apparent indecision as to what they'll do if the federal government does withdraw controls earlier than this government wants.... Since that has enormous impact on the thinking and preparations being made by unions preparing for negotiations this summer, I think it's very important that if that uncertainty could be cleared out of the way - namely, this government's approach to the length of contracts - at least that might be a very positive and useful comment for the Premier to make this afternoon. If I can just rephrase the question: is the government considering the possibility that if controls are removed earlier than this government would wish, one of the reactions might be to impose mandatory two-year controls in all contracts?

Mr. Chairman, I might say that it's very interesting when we talk about making this House function better, because the.... You're a very tolerant Chairman, because usually the Chairman interrupts me, when I ask the kind of question I've just asked, to say that I'm asking for policy and that I cannot, under the rules of the House, ask the government to reveal policy. But the Premier the other day revealed a whole square mile of policy, if I could use an analogy, when he said that he wouldn't agree to go on expropriating property under the B.C. Buildings Corporation Act. So I just say that there seems to be some times in this House when it's out of order to ask for policy and other times when it seems okay. I just hope that the government chooses to be more revealing to us, even though the actual bill may not be in the House for a week or two or three.

On that general principle, too, I wonder if the Premier is ready to tell us whether he will stand behind the statement he made after the Social Credit convention when the delegates had voted against the compulsory use of seatbelts. I understand the Premier said at that time that he would prefer a voluntary programme, as indeed we all would - no doubt about that. But he added that the government must consider public safety measures, even when these have to be mandatory. So if I'm treading once more not the edge of disaster but on somewhat dangerous ground, I would be interested to know if the Premier would be willing to give us any information as to whether the decision has been made. Maybe it still has not been made. Many people are writing, and I'm receiving a lot of correspondence from different groups who want to know whether or not seatbelt legislation will be introduced this session.

Last but not least, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if in the light of the last week or so the Premier can tell us of any further decisions he's made about the handling of the commitment to provide the funding to the children of Vietnam. There was some debate last week, and the Premier was given additional information. He recognized that since this House as a whole had made the original commitment in 1973, we should try to meet that commitment. I just wonder if the Premier is in a position to tell us within what time frame we will try to do that, and whether the mechanism is to involve a committee or whether he feels that the cabinet can deal with the matter responsibly and effectively itself.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, you're getting younger.

To the member for Oak Bay, I'll answer the last question first. I'm afraid, hon. member, that with my estimates on I haven't addressed myself to that problem. I will.

In regard to seatbelts, my opinion hasn't changed from the comments the member read. Those are the comments I made and I still am of the same opinion. It would be improper for me to anticipate legislation in this Legislature.

MR. WALLACE: Oh, come on!

HON. MR. BENNETT: Because I would hate to

[ Page 1681 ]

have any unrest in the labour movement, I can say that legislation dealing with compulsory two-year contracts has never been contemplated. I've never even heard the rumour about the suggestion you made. I just want to put that to rest. The fact that I'm in here means I haven't had a chance to read the newspaper today.

In regard to the member's comments on being a full-time MLA, I share his commitment. It's the same decision I made when I was in opposition and was elected. I too have a listed phone number, sometimes to my sorrow.

In regard to the Anti-Inflation Board and controls: to my knowledge right now there has been no decision transmitted to this provincial government about the end of controls. I'm still hopeful that we won't have an abrupt end, and the chaos that that would create. British Columbia's representation and position, as stated earlier in this Legislature, have been presented to Ottawa most forcibly, I have nothing new to add in regard to the member's question.

The member gave me some good advice about refighting the last election. I say it's hard to separate politics from the House. Our difficulty in this House is that the debate demands reference to future governments. I'm sure the member for Oak Bay would not want to have his bogey-man of the former Socred government taken away from him, which I listen to with great patience from time to time. I give him the same advice that he gave me. I will certainly listen to his advice.

MR. WALLACE: When are we going to hear about the nursing homes?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Quite obviously, though, in this House that type of debate takes place. I do assure the member that throughout the province it hasn't entered any of our comments or speeches for some time concerning the former government. I find most people would like to forget them. I don't want to bother the people unduly.

The member mentioned elderly citizens. I want to remind him that the throne speech called for monthly shelter allowances for persons over 65. I'm sure the member for Oak Bay hasn't forgotten the throne speech; I'm sure he is eager to get on with the business of the House so that such programmes that were suggested in the throne speech can be debated.

In regard to care for the elderly and our elderly citizens, I believe that the member was making an appeal that the party made a commitment in the election to intermediate care. It still remains a commitment. I'm hopeful, Mr. Member, that when we meet the people again that issue will not be one that you have to raise to the electorate and that we will have met that commitment. I'm hopeful, within the framework of that timetable, that is the outside and we will have met that commitment. I agree that it should be brought up and discussed in the estimates of the Minister of Health.

I think most members of this House have advocated such a programme. As you say, you're now under the third government that advocates it. I ask you to be a bit patient but I don't ask you to stop making your speech. It's a worthwhile speech. The House would be lost without it.

I think those are most of the areas that the member brought up. Intermediate care, shelter assistance. . . .

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, Mr. Member, and I covered the Anti-Inflation Board.

MR. E.O. BARNES (Vancouver Centre): Mr. Chairman, I just have a few brief questions for the First Minister. Perhaps it will only take a couple of minutes, if he will be as judicious in responding to my questions as he was in responding to the member for Oak Bay.

The Premier made some remarks in the throne speech to the effect that he believed the treatment of children is a measure of society's worth. He indicated that it was his government's intention to provide ways and means for all citizens to be fairly represented and that their views would be given due respect. I'm just wondering, in light of this, if the Premier is also going to encourage representations by university students, who are presently requesting that the government listen to them on the proposed education spending for universities,

As the Premier knows, there was a rally just last week of university students. They were attempting to get the Universities Council to reconsider the bud-get and return it to the government, in the hope that they would reconsider the impact that increased tuition fees would have on them, especially in light of the fact that employment is at an all-time high. It's well in excess of the usually quoted 112,000, considering other categories that are not normally recorded at Manpower. Under their statistical programming, it's being estimated that there may be even another 50,000 unemployed in addition to the 112,000. So that really that is a problem. In view of the fact that the government has. reduced summer employment by some 50 per cent - to $12 million, as compared to $20 million to $30 million being spent by the previous administration - this has reduced the opportunity for those students who are unemployed and are seeking summer employment.

That coupled with the statements made by the Premier earlier this afternoon - that it was having difficulty coping with the unemployment situation, that the Premier himself this afternoon admitted that

[ Page 1682 ]

the unemployment situation was out of hand and that it was unable to live up to its commitments during the last election in December, 1975, in which it....

I happen to have one of those little statements that was circulated. The Premier may be familiar with this one. It says, " 100,000 people out of work, " and "Can the people afford the Barrett way?" It went on to explain that "Unemployment is the most serious issue of this election."

"The Barrett government, in attacking and restricting the major industries of this province, has succeeded in destroying economic growth. It has frightened away the investment dollar that make work for people. It has lost the heavy flow of tax dollars that should go to the government for thriving resource industries, the very dollars that provide programmes for people who need assistance.

"To get B.C. moving again we need a government that will work responsibly with industry and establish strong policies that will create jobs. We need a government that will end mistrust and destroy confidence" - rather -"and restore confidence." I think I was right the first time. "Destroy confidence" is probably what should be in that sentence.

"On December I I vote for Social Credit. One hundred thousand men and women out of work. Vote Social Credit."

Since that time we've had an increase of perhaps 50,000 unemployed. There are 112,000 now, Mr. Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) . There are many categories that are not included in those statistics that Manpower reports. Many people don't qualify for unemployment insurance and don't even show up on the rolls but they are in fact unemployed. Many of them have given up because they can't get jobs anyway.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The second member for Vancouver Centre has the floor.

MR. BARNES: We know what the computer says but there are many people unemployed who are not registered for one reason or the other. I think it's a safe estimate to say that there is another 10 to 20 per cent of people who are looking for work, many of whom don't have the faith in the system and therefore don't even apply because they don't think it's going to do much good. You yourself, Mr. Premier, suggested that the government had failed in being able to cope with the unemployment situation.

All I'm asking is: would you advise the House what plans the government has for ensuring that students have an equal opportunity to attend university, to go to school within their means, to be able to earn the extra money that they're going to need for tuition increases this coming spring and over the summer? It's going to cost them anywhere from $200 to $300 extra. How are they going to earn this money? Have you a programme?

I understand they're having another demonstration, a rally on the 10th. It might be a good idea for the Premier to try and attend, talk to the students and explain to them what plans the government has to ensure that education does not become the private institution for those who are more affluent and are more economically secure. By increasing the cost of education, you put it on the highest-bidder concept. Those who can afford it can have it, and those who cannot - that's just too bad.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's what he does to everybody.

MR. BARNES: It seems to me this is not in keeping with a government that has campaigned on the idea that people were the most important resource. There are a lot of people out there who are quite angry - and rightly so. I feel that the Premier owes the House an explanation as to what kind of programmes it intends to introduce that will relieve the situation.

If you would like some statistical information on some of the things that I'm trying to point ~out, in 1973....

HON. MR. BENNETT: Is it going to be accurate? Not like the others.

MR. BARNES: It's going to be accurate. No, not like the other stuff, not like all the things like unemployment statistics which have proven to be totally erroneous, and for political reasons only.

Now you're going to have to turn around and listen if I'm going to give you the statistics. You should pay attention because the students out there are waiting for your answers. In 1973, $20 million was spent by the previous administration; in 1974, $30 million; and in 1975 another $20 million, averaging something like $23 million per year for summer employment. Mr. Minister of Labour, you probably want to stand up and argue these. This is an average of 10,000 jobs a year. Social Credit spent $9 million in 1976. In 1977, they got carried away and went up to $15 million ...

AN HON. MEMBER: Scandalous.

MR. BARNES: ... averaging $12 million per year. That's something like 5,500 jobs per year.

[ Page 1683 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Turn your backs on the students.

MR. BARNES: Now you can stand up and explain. You can follow through, also, and tell those students what plans you have for them this year. The reality is that some of the students are not going to be able to afford going to school.

Instead of explaining, Mr. Chairman, the Premier has stood in the House himself and said that the unemployment situation is very difficult to arrest. He's going to have to come up with greater and new programmes, and he cannot rely on existing resources, existing thrusts and programmes that we've had in the past. He's going to have to have new ideas, and I would like to know what some of them are. Certainly the cost of living is going up. That's a very basic and real question - one that you're going to have to answer in the next couple of days.

You should hear some of the songs that are being written about the Social Credit government. I think it's quite serious, but far be it for me to fabricate. If you would like, I'd be glad to table a list of these songs that were written by Canadian students who are concerned about their future and who have lost faith in the government and in the ministers. I think when you have people who are in school for the purpose of getting a higher education finding it necessary to resort to song-writing about the government in disgust and in disbelief, you should take that seriously.

Now there are far too many songs here to read, but I certainly think that a few of them should be read just to give you some idea about their thrust. There's one here about: "Baby Bennett Had A Farm."

"Baby Bennett had a farm,
Eyi-eyi-o!
And on this farm he had a pet
Eyi-eyi-o!
With a fee hike here,
And a fee hike there,
Here a hike, there a hike,
Everywhere a fee hike....

Well, they get a little more complicated as they go along. (Laughter.)

AN HON. MEMBER: With a slow growth here, and a slow growth there....

MR. BARNES: I don't want to get into it because, quite frankly, when I was there I was embarrassed to think that these university students were resorting to such outlandish language. I'm not going to repeat them here, in all respect to the House and to the hon. Chairman, who is, I'm sure, hoping that we will keep good decorum and grace and respect. I would like to feel all members of this House remember at all times ... Don't suggest by innuendo or otherwise that we are not all here to participate equally in the decision-making, in the process of drawing up legislation on behalf of the people of the province of British Columbia.

You know, Mr. Chairman, the Premier has indicated on many occasions that he is not responsible for the various ministries of government, that he is the chief executive officer and has no particular responsibility, but generally just does the job of overviewing the affairs of the various departments. I wonder why he would say that when, in fact, he uses the power that he has when it pleases him, not to mention the Arthur Weeks thing. But he has refused to comment other than to say that he from time to time may find himself commenting or advising on an employee, or may be concerned. He has indicated as well that those of us who are members of the Legislature have to earn again - now that we've won the mandate of our particular constituencies - the right to participate in this House. He has stated unequivocally, and is quoted here in the press - your own words - as saying that governments were elected to govern, that they have that right to govern, indicating that there are those of us who are not any part of the government, and there are those who are. You are suggesting then that what we have to do is stick strictly with partisan politics. No matter how serious the matter, politics comes first.

Now I'll give you a perfect example. We had the leader of the Liberal caucus (Mr. Gibson) indicate that he would like to participate on some of the standing committees of the House.

AN HON. MEMBER: He doesn't have any splits in his caucus!

MR. BARNES: What did he do? He opened a door on himself. A big flood of explanations and reprehensible remarks came out about why he should stay in his place and not expect to participate because he was in the opposition. But, Mr. Chairman, we should have an opportunity - all of us - to have an input, although we realize that the government has a massive majority and just about everything we debate, as far as they are concerned, is a fait accompli because they are going to hammer us. But why would you be afraid to listen? Why don't you give us some input? Give us an opportunity to express our views even though you are going to vote us down in the traditional parliamentary way, in the good old democratic way. Give us an opportunity to have some input.

I spoke to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) . I asked him a question, Mr. Premier, the other day about the special cabinet committee that had been struck to look into

[ Page 1684 ]

the possibility of removing rent control. He says: "Well, it's a matter of policy. You know, really there's nothing further to say." It's a matter of policy - they're going to be removed.

AN HON. MEMBER: You try it!

[Mr. Schroeder in the chair. ]

MR. BARNES: All I was really asking was to have an opportunity to express, on behalf of the people of this province, what some of the concerns should be to ensure that the cabinet had the benefit of their views. But you know what? He says: "It's not necessary. We're the government. We'll deal with it. You've had your chance sometime in the past, so whatever you may have to say is irrelevant and immaterial." And you call that a democratic system? What are you afraid of? Why not give us a voice, give us an opportunity to express ourselves? At least allude to being democratic. At least have it appear that you're democratic, Mr. Chairman.

You know, you say that as soon as the market....

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, would you bring this House to order, please? Ask the Premier if he would please pay attention. I don't like to speak when there is no one paying attention. But I am not going to sit down because the last time you asked me to sit down - you were going to answer the questions - you pulled your vote.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. BARNES: I sat down and the Premier stood up and said that we were filibustering and speaking irrelevancies.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, he didn't give me an opportunity to stand back to hear his remarks. He just disappeared. He took a couple of days off. But I am sure that this time he is going to stay with it. He's taking a lesson from the Minister of the Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) , who stood there and took his lumps like a real professional.

AN HON. MEMBER: A little Truman.

MR. BARNES: He answered all the questions, one way or the other. (Laughter.) I think that's an example that the whole of the cabinet should follow.

AN HON. MEMBER: Barnes for Premier. (Laughter.)

MR. BARNES: Now I know that you don't have time for all of this time-consuming dialogue, et cetera, because you feel that it's redundant, unnecessary and certainly has nothing to do with democracy. You feel it's inefficient.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please address the Chair.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, I heard someone make a very good speech this afternoon about democracy and how cumbersome it can be at times and how this gets on the nerves of those people who have been independent individuals - like all those millionaires over there - used to making decisions by themselves without consulting anybody. Just hammer it right down their throats. I'm sure that most of you know what I am talking about because you own your own businesses and you do not consult with your employees. We're not employees of yours, Mr. Premier. You can huff and puff all you like. (Laughter.) You can take deep breaths ...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please address the Chair, hon. member.

MR. BARNES: until it hurts. But we are not employees of yours. We are your colleagues. (Laughter.) Whether you believe it or not, we are your colleagues, for better or for worse. This is the next best thing to marriage. You can stay in or stay out but you must pay your dues once you commit yourself. Now we are all elected and we have to come here and carry on the people's business. We have been asked to come on behalf of hundreds of thousands of people and I think it's incredible that anyone would suggest, in any way, that we should be denied an opportunity to participate fully in all of the actions that go on in this House - every single bit! But, oh, no.

We have a Premier who is impatient, impetuous, arrogant and very, very much concerned only with the plans that he has already designed - before we ever get to the House - for himself. But that's not good enough.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. BARNES: You're going to listen, one way or the other, either to us or at the next election. It would be wise if you would take our counsel, because we're concerned about you doing your job and doing it well.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please address the Chair.

[ Page 1685 ]

MR. BARNES: We would like to advise you on some of the thoughts that are going on in the community, if you would only listen and give us an opportunity to participate. The first action you could take is to advise your Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) that I know a number of people in the community who would love to have some input into that special cabinet committee which is looking into the possibility of removing the 10.6 per cent rent increase control. I know people who would love to give you some input. Do you know what kind of things they are concerned about?

HON. MR. MAIR: Be glad to see them, Emery.

MR. BARNES: Yes, but you have to give them an invitation, because they have written letters and they have all been turned down. That's why I say that when the Premier says that people have access to him, he must be kidding. They have access if there's a scandal, and you'd likely hear from them before the press does. But if he can't, then of course he will take immediate action to indicate that he is very responsive. But what he would like to do is know beforehand what the problems are.

I have a number of concerns....

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Wallace) stood up this afternoon and asked some questions about some of the arrangements in the contracts between tenants and landlords, especially involving things like cablevision and certain facilities - cablevision especially, because apparently the CRTC applied to the Rental Review Commission to have the rates re-evaluated in order that they could be raised without being included in the Anti-Inflation Board's guidelines. That was apparently approved and thrust upon the backs of the tenants in an exclusive category, so that it had no effect whatsoever under the maximum increase of 10.6 per cent. Now you don't have any problem with that because as you say, and as many of your colleagues have said, Mr. Premier, you are millionaires.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, will you please address the Chair? Does the hon. member understand what it is?

MR. BARNES: I understand very well, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your bringing my attention to the fact, because I certainly don't want to do anything that's out of line with the rules of the House.

I'd like the Premier to respond to the suggestion of those people who are millionaires. Many of them were quoted recently as having said that they don't have to be full-time MLAs. They are free to represent the people because they are all independently wealthy. They don't have to feel that they are professionals - whatever that means. They are in a position to represent the best interests of the people.

MR. CHAIRMAN: How does this relate to the Premier's vote?

MR. BARNES: Well, that's exactly what I'm trying to find out, Mr. Chairman. (Laughter.) What does it have to do with it? You're asking me. I'm asking you for guidance.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's out of order.

MR. BARNES: Would you like to make a speech and explain it to me? I'd be glad to take my seat. (Laughter.) These are trying times for both of us, I'm sure. (Laughter.)

Be that as it may, there is a question that I'm trying to extract from all of this that should have some relevance to the Premier. The Premier is pretty flippant with remarks like "train the dogs, " and "if you don't like it, take a cut in salary." He's very careless in making these remarks. But he gets people upset and they begin to wonder whether they can have confidence in him and whether he takes the position he's in seriously. He may think that he is a private, free individual, but he's here on behalf of the people, and he should set an example. He should be very careful and seek the advice of his colleagues before he makes his utterances.

I know that you can afford to do that when you're independent, Mr. Chairman. You can afford to do that when you're independently wealthy, and there's nothing anybody can really do to hurt economically or perhaps in any other way.

I would like to feel that he stands in this House on his word, that his word is his bond. But I don't think the people believed that when he said there were 100,000 people out of work, when he made that statement in the last election and said: "Can we afford the Barrett way?"

MR. BARRETT: We didn't believe it.

MR. BARNES: Well, that indicated the Premier had a plan to improve the situation. The situation is worse than ever.

MR. BARRETT: He put those Liberals to work.

MR. BARNES: I think that you should try and explain to the House what you intend to do about living up to this. What did you mean, Mr. Premier,

[ Page 1686 ]

when you said that?

MR. LEA: You were born with a silver foot in your mouth.

MR, BARNES: Mr. Chairman, I didn't say that. I'm a very respectable hon. member, as you know, and I would not make such utterances, even if they were true. (Laughter.) I never would say it because I have high regard for this House.

Interjections.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, exercise your responsibility to keep this House in order, please, so I can make my remarks.

MR. BARRETT: It's gone down the tube.

Interjections.

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

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, I would like to wind up quite briefly by suggesting to the Premier that this is really, as he said, a very grave and serious situation - not really a matter that we should be laughing and joking about. Now I was trying to be a nice MLA, standing here and speaking with respect. But if I find that I'm going to be disregarded, and members are going to be turning around and talking and carrying on in the manner in which they have been, then I'm going to get mad.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Hear, hear!

MR. BARNES: You see, Mr. Chairman, those people over there don't really care about what we're talking about over here. They don't really care because they have the vote. All that Premier is doing now is waiting until sometime in the very near future. If he can make a deal to get out of here, he'll be out of here lickety-split. As far as I'm concerned, he has to answer those questions. If he doesn't answer them, the people are going to demand some answers. There are nearly 150,000 people unemployed in this province. Do you want to go and count them? You were concerned before. You were willing to go and count them. You spent all your time walking around the province telling us how bad the government was. Take the time now and go out and listen to the people.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please address the Chair.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Chairman, why doesn't the Premier go out now and listen to some of those rallies, go and hear what they are saying? There's going to be one in about two weeks. Let him go out and listen to those students.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARNES: He didn't have any trouble whatsoever before going out and listening to large rallies when we were the government because he was trying to incite riots. In fact he created his own groups. He went out and found businessmen to put on overalls and look like farmers. "Come over here and make it look like you guys are mad, " he said. They weren't mad. That was a sham. I'll tell you something right now, Mr. Premier: you deal with the facts and don't worry about blaming the NDP. Deal with the facts! There are nearly 150,000 people unemployed in this province and what are you going to do about it? A year and a half ago you said right here that there were 100,000 unemployed and asked if we could afford the Barrett way. Now can we afford the Bennett way?

MR. BARRETT: No, sir.

MR. BARNES: What are you going to do about it?

MR. BARRETT: Nothing.

MR. BARNES: Are you going to stand here and cry and say: "Well, you know, times have changed. We were hoping we could do something about it but the economy, and world conditions, Canadian conditions.... We're going to have to find new markets. We can't rely on the resources as they were, " and so forth and so on?

Interjection.

MR. BARNES: Well, then did you know that before? Why weren't you honest before? Why didn't you give us the benefit of that reasonable approach to the problem? We were trying to deal with the problem the same as you are.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! Your time is....

MR. BARNES: But you weren't saying, "let's co-operate and be rational, " Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Your time has expired, hon. member.

MR. BARNES: My time has expired? Well, I'll do my best to wind it up as quick as I can. Thank you. May I carry on?

[ Page 1687 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: No, your time has expired.

MR. BARNES: I will be more than willing to ask leave of the House, Mr. Chairman. I'm sure they want to hear the rest of my remarks. I don't think there's a person in here who would not like to hear them -especially the Premier.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the rules of the House are that 30 minutes are given to each member in committee.

MR. BARNES: Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, just give me the courtesy to wind it up real quickly. You always do that.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

MR. BARNES: I certainly will be very brief.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Your time has expired, hon. member.

MR. BARNES: Oh, you're not going to give me a chance to read one last quote?

MR. CHAIRMAN: In committee the member could always speak again if he so desires.

MR. BARNES: Okay, that's fair enough. You are a very fine Chairman. Thank you very much.

AN HON. MEMBER: Closure!

MR. KING: Not a dime without debate!

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I just want to ask the Premier if the government has been secretly discussing coal royalties and tenures with the mining industry.

MR. LAUK: Oh, boy!

MR. GIBSON: What's the answer? It's a very serious question.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, the member said: "Has the government been secretly discussing or negotiating coal royalties with the industry?"

MR. GIBSON: And tenures.

MR. LAUK: And tenures.

HON. MR. BENNETT: No.

MR. LAUK: Did you say no?

AN HON. MEMBER: That's what he said.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

HON. MR. BENNETT: Are you asking me?

MR. GIBSON: No, I asked if the government was.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members....

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I've held no discussions with anyone concerning royalties, especially any of the mining companies - with anyone. Now you're on my vote and you're asking me a specific question.

MR. LAUK: Have you authorized anybody... ?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Hon. members, we can only have one member speaking at a time and the only way we can decide which one it is is if we recognize someone.

The member for North Vancouver-Capilano on vote 18.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I'd ask the Premier if he has any knowledge of any such meetings.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I understand that the Ministry of Economic Development has been studying along with the Ministry of Mines and Petroleum Resources all aspects of coal development in the province. Any discussion, or consideration, or study going on in government would also involve the rates that are paid by coal. It is my impression, because instructions were given to those ministries responsible to look into all aspects of the economics of.... That is one of the resources of the province, both in its ability for employment, its ability to provide revenue to government and in ways that resource could provide revenue, and those sorts of things are always under discussion. I can't advise the....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Mr. Premier, I in no way wish to halt your debate. However, I must suggest that this might better be discussed under the Minister of Mines. (Hon. Mr. Chabot) .

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'm just responding. So I have no way of knowing what the specifics of any of the research going on in any of the departments are. The member has asked a question to the Premier, and I say, no, I haven't participated in the research. But when such recommendations come from ministers, they'll automatically come to the cabinet. As a member of cabinet, I will certainly be apprised of any recommendations or the basis of any of the studies

[ Page 1688 ]

that have been undertaken, whether they're recommendations from the Finance minister (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) for new levies, whether they're recommendations from the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) , or whether they're recommendations from the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources.

MR. LEA: You gave them Arthur Weeks and you give them ministers.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Quite obviously when we're discussing a....

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: So, Mr. Chairman, I'd advise that member that it's quite possible that there are areas being researched by various departments, but there are no policies, nor has any policy been developed in regard to research which is being undertaken now.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, perhaps inadvertently the Premier is evading the question. The question is quite simply this: within his knowledge, is any department of government, or group of ministers, or group of officials secretly discussing coal tenures and coal royalties with representatives of the coal mining industry?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I think I have advised the member that three departments are looking into the economics of coal as a resource and doing studies on it. As far as I'm concerned they are doing the type of research necessary for them t o make recommendations to the cabinet. Where they look for information, how information will be provided to government, and in what form recommendations are made to cabinet, I can't tell the member. But I do know this: it would be improper to discuss specific proposals that come from government, that are government policy, with anyone, but my instructions to and discussions with the ministries are to look at all aspects of the economics of coal as a resource in this province.

Coal as a resource is being studied both in its ability to be competitive and to be a commodity that can be exported and used. Secondly, it's being studied as a basis of employment for our people. Thirdly, it's also being studied for what revenues it can provide directly to the government treasury over and above the great indirect benefits, the first benefits of employing our people and giving them the ability to be a part of a growing economy.

I have no personal knowledge of the specifics of any of the discussions ...

MR. LAUK: He's right there. Ask him.

HON. MR. BENNETT: ... but I'm sure that as they develop recommendations, then, as part of cabinet, I'll be part of those recommendations. But all ministries are doing specific studies on their departments and various aspects of it from time to time. Mr. Chairman, I would be a little bit worried if the type of studies involving all aspects of the economics of coal were not being studied after it was made a priority of the government, and in fact some of those discussions involved the government of Canada.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Although the Chair has allowed a general response in this matter, I must point out again that this is clearly a matter to be discussed under the votes of the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) , and therefore this line of debate, except for general reference, is out of order.

MR. GIBSON: Perhaps you didn't hear, sir.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, I was asking the Premier about his personal knowledge of this particular case. I'm not asking him about the policy, though he's going on at some length about the policy. I don't think it's improper to think about it either, because the Premier is taking a very direct hand in negotiations with Ottawa in this regard. And as you are aware, he is the minister for intergovernmental affairs.

But I am not even going that far at this point. What I am doing is simply asking the Premier a very precise, specific question. I want a very precise, specific answer. Has he any personal knowledge as of 5:45 p.m. on March 8,1977, of any group of ministers or group of officials negotiating or discussing in secret questions of coal tenure and coal royalties with representatives of the coal-mining industry? It's a very simple question: has he any personal knowledge?

AN HON. MEMBER: Behind Jim's back.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I must say for the third time that matters pertaining to coal would better be discussed under the Minister of Mines. We cannot use a device to bring into relevancy something which is irrelevant under this particular vote.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order. Mr. Chairman, the Premier of this province has taken unto himself and under his office the major planning of the coal

[ Page 1689 ]

development in this province. He's done so. He's made public appearances. There's a file that thick of the press conferences that he has been holding - not the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) and not the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) .

HON. MR. BENNETT: I didn't take it to Ottawa.

MR. LAUK: He's the man who has been doing all the work on the coal, and he should answer the question. Don't tell me it's not under his vote when the Premier himself has taken it unto himself to negotiate the coal agreements.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. Your point is well taken, but it is the responsibility of the Chair to try to keep the debate within the realm of relevancy. I must confess that it is not easy at some times, and in this particular instance this particular line of debate is in order under the Minister of Mines.

MR. GIBSON: And the minister of intergovernmental affairs.

MR. CHAIRMAN: And therefore this kind of reasoning must be ruled out of order.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I can't respond with any other answer than what I did, but I'll respond in the area that the member for North Vancouver-Capilano (Mr. Gibson) asked. I'm responsible for intergovernmental affairs. The discussions with the federal government that I have had have had to do with the federal government relating itself to roads and transportation systems, ports and a northern transportation system for British Columbia. None of the area in which he's discussing was any part nor has it been any part of the discussions that I've had, nor has that been any part of any discussion relating to discussion with the government of Canada. My discussions with Ottawa have been around a northern transportation system that I feel is important to British Columbia. I have given as specific an answer as I can to the question.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Chairman, the Premier has overlooked the essential question: has he personal knowledge of such discussions or not? That's the question. It's yes or no. It's a question of his personal knowledge and it's a question that relates to the activities of cabinet committees and to the activities of intergovernmental relations. I'm simply asking: what is the state of his personal knowledge as of this moment, 5:57, March 8,1977?

MR. LAUK: What is the cabinet committee doing selling the province down the drain?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. GIBSON: Do I understand, Mr. Chairman, the Premier is not going to answer that question? He's not going to tell us what the state of his personal knowledge is? Yes or no? Are you aware of any such discussions? Do you have any personal knowledge of such discussions?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Premier has the question.

MR. GIBSON: The Premier says he's answered. I'd be glad for him to repeat the answer so I'd understand what it was because I say to you that he hasn't answered. I would ask any member of the opposition: did they hear the Premier answer that question?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: No.

MR. GIBSON: I'd ask any member of the government: did they hear the Premier answer that question? If they did, I want them to stand up and tell me what the answer was. I see the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) nodding. Please stand up ...

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. GIBSON: ... and tell me what the answer was.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please! Hon. members, I would remind the House again that we can ask questions - we can ask them singly or we can ask them in groups - but we cannot insist upon an answer. The hon. member for North Vancouver-Capilano has the floor.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy files an answer to a question.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe tables the annual return for 1976 submitted in accordance with section 53 of the Administration Act of the Revised Statutes of British Columbia.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.