[ Page 683 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Oral questions tin. Ritchie appointment to Land Commission. Mr. Skelly –– 683

Allocation of $2 million for accelerated fisheries programme. Mr. Nicolson –– 683

Constitutionality of legislation leading to involuntary incarceration. Mr. Gibson –– 684

Assaults on B.C. visitors to Mexico. Mr. Davidson –– 684

Farm income assurance. Mrs. Wallace –– 684

Wildlife branch. Mr. Nicolson –– 685

Investigation of former Minister of Transport, Energy and Communications. Mr. Macdonald –– 685

Ministry of Education grant to Home and School Federation. Mrs. Dailly –– 686

Funding for learning programme on Vancouver Island. Mr. Skelly –– 686

Payments to Hydro chairman Robert Bonner. Mr. Lockstead –– 686

Salary of convention co-ordinator John Plul. Mrs. Dailly –– 686

Presenting reports

Insurance Corp. of B.C. fifth annual report. Hon. Mr. McGeer –– 686

Matter of urgent public importance

Use of herbicide 2, 4-D in B.C. Mr. Skelly –– 687

Hon. Mr. Nielsen –– 687

Committee of Supply; Ministry of Finance estimates.

On vote 92.

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 689

Mr. Barrett –– 692

Mr. Gibson –– 705

Mrs. Jordan –– 706

Mr. King –– 708

Mr. Stephens o –– 710

Mr. Cocke –– 711

Mr. Lauk –– 713

Mrs. Jordan –– 714

Mr. Cocke o –– 715

Mrs. Wallace –– 716

Mr. Nicolson o –– 717

Mr. King –– 717

Mr. Lea –– 720

Appendix –– 722

The House met at 2 p.m.

Prayers.

MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, on your behalf today I would like to make some introductions. Mr. and Mrs. J.C. Bartlett are here today. Mr. Bartlett was the former Clerk of the Western Australia Legislative Assembly in Perth. Mr. Bartlett is also the regional director of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. He was born in Saskatoon and spent his entire adult life working in various roles within the legislative process, except for a brief period of time in the Royal Australian Air Force during World War II. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

Mr. Speaker, Miss Susie McLeod and Miss Marie McMillan are here today from Vancouver South. Miss McLeod is the daughter of my constituency secretary. I ask the House to make her welcome.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I'd like the House to welcome warmly 35 students from Alberni District Secondary School who are visiting Victoria and the Legislative Assembly under the guidance of their teachers, Mr. Lekitch and Mr. Squires.

MR. KARL: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery this afternoon will be a group of students from Edward Milne Secondary School in my constituency. They will be accompanied by 24 students from Montreal, Quebec. I would like the House to make them welcome, please.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, on a matter of privilege.

MR. SPEAKER: Please proceed.

HON. MR. BAWLF: At the completion of my remarks to this assembly on Friday, the member for Nelson-Creston (Mr. Nicolson) rose on a point of order, ostensibly to correct the record with regard to certain comments that he had made in the House at an earlier date. In the course of a dispute with the Chair, Mr. Speaker, he impugned my character with the words "lying" and "liar." I'm sure that, offered as they were in the heat of emotion at that moment, the member would certainly regret making them and I would respectfully request, Mr. Speaker, that you ask him now to clarify that he has indeed withdrawn those words and any imputation of wrongdoing on my part, and that he do so now.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, on Friday last, the matter just referred to by the hon. minister was an incident in which the hon. member for Nelson-Creston was asked to withdraw and, before an unqualified withdrawal could be obtained, he left the chamber for the remainder of the sitting. Perhaps now, on contemplation and reflection, the member, in order to clear the record, would give us an unqualified withdrawal.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, it was my intention to make an unqualified withdrawal at that time, and I do so now. It was my intention at that time to correct the record of a misunderstanding of remarks which I had made in the budget speech, and I am satisfied that the record is corrected.

MR. SPEAKER: Thank you. I commend the hon. member for his attitude.

Oral questions.

MR. RITCHIE APPOINTMENT

TO LAND COMMISSION

MR. SKELLY: My question is directed, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of the Environment. Could the minister confirm that Mr. William Ritchie has been appointed to the Land Commission as a land commissioner?

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that's a matter of public record.

MR. SKELLY: I take it that's a confirmation? Mr. Speaker, could the minister confirm that this is the same William Ritchie %to bid $4,400 for a dinner with former Premier W.A.C. Bennett at last November's Social Credit convention, and is this the same William Ritchie who at the last November Social Credit convention successfully bid $1,100 for a five-day stay at the Premier's ski lodge?

MR. GIBSON: Did they serve turkey?

HON. MP, . NIELSEN: I have no idea, Mr.

Speaker - and no interest.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

ALLOCATION OF $2 MILLION FOR

ACCELERATED FISHERIES PROGRAMME

MR. NICOLSON: To the Minister of Recreation and Conservation: can the minister confirm that there is a clerical error of almost $2 million on page 24 of the budget speech, where

[ Page 684 ]

it says: "$2 million will be spent on an accelerated fisheries programme to assist in" the expansion of the shellfish industry."?

MR. SPEAKER: This is a question, likely, which could be entertained during the estimates. However, the minister may have an answer.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, the accelerated fisheries programme - as I outlined in my remarks to this Rouse on Friday - does, indeed, include expenditures of that nature.

MR. NICOLSON: On a supplementary question: the statement in the budget is that an accelerated fisheries programme will receive $2 million to assist in the expansion of the shellfish industry - period. Is this then a slight error in semantics, and does that $2 million expenditure apply to other fisheries expenditures?

HON. MR. BAWLF: It will, indeed, apply to other expenditures.

CONSTITUTIONALITY OF LEGISLATION

LEADING TO INVOLUNTARY INCARCERATION

MR. GIBSON: I have a question for the Attorney-General. In view of the fact that the Corrections Act passed last year by this House is under question as to its constitutionality, and in view of the fact that published proposals by the Ministry of Health for involuntary incarceration of alleged drug users by an administrative tribunal, without benefit of trial by the courts, would seem to face similar difficulties, will the Attorney-General ensure that any such legislation will be referred to the courts for a test of its constitutionality prior to implementation?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I'd like to take that question as notice today, Mr. Member.

ASSAULTS ON B.C.

VISITORS TO MEXICO

MR. DAVIDSON: My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the tragic double murder of two White Rock residents in Mexico and in view of the fact that this brings to a total of eight the number of Canadians who have been murdered in Mexico in the last 10 months, and in view of the fact that not one suspect has been arrested in any of these cases, and that not many suspects have been arrested or detained in the alarming number of assaults and robberies which have taken place against Canadian citizens, and in particular British Columbians, would the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs undertake the necessary steps on behalf of the consumers of this province to have insertions of such facts placed alongside any advertising soliciting British Columbians to visit Mexico?

HON. MR. MAIR: I am indebted to the member for giving me advance notice of the question -I got it about 10 seconds ago. I regret, Mr. Speaker, that I don't know of any authority that I would have under any statute in this province to do what the member asks. It's not to say that I don't share with the member, and I'm sure all members of this House, the great concern over the situation which he has raised.

What I will undertake to do is to take the matter up with the Department of External Affairs in Ottawa which, I think, is the appropriate place to deal with such matters of international concern. I do think, however, that the member, by raising this question in the House, has once more brought to the attention of the people of British Columbia this tragic situation. Hopefully, from this and other efforts in the media, the Mexican authorities will see fit to do something about this situation.

FARM INCOME ASSURANCE

MRS. WALLACE: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture. Did the minister meet with the representatives of the B.C. Federation of Agriculture on Friday last to discuss the question of farm income assurance?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Yes.

MRS. WALLACE: On a supplementary, did he or his ministry make any written presentation to the B.C. Federation of Agriculture at that time?

HON. MR. HEWITT: No, Mr. Speaker. Papers had exchanged hands between the federation and my ministry prior to the meeting and we discussed those at the meeting.

MRS. WALLACE: On a further supplementary, was, in fact, one of these papers a document which was entitled "The British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture Response to British Columbia Federation of Agriculture Proposals Respecting Farm Income Assurance?"

HON. MR. HEWITT: Yes, I believe that is the

[ Page 685 ]

title of the paper, Mr. Speaker.

MRS. WALLACE: On a final supplementary, would the minister be prepared to file this document with the House?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Why don't you file it?

MRS. WALLACE: I'll be very happy to if the minister is not prepared to file it.

HON. MR. HEWITT: No, Mr. Speaker, it's a departmental paper in discussion. I see no need to file it. We've had good discussion with the federation at this time.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, Beauchesne provides that speeches that are made out of the House are not referred to in question period. I can't determine at this moment whether it was a speech. I assumed it was not a written paper; it must have been a speech. But in any case, just for the members' information, it is not to be referred to in question period.

WILDLIFE BRANCH

MR. NICOLSON: Has the Minister of Recreation and Conservation (Ron. Mr. Bawlf) received any communication from either Mr. Don Robinson, acting director, or any member of the wildlife branch concerning the deliberate mis-spending of funds or the falsification of records alleged by the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) at a recent meeting of the Western Guides and Outfitters Association?

HON. MR. BAWLF: I have had communication to the effect that they are unaware of any evidence to this effect and they are seeking to ascertain whether any such evidence exists.

MR. NICOLSON: I thank the minister for his answer. But did he receive communications from his branch reporting the allegations made at that meeting, by memorandum, telephone or anything like that?

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, I first learned of these allegations from the press.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the minister. upon learning from the allegations from the press, did he then contact the member who made the allegations?

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, I am in contact with that member virtually daily.

MR. BARRETT: Upon contacting the member and discussing these allegations, did the minister ask the member to furnish him with any evidence that caused these allegations to be made?

HON. MR. BAWLF: Mr. Speaker, upon contact with that member, he advised me that he had been substantially misquoted.

SOME HUN. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

INVESTIGATION OF FORMER MINISTER OF

TRANSPORT, ENERGY AND COMMUNICATIONS

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) has announced that he has engaged a lawyer outside of government service, rather than the regional Crown prosecutor's office, to look at the question of whether or not the former Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications, (Mr. Davis) should be charged. Will the Attorney-General name the lawyer?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Yes, when the work is complete, hon. member.

MR. MACDONALD: Is there any reason why the Attorney-General should hide public business from the people of the province? Is there any reason why you won't name the lawyer at this time?

HON. MR. GARDOM: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would assume that the former Attorney-General, among all people in the House, would know that when matters are under investigation and when one is requesting an opinion as to the results of the investigation, the name of the party who is furnishing that opinion is usually not made public. This is a consistent practice.

MR. MACDONALD: I don't know what practice the Attorney-General is referring to, but surely this man is engaged, as it were, by the government and the people of the province to conduct an investigation on a public matter. While the investigation can be private, is there really any reason why the name of the person engaged should be kept quiet?

HON. MR. GARDOM: I've just responded to the question; I don't think I can elaborate upon my response. We are following consistent practice, and a practice, I'm sure, the hon. member is fully aware of and followed himself.

MR. MACDONALD: It's hardly open government.

[ Page 686 ]

MINISTRY OF EDUCATION GRANT

TO HOME AND SCHOOL FEDERATION

MRS. DAILLY: A question to the Minister of Education: Did you approve a grant to the Home and School Federation last year?

HON. MR. McGEER: I'll have to take that question as notice. I'll try and have the answer at 6 p.m.

MRS. DAILLY: I realize it is on notice, but I think perhaps a supplementary might be in order - if you would decide, Mr. Speaker.

When you are taking that as notice, will you bring information back to the House as to whether the Home and School Federation will be receiving a grant this year? May I say that I'm shocked he doesn't know.

FUNDING FOR LEARNING PROGRAMME

ON VANCOUVER ISLAND

MR. SKELLY: This is on a supplementary as well, Mr. Speaker: I wonder if the Minister of Education would advise us if he has made a decision with regard to funding the LEARN programme on Vancouver Island this year?

HON. MR. McGEER: I'll take that as notice too, Mr. Speaker.

PAYMENTS TO HYDRO CHAIRMAN

ROBERT BONNER

MR. LOCKSTEAD: A question to the hon. Minister of Finance: has the chairman of B.C. Hydro, former Socred Robert Bonner, been paid any bonuses or other benefits in addition to his $48,000-a-year salary since his appointment?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Speaker, I'm almost sure the answer is no; but I'll take the question as notice to make sure.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: If he's taking this question as notice, perhaps he could take these as notice as well: Does Mr. Bonner have the use of a Hydro corporation car and, if so, does Hydro also pay the insurance and gasoline. Further - if he is taking this question as notice - I would like to know if Hydro pays any of Mr. Bonner's expenses when he attends meetings of the Trilateral Commission.

SALARY OF CONVENTION

CO-ORDINATOR JOHN PLUL

MRS. DAILLY: On April 4, 1 asked the

Provincial Secretary for the details of the salary schedule for Mr. John Plul. She promised to bring back the details to the House. When can we expect these figures, Mr. Speaker? The question was asked three weeks ago.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: I have the answer to the question today. In response to the question, the title was changed from Convention Co-ordinator to Director of Attractions and Special Events, the position assigned more responsibilities and the salary increased from $27,500 to $30,600.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Provincial Secretary if that was the same Mr. Plul who campaigned for Social Credit in the Vancouver East by-election. I had occasion to meet him on a number of occasions at that time. Is that the same Mr. Plul?

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I believe that is the same Mr. Plul to whom the Leader of the Opposition referred, and I believe that was the same by-election in which I saw several people within the Leader of the Opposition's office campaigning as well.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. - Speaker, that's known as....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. Question period is really not a time for debate. Is there a supplementary question?

MR. BARRETT: Yes. Is that known as "Cost Plul"?

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask leave of the House to introduce a guest who has just come into our gallery.

Leave granted.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask the House to join me in welcoming to our gallery this afternoon the Hon. Eiling Kramer, Minister of Highways and Transportation from the province of Saskatchewan.

Presenting reports.

Ron. Mr. McGeer presents the fifth annual report of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia.

Ron. Mr. McGeer files answers to questions 18, 20 and 21 on the order paper. (See appendix.)

[ Page 687 ]

MR. SPEAKER: A statutory report requires no leave. Shall leave be granted to file questions?

Leave granted.

MRS. WALLACE: Mr. Speaker, I would ask leave to table a document with the House which was referred to in question period, entitled "British Columbia Ministry of Agriculture Response to the British Columbia Federation of Agriculture Proposals Respecting Farm Income Assurance."

Leave granted.

MR. SKELLY: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to move adjournment, under standing order 35, of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance.

MR. SPEAKER: Will you please state the matter?

AN HON. MEMBER: State briefly what your point is.

MR. SKELLY: Briefly stated, Mr. Speaker, this is the first opportunity I've had to bring this matter to the attention of the assembly since reports appeared in the press indicating that the United States Environmental Protection Agency has placed the herbicide 2, 4-D under full review because of studies indicating that it has carcinogenic effects. I'm submitting copies of the press material which appeared in The Daily Colonist yesterday and in The Province on Saturday.

I called the EPA in Washington, D.C., this morning and was informed by Miss Lambert, in charge of special projects...

HON. MR. CHABOT: At public expense?

MR. SKELLY: It's a matter of urgent public concern.

... in charge of special projects in the special pesticide review section of the Environmental Protection Agency, and she advised me that information is presently being assembled and analysed prior to initiating what is termed in the agency an RPAR review. That review has now been initiated, according to information I received within the hour.

Miss Lambert is quoted in The Vancouver Province as stating that 2, 4-D see to have gone beyond the point of suspicion usually required to instigate a hearing, but further time is required to assess the studies. Mr. Speaker, I am enclosing with this statement the relevant press information, excerpts from the staff report to Senator Kennedy's subcommittee on administrative practice and procedures, citing pathologists' reports which concluded that 2, 4-D is carcinogenic - that is, cancer-causing - in rats.

Mr. Speaker, the reason that this matter is one of definite public importance, and a matter of urgency as well, is that permits have already been issued for the use of 2, 4-D in certain lakes in the Okanagan Lake system. Only 15 days' notice is to be provided to local government prior to commencement of application, and it appears that without immediate action by this assembly, we could be exposing the people of the Okanagan Valley to a chemical with carcinogenic properties, the use of which is being subjected to a detailed review and possible de-registration in the United States because of its dangerous health effects.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Not on a point of order, but I wonder, perhaps, if I would be permitted to offer some information to the Speaker for his consideration while he considers that motion.

MR. SPEAKER: Shall leave be granted?

Leave granted.

MR. SPEAKER: Perhaps the information could be laid on the table rather than....

HON. MR. CHABOT: They don't want to hear the facts.

MR. SKELLY: Let's have a debate.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Was there a "no, " Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: By all means proceed, hon. member.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: I'd like to mention to the House that the province of British Columbia and the Ministry of the Environment and the Pesticide Control Act do not come under the United States Environmental Protection Agency, but that the federal government, through the Canadian federal Department of Agriculture, is responsible for the regulations surrounding herbicides and pesticides in Canada, and that the Ministry of the Environment's permits are subject to these regulations of the federal government of Canada. The federal government of Canada has advised the Ministry of the Environment that there has been no change....

[ Page 688 ]

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. On a point of order, the member of Prince Rupert.

MR. LEA: I'd like to know whether you've already granted the debate.

MR. SPEAKER: It's not a debate, hon. member, it's a matter of stating the facts. The hon. minister who has the floor must....

MR. LEA: On what grounds?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: By leave.

MR. SPEAKER: Whenever matters are brought forward under standing order 35 and the matter is clearly under dispute, then the opposite side is given an opportunity to make a brief statement, but must be curtailed to making a statement only of the facts.

Please proceed.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I am not offering information or evidence as to the possibility of 2, 4-D being carcinogenic. I am advising the Speaker of the various authorities under which the Ministry of the Environment must obtain information, and the regulations, as put in place by the Canadian federal government - the Department of Agriculture. The permit system and the permit to be issued, which are now under appeal, are subject to those regulations of the Canadian government, not the United States government.

MR. SPEAKER: I think that the matter is not for debate. The motion has been put forward with support in the House.

MR. SKELLY: But on the question of urgency, Mr. Speaker, it appears that....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please. The matter of urgency will, 11 have to be determined by the Chair, hon. member.

MR. SKELLY: Is it not possible to respond to a minister on leave of the House, Mr. Speaker?

MR. SPEAKER: On leave of the House, I imagine almost anything is possible. Shall leave be granted?

Leave not granted.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, it is traditional, when leave is granted to a government spokesman to make a statement in this case, leave was granted -for the opposition to have a response to that statement. We're not dealing with a point of order; leave was granted for a statement.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, the original statement made by the minister in response to the motion that was made did not require leave. Although the Chair did ask leave, it's not required.

MR. BARRETT: Well, he did ask leave.

MR. SKELLY: Ordinarily, the minister in his statement would be expected to address himself to the urgency of debate and the matter of public importance. The minister did neither in his statement. It became a ministerial statement and certainly....

MR. SPEAKER: Just for clarification, so that all members are aware, under standing order 35, a motion is made for the adjournment of the debate because of an urgent matter. The particulars as to why the member is moving that particular motion are usually given in advance of the motion being presented. Following the motion being presented, an opportunity is given to the opposite side, without leave, to present the facts and only the facts - no room for debate - so as to clarify the matter in the assistance of the Chair.

However, it is not open for debate until the Chair has determined whether or not the motion in itself is in order. One of the facets of determining whether or not the motion is in order is urgency itself. So I would ask hon. members to withhold debate at the moment until the matter can be determined, and whether or not it is in order. Also, customarily, the Chair is given a little time to consider the motion and to determine whether or not an urgent debate is in order.

By the way, if it is determined, subsequent to some other order of business, that the motion is in order, then there is no prejudice to the mover's position in debate.

MR. SKELLY: Are you saying that it is possible for the Minister of the Environment to stand up in this House and say that it's possible to die of 2, 4-D in the United States but not in Canada?

MR. SPEAKER: The hon. member is seeking to enter debate.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, it might be helpful, Mr. Speaker, just to clarify to the House that a certain procedure took place today. Whether or not it was proper, it indeed

[ Page 689 ]

is a fact that the minister asked for leave to make a statement. Whether or not it was an error on his part is irrelevant. The fact is he asked for leave and was granted leave. It is traditional under such circumstances that there be, without request of leave, a response from a single spokesman from the opposition side to that statement. That is indeed what has taken place today and I would ask your ruling on that sequence of events, please.

MR. SPEAKER: You're asking for a difficult ruling. The ruling is simply this: I think that we need to uphold the practices and the procedures of the House. If the House, at any time, in answer to the question "Shall leave be granted?", shall determine that leave shall not be granted, I think that is the wish of the House. I think that would have to be the ruling.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but I just wanted to be clear on the question of once leave was asked and it is given courteously by the House, it is a pattern that, in response, the same courtesy is extended to the opposition. I want the record to show that such courtesy was not extended by that government today, in an attempt to cover up what the United States has found out about 2, 4-D.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: What have they found out, Dave?

MRS. WALLACE: On the matter of timing, I would like to point out the urgency on this matter and I would like to draw....

MR. SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. It is not proper at this time to put forward that kind of argument. The Chair will have to determine whether or not the motion is in order and that will be done. The Chair will report to the House at the earliest possible time.

MR. NICOLSON: On a point of order, when Your Honour makes the deliberation, would you take into account whether or not this is within the competence of this House? I would submit to you very seriously that it is that the action referred to in Okanagan Lake is one being initiated by the government of this province and therefore it would be within the competence. I would ask you to consider that.

MR. SPEAKER: The Chair will consider all matters.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(continued)

On vote 92: minister's office, $105,330 -continued.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I want to say it's a distinct privilege to commence the estimates this year with the Ministry of Finance. At least, I think it is. Up until now it is. I might remind the members that I supplied them with a list of things to call me last year -namely incompetent, irresponsible, incapable - which they took good advantage of. But in any event, I want to add to that list some names that have come up in the meantime: tire-kicker - that's another one that's come along the pike; misleading - misleading was not on last year's list. I hesitate to mention this one, something about odometers, so anyway, I'll leave that last one off there.

Mr. Chairman, if I might be afforded a few comments on some of the activities in the Ministry of Finance during the course of the past year, I'm sure it will stimulate some thinking across the House in terms of what they might want to deal with in the approval of these estimates.

The one thing that comes to mind initially is the change in recording in the estimates of the staff levels of departments. These have been altered in a major way by Treasury Board to remove as much as possible vacant staff positions, and to remove the staff salary savings account, which was associated in prior years' estimates with each ministry's total appropriation. In the case of the Ministry of Finance, for instance, the staff level in these estimates before you, 1978-79, is 1,173 positions, which is a net reduction of 84 positions from the 1977-78 level.

Several factors enter into this reduction. I made reference in the budget address to proper reporting of temporary employees who were, in reality, permanently employed. In the Ministry of Finance, a total of 63 positions were so established - 53 in computing and consulting services, two in the Purchasing Commission and eight in the government agencies. As a result of the provincial government taking over the operation of the Vancouver Resources Board, a total of 17 employees were absorbed into the Ministry of Finance - 15 accounting personnel into the office of the comptroller-general, and two purchasing agents into the Purchasing

[ Page 690 ]

Commission.

Mr. Chairman, the comptroller-general's staff was increased by 19 positions in response to the need to improve effectiveness of financial control and accountability, more complex ministerial programmes, and because of increased volume of financial transactions. The 12 supernumerary employees in the income tax branch, as a result of the termination of succession duties and the gift tax, were relocated within the public service.

In the computer and consulting services branch of the ministry, a total of 171 staff were transferred to the B.C. Systems Corporation. Fourteen positions were deleted from the government agency service through improved efficiencies in the operation of the district offices. The Treasury Board Government Employees Relation Bureau staff was increased by 10 positions surplus to the requirements of what previously was in the Public Service Commission.

I'd like to comment also on some new initiatives and the general activities in the Treasury Board operation. As you know, this group provides staff support to Treasury Board with particular responsibility for the assessment and recommendation of ministry organization structures; the employee establishment control, which is a major activity; the control of job classifications; the analysis of all expenditure requests; budget review and analysis; programme review and evaluation; and the assessment in the development of management and administrative policies, systems and procedures.

Since its inception a little over a year ago, the Treasury Board staff, Mr. Chairman, has investigated and reported on over 2,800 ministry expenditure requests; it has reviewed and improved organization structures, particularly in the ministries of Health, Forests, Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and Travel Industry. It has conducted operational reviews in the Ministries of Health and Economic Development and effected a net reduction in provincial government employment of some 1,407 positions. Treasury Board staff is preparing also for the introduction of zero-base budgeting procedures for two ministries in the 1979-80 budget year.

Now the Government Employee Relations Bureau has negotiated 13 collective agreements - two master and 11 component agreements - within the public service during this past year. A comprehensive review on management compensation is just about completed and is intended to provide salary increases on the basis of merit and introduce rational ongoing salary administration. Job evaluation was undertaken on 1,500 management positions. The planning and research division is developing analysis for a total compensation concept in collective bargaining, a concept that has been accepted by the federal and all provincial governments.

Mr. Chairman, with the appointment now of the auditor-general and her assumption of all audit responsibilities, the office of the comptroller-general is concentrating attention on the internal audit of activities of the ministries and further improving the accounting and financial information systems. Financial information is an important element in the assessment and evaluation of programme effectiveness and efficiency. Assistance is being given ministries also in the financial control of programme budgets.

During the past year within the government agency system - as a matter of fact on June 25,1977 - Mr. Peter Ramsay retired after 46 years with the Ministry of Finance, the last 14 years as director of agencies. He has been succeeded by George Brodie, a senior government agent for the Nelson agency. In the government agency system the 51 agencies have been organized into eight regions with headquarters at Nanaimo, New Westminster, Kamloops, Vernon, Nelson, Prince George, Prince Rupert and Dawson Greek. This allows our offices to give a faster and more comprehensive service. The services of the agencies are available to all ministries of the government and we wish to continue to encourage the use of the agencies as an economic measure. During the last fiscal year the regional offices were used by the Ministry of the Provincial Secretary and Travel Industry to enhance the tourist services organization for the province, and the Labour Relations Board to act as supervisor for strike vote and lockout vote purposes, as well as continuing services to the majority of other ministries. To indicate the size and scope of the service which these 51 offices perform, I'm advised that for the immediate past year government agencies assisted in collecting general revenue of $145 million plus ICBC revenue receipts of $30 million which went through the government agencies' hands. That's a total revenue, which they were required to handle, of $175 million.

Mr. Chairman, in the Purchasing Commission, Mr. Al Rhodes, Assistant Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Highways and Public Works, and Robert Murdoch, manager of the University Endowment Lands, Ministry of the Environment, were both appointed to the Purchasing Commission to join the chairman, Mr. Art Charlton. During the past year, a total of

[ Page 691 ]

over 55,000 purchase orders were placed for a value of some $140 million. A full-scale price monitoring system operated to ensure that accepted prices were held within the AIB guidelines.

The business machines repair division maintains over 28,000 business machines scattered through B.C. and provides a watchful brief on all outside repair contracts with private dealers. This division, by prompt action, salvaged 29 out of 30 machines damaged in a disastrous fire during the year.

A central office furniture loan warehouse was established from surplus furniture and has already saved the government an estimated $20,000 in rentals, a saving which will undoubtedly increase as the service becomes more widely known.

The commission is establishing a central audio-visual equipment repair and loan service for the government which should reflect considerable savings in purchases and maintenance costs as well as more efficient use of equipment.

In the area of management of the province's finances, the completion of a major review of banking practices and implementation of numerous cash-management procedures have resulted in significant additional interest income earnings for the province. Zero-balance banking has now been achieved for the majority of government bank accounts, with the remainder to come on stream shortly. Implementation of these procedures alone has increased provincial revenues by an estimated $2.25 million. An investment officer has been hired to invest the short-term funds of the province, and this expertise has further enhanced the earnings of provincial moneys. The bond-trading operation also improved the earnings of our investment funds. Work is currently being done on a data system to provide the investment officers with improved investment account and market information.

In the past 12 months much effort has been made in the consumer taxation branch to bring greater controls to the audit inspection and internal administration procedures. Progress has been made in field-audit coverage, resulting in a significant increase in tax recovery resulting from audits.

The repeal of the Succession Duty and Gift Tax Acts in 1976 has resulted in a reduction of the number of estates under assessment, with the result that supernumerary staff have been relocated in the public service.

During 1977 we saw the commencement of property tax reform, through introduction of assessments based on percentages of actual value. The policies introduced, while primarily designed to restore equalization for school tax purposes, were accompanied by changes permitting municipalities to select the basis desired for general municipal tax purposes. Property-owner reaction to the change in assessment standard was moderate in comparison to past revisions of such general application.

Amendments to the Taxation Act incorporated into the Assessment Amendment Act of 1977 were proclaimed in 1977. The new provisions are expected to improve property tax levy and recovery procedures in rural areas.

The ministry issued a further three quarterly reports this past year to keep the public informed on the finances of the province and Grown corporations. These reports indicated that financial control was maintained and the budget balanced. In this connection, hon. members may be interested in a summary of the other provincial budgets for the year 1978-79. Of the other nine provincial governments six have forecast a budget deficit: Newfoundland, New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan. One, Nova Scotia, forecast a balanced budget; and Prince Edward Island a small surplus of $100,000. Of course, I haven't mentioned Alberta, which reported a substantial surplus in its budget.

I'd like to give the House these budgetary figures in detail. For the provincial budget for the upcoming year, Newfoundland has recorded a deficit of $228 million; New Brunswick has a deficit of $95 million; Quebec has a projected deficit of $1.25 billion; Ontario has a projected deficit of $1,055, 000,000; Manitoba has a projected deficit of $114 million; Saskatchewan has a projected deficit of $44 million; and, as I mentioned, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, and British Columbia, Mr. Chairman, have projected a balanced budget.

The reason I bring these figures before you is that, if you look at the direct debt of these provinces, you get some idea of the annual debt-servicing costs. Later I would like to table these before the House, for your information.

For instance, in this table the direct debt per capita of each province at the moment is: British Columbia, $104.67; Alberta, $137.13; Saskatchewan, $1,550.88; Manitoba, $1,424.19; Ontario, $1,560.07; Quebec, $952.93; New Brunswick, $1,374.97; Nova Scotia, $1,565.20; Prince Edward Island, $1,211.16; Newfoundland, $2,782.98. one can immediately see that British Columbia has the lowest direct debt per capita of any province in Canada. This is not to place a fixation on balanced budgets, as we've indicated in our budget speech. We

[ Page 692 ]

feel it is a sound policy to project a balanced budget over the course of an economic cycle. But one can see the results of accumulated deficits of prior years on the provincial direct debt across Canada.

Mr. Chairman, one final word. In the area of finance and economic research, Mr. John Elliot joined the ministry in August as a director of economic analysis. Two additional staff are presently being sought, one for the economic analysis unit and one for financial analysis.

After the recent rather hectic federal-provincial negotiations, which culminated in the new fiscal arrangements last year, Ministers of Finance this past year turned their attention to other matters of mutual concern, particularly economic considerations and the post-control period. A Finance ministers' meeting was held early last fall to make recommendations to the First Ministers on the medium-term economic objective. In this connection, the Ministry of Finance collaborated on an inter-ministry group preparing the Premier's national economic strategy papers. Several British Columbia proposals, which were adopted by all senior governments, attest to the worth of these efforts, and follow-up studies in a number of areas are being undertaken to support further discussions among First Ministers.

Mr. Chairman, before sitting down, I think all the members would like to join me in paying tribute to some of our senior staff members in Finance. I'd like to mention the contribution made by my deputy minister, Mr. Gerry Bryson, who is sitting back here; assistant deputies Hugh Ferguson and Bob Alexander, as well as John Elliot; Doug Hyndmen; Jack Moore, the surveyor of taxes; Keith Prowse, director of income tax; and Ed Turner, the director of social service taxes. I'd like to also mention the efforts made by the acting comptroller-general, Mr. Lightbody; his assistant, Mr. McKinlay; and Heinz Schwarz; as well as the chairman of the Treasury Board staff, John Kelly, and his aide, John Currie. In charge, of course, of the Government Employee Relations Bureau is Mike Davison, and backing him up is John Mochrie. I would just like to pay tribute to the efforts of these staff members.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I don't intend to call this self-described minister any more names than he called himself.

I am always intrigued by the minister's approach to the Legislature. It's a very refreshing afternoon, started by a complete sort of housekeeping statement of the minister saying, "What a good fellow I am, " and then going on to say how bad everybody else is, and then thanking everybody in the department for making him look good, and hoping that everything will go by for the rest of the afternoon nice and quiet and %le won't examine what the minister is saying.

But there's one thing that I have to deal with with the minister. Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, what are you running from? The Vancouver newspaper that is a friend of yours, the Vancouver Province, asked that you, as the chief fiscal officer of this province, authorize B.C. Hydro to answer some questions in the newspaper. You come in here and you hand a letter across the floor of the House, when I'm out of the House, saying that you've just written to the chairman of the committee and told him to answer the questions. The chairman of the committee knows very well that no referrals are made to that committee unless we pass a motion in this House ordering him to answer those questions.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Well, there goes the minister the former Liberal who's now the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) .

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: All right, just be quiet back there and calm yourself, Mr. Liberal Labour minister. Tut, tut, tut, tut. Oh, tut, tut, tut, tut.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Holy cow! I've just started, and he's already got the minister of defence after me. Steady, boy, steady. The Liberals' day will come again.

Mr. Chairman, they threw a letter across to the chairman of the committee and said: "Here, you take care of this." What are you afraid of?

Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance has a responsibility to the taxpayers of this province to ensure that every single dollar that is spent by this province, or guaranteed by this province, is open to public scrutiny. When a- newspaper asks B.C. Hydro to answer some questions, the politician on the B.C. Hydro board should order B.C. Hydro to answer those questions instead of coming in here with a letter telling a committee to deal with it. The committee's not on the board, and what you're doing is using that committee in a

[ Page 693 ]

political way in the very opposite sense of what that committee was set up for in the first place. You have placed this committee in political jeopardy; you have placed the committee up as a buffer from some question on yourself of not answering the questions asked by the Vancouver Province.

Now I hold no brief for the Vancouver Province. Anyone who's been in this chamber knows that. But the Vancouver Province is a bona fide newspaper in this province. It asked specific questions, and the minister has run away from those questions.

Get some more instructions, Mr. Minister. Write them all down, because the Liberals are really running that operation in there anyway.

Now, Mr. Minister, I have some suspicions of why you're running from those questions. Today, in listening to all of your housekeeping statements, a few gems carried through that confirmed my suspicions. And you know what those gems were, Mr. Chairman? The minister started talking about direct debt, associated B.C.'s numbers of direct [illegible] way from the other provinces. Now I used to be Minister of Finance, and I learned from the same sources how to do the same thing. What you do is, you take arm's length from the Grown corporations, never total up their bills, just announce what you owe directly and it makes yourself look good. The line goes down to the staff, saying "Make me look good, " and the staff always does that - they make you look good. But I know the game.

MR. KAHL: They didn't make you look good.

MR. BARRETT: They made me look very good, and I'll come to that, my dear friend. You're my MLA. When I ask you something, you speak up then. Mr. Chairman, would you keep my MLA in order?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please address the Chair.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you. I'm embarrassed enough by my MLA, without....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the minister a couple of questions that he can answer with a nod of the head. Mr. Minister, does the government of British Columbia own B.C. Hydro? Do we own B.C. Hydro, or don't we? The people of New York know who owns B.C. Hydro. Do you know? You've got to check the book.

Second question: Does B.C. Hydro have any debt? He doesn't know that one, either.

I'd like the house and the minister to know that yes, we do own B.C. Hydro, and I'm glad the minister now knows that. Thank you, Mr. Minister, you nodded; you agreed with me.

I'd like the House to know that B.C. Hydro has debt. That's true? Thank you, Mr. Minister, we're agreed. And %to guarantees the debt of B.C. Hydro? The people of the province of British Columbia guarantee the debt of B.C. Hydro. Is that right? Right.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Did you stay up last night figuring that out?

MR. BARRETT: No, Mr. Minister, I just thought about it. It just occurred to me that the very reason you don't want to talk about any of this is because a newspaper's asking some questions that pertain to a treaty that has been spoken about many times in this House, the Columbia River Treaty.

MR. LEA: The Minister of Labour used to talk about it.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, the former Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications used to talk about it when he was a Liberal - Mr. Jack Davis. When we were elected to government in 1972, Mr. Jack Davis said: "Anything Canadians can get out of the Americans is fine." This is what Mr. Davis said: "God bless Barrett if he can find the way to get more money out of the Bonneville power administration." Yes, that's what he said about me. I want to thank the former minister. Thank you very much.

MR. DAVIS: I'd forgotten.

MR. BARRETT: You'd forgotten? It's obvious you've forgotten a lot of things. And Davis told the Sun that he thought Ottawa would receive Barrett sympathetically. "This is fine. I'm sure Ottawa would be glad to talk to him about the possibility of renegotiating the Columbia River Treaty."

HON. MR. CHABOT: It's all window dressing.

MR. BARRETT: Are you accusing that former cabinet minister of being all window dressing?

HON. MR. CHABOT: No, you.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, the people of this province owe, because of the Columbia River fiasco, $1 billion above every single penny that we received from the Americans to

[ Page 694 ]

complete our share of the deal of the Columbia River Treaty. If your Hydro bill is $50 a month, $23 of that $50 a month goes to pay the interest on the borrowings we've had to make because of the bungling of the former Social Credit administration, and we're going to pay for it for generations to come. If you pay a Hydro bill of $50, $23 goes for interest payments to the New York and various money lenders whose clutches Social Credit has put us into.

I had no intention of raising the Columbia River Treaty. I had no intention of raising this fiasco again today, but when The Vancouver Province asked the Minister of Finance as a member of the board of B.C. Hydro, to answer some questions about the massive debt that this government got us into, and the minister fobs it off to the committee chairman who is in a deep state of anxiety because of that fob-of f , I think I owe a responsibility to the people of this province to expose the minister for running away from the problem.

Now, Mr. Minister, we've got to pay that money back because the Americans skinned us on a disastrous deal. And I want to tell you that the contingent liabilities of this province have gone up dramatically because of the Columbia River Treaty.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Nonsense.

MR. BARRETT: You can always be sure the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources has something to contribute to the debate, and it's always "nonsense." Now I don't know if he's using it as an adverb, an adjective or a description of the content of what he has to offer: nonsense.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: And another high squeak that goes with the nonsense. I would prefer that the minister would just sit there and drink his water, write his notes....

HON. MR. CHABOT: And shut up.

MR. BARRETT: That's right. "Nonsense, " now "shut up" - that's it.

The contingent liabilities have gone up dramatically under Social Credit; they've now reached $5,484, 000,000 in the province of British Columbia, and the direct cause of this massive indirect debt to the people of British Columbia is the Columbia River Treaty. Now some suspicions and questions are being raised by a newspaper that has wide circulation in this province, and the minister refuses to answer or order that those questions be answered by Hydro.

Mr. Minister, I think it would be wise for you today to pen out a little note to Mr. Robert Bonner, and you put on that note: "Dear Bob, we don't want another 707 days of delay in British Columbia" - related to another instance when Mr. Bonner stalled in answering questions. You write and say: "Dear Bob, please answer the reporters' questions." Would you do that?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: I'll sit down if you say that because then, you know.... "Dear Bob, " signed "Evan."

What is the government hiding? Why won't you answer the newspaper question? Certainly there must be some people in that group who would like to have some answers. Here's a quote from Hansard of January 26,1970, page 27 - about the same time that some of these questions asked by the newspapers referred to - and I'd like to read this quote to the House to put it in context:

"I ums shocked by the revelations of Chairman Shrum, when he called up to have an interview about B.C. Hydro. He said this: 'The government could not have carried on without reducing rates. Political considerations and economic considerations are not always the same.' "

Chairman Shrum said that the government of the day had given an indication that Hydro rates should be altered by political considerations. This was in 1970. A prominent MLA was shocked and said so in this House. And I want to read further What that MLA said.

"He also said that some large-scale users such as pulp mills and chemical companies got their power at cost until May 1,1969. Is that where all this advertising money came from?" He was referring to advertising money in an election campaign. "The big companies were getting their power at cost all these years. Who set their rates? Chairman Shrum refers to political considerations that are different from economic considerations. Power at cost. We in the Legislature didn't set the rates for industry. Dr. Shrum never set the rates for industry. The Premier set the rates for industry. Those were the political considerations. That's what causes the rates to be set and those

[ Page 695 ]

political considerations mean that the pulp mills get their power at cost."

Hansard, page 27, January 26,1970, at a period when the very questions asked by the Vancouver Province want some answers to. Now do you want to know who said what I have been reading from Hansard? Do you want to know? It was none other than that famous Liberal, Dr. Pat McGeer. Yes, Dr. Pat McGeer, one of the most severe critics of the Columbia River Treaty. Oh, he used to call Social Credit names, far worse than anything the minister put on the list today. Oh, I remember some baddie things he said about Social Credit, naughty things he said about Social Credit.

MR. LEA: Who was that you said?

MR. BARRETT: Dr. Pat McGeer. Where is Dr. Pat now, Mr. Chairman? Why, he's a Socred. The member who left ought to know; he's one of the few originals left around. The only reason he got back into the cabinet is that he joined the Liberal Party secretly.

Mr. Chairman, what is the Minister of Finance hiding? Does he talk to his colleague, Dr. Pat McGeer, who is now the Minister of Education? Why, what else did Dr. Pat say? What else did Dr. Pat say that the Vancouver Province should go back to? Maybe the Vancouver Province should ask Dr. Pat these questions, through you, Mr. Chairman, because the Minister of Finance doesn't want to answer them.

Mr. Chairman, the member for Vancouver Point Grey, who was then a Liberal, said in October, 1972, when there was a New Democratic Party administration: "I want to make one small comment before concluding about what is left over as one of the largest projects in British Columbia and one of the greatest bungles that has ever been made."

He called the Columbia River Treaty "one of the greatest bungles that has ever been made" and having said that, hoisted up his trousers, buttoned up his coat and joined the group that perpetrated the greatest bungle that was ever made. Now I wouldn't make any comment about a fellow who would do a thing like that, but I think it should be worthy of note what the fellow did after he said these things. I refer to the Columbia River Treaty, and the fact that we are probably short in the order of $400 million; that's now a billion. We are committed to store water for a period of over 100 years from today, and it looks like all the money that we will ever get has been obtained.

Mr. Chairman, in that cabinet today is one of the most vociferous opponents of indirect shuffling of debt of the Columbia River Treaty out of the books and onto Hydro's books; one of the most vociferous critics of Social Credit about the Columbia River Treaty; one of the persons whose record in this House was criticism, criticism, criticism of Social Credit and the Columbia River Treaty. He then joined Social Credit. He was not part of the original decision of the Columbia River Treaty that now costs $23 out of every $50 bill paid for by a consumer to go to interest rate. His hands were clean of the whole deal. Everybody thought it had all been laid to rest. The Vancouver Province asks some innocent questions of B.C. Hydro or not so innocent questions of B.C. Hydro resurrects the whole period of history and what does the Minister of Finance do? He says: "Let the committee answer these questions." And what does the member for Point Grey do? He says nothing.

Mr. Chairman, there is absolutely no excuse for this Minister of Finance to hide from giving permission and in fact ordering the Vancouver Province's questions to be answered by B.C. Hydro. I suggest, Mr. Minister, that unless those orders are forthcoming, those former Liberals who now sit with Social Credit are going to bear the responsibility of wrapping that terrible bungling history of Social Credit around them elves for short-term political gain.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance sat in this House and agreed with the Columbia River Treaty. The Minister of Finance came to this House and said that we have no direct debt, just a little bit. But the indirect debt is amongst the highest per capita of all of Canada; he neglected to mention that. He neglected to deal with the Vancouver Province's enquiries and he sits in that cabinet with people who were critical of the Columbia River Treaty.

1 say clearly this: the Vancouver Province, no friend of the NDP, is now asking questions that begin to break down the facade of competence and debt-free bookkeeping by this Social Credit administration. The Vancouver Province is new on the raw nerve edge of exposing the fact that this group is protecting the past bungles of Social Credit that are costing the people of this province hundreds of millions of dollars every year just to pay the interest alone on those borrowings. I would guess, very roughly, that the interest on those borrowings alone now amount to $375 million a year. That's $375 million a year out of the electricity-users' pockets in this province to pay off that fiasco. When the Vancouver Province wants to let the sun shine in, the Minister of Finance

[ Page 696 ]

runs and hides and hands a letter to the chairman of the Grown corporation committee in desperation within hours, afraid to take the public scrutiny of the past.

There's no question in my mind, Mr. Chairman, that we will be seeing huge editorials in the Vancouver Province soon, criticizing the Minister of Finance for avoiding these questions, criticizing Social Credit for avoiding direct responsibility, criticizing the fact that simple questions simply asked are now being side-stepped and placing that committee in the jeopardy of being used as a political buffer.

Now come on, Mr. Minister, I haven't called you a single name. You've called them all yourself. Were you guilty because of what I was going to bring up?

Through you, Mr. Chairman, this minister has an obligation to every single taxpayer in the province of British Columbia, to every single electricity user in the province of British Columbia to order the Hydro board to an were those questions of that newspaper, not to use this Legislature as a buffer for any newspaper's questions, not to use a committee of this Legislature as a buffer for a newspaper's questions. What are you afraid of, Mr. Minister?

Let's make it clear, through you, Mr. Chairman. I don't intend to see any of my colleagues used in any way as a foil or a curtain or a disguise or a shuffle for questions that are asked by a newspaper for their own reasons, on behalf of their readers, about public funds. It's not your money; it's not my money; it is the $375 million in interest payments alone, every single year, paid for because of decisions made by government. You asked to be government; you asked to be elected. You said you wanted open government; you said you wanted access to information. Then what right do you have to tell a newspaper that they can't get those answers from a Crown corporation that we're all paying for? I don't have any love for the Vancouver Province, but when they ask a Crown corporation questions and the representatives of government say, "You have to go to committee, " then I say to you, through you, Mr. Chairman, that this government is avoiding its responsibility and avoiding the political responsibility.

I'm amused to hear the Minister of Labour say, "Bull! "

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Is this the way you ran your government?

MR. BARRETT: Is this the way I ran my government? I never kept anything hidden from the taxpayers or the people of British Columbia by going to committee.

Oh, yap, yap, yap, yap, yappy! Get up, Mr Member, and you tell the House that you think the minister should let the reporters ask those questions. Through you, Mr. Chairman, when you were a Liberal, you used to get up and demand access to information. You should say governments can't have secrets. Oh, quotes, quotes. Okay, get up some of those old quotes, gang, about what he used to say about Social Credit.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please!

MR. BARRETT: It's just gorgeous to see his face get a little flushed. It brings out the white hair and the plastic suit a bit more.

Mr. Chairman, that member was a Liberal and condemned Social Credit tooth and nail with his colleague, Dr. Pat McGeer, and with the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) and with those other Liberals over there. Now that they've got power, they've forgotten all the things that they used to stand for when they were Liberals.

Mr. Chairman, the Vancouver Province has asked some questions of a Crown corporation. The Minister of Finance is protecting the Crown corporation from answering those questions. Very shortly, very simply put, what is your policy on questions asked by newspapers to Crown corporations? Do newspapers in this province have a right to ask those questions? Do the Crown corporations of this province have a responsibility to answer those questions? That's it. Let's have it clear and now so the newspapers don't need to hire any more reporters, can cut down on their staff and print only government press releases, if that's going to be the policy. Do the newspapers in this province have a role or don't they? And will the minister tell us that it's the government's policy that Crown corporations cannot answer questions put to them by newspapers? It would save us a lot of time if that's what your policy is.

Mr. Minister, you're embarrassed, and you've compounded the embarrassment by wrapping yourself in past mistakes. There's a billion dollar bungle that we're all paying for. The newspaper wants to find out what went on and you're trying to hide the facts of history from them. What for? Let the sunshine in. The Vancouver Province doesn't support the NDP. Through you, Mr. Chairman, I ask the minister to order B.C. Hydro to answer those questions

[ Page 697 ]

of that newspaper.

AN HON. MEMBER: Get up, Evan.

MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Chairman, I want to give the minister some time to think about it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, your time under standing orders.... If we could have an intervening speaker, then we can make arrangements.

MR. BARRETT: I just sat down. He just got up to sit down.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, we have only just recognized it.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity of saying hello to the Minister of Finance.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr.... (Laughter.)

Mr. Chairman, now that I've started out on my second 40 minutes....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thirty minutes. Committee of supply is 30 minutes per member.

MR. BARRETT: If the minister gives me an answer, I will recommend to the member for Vancouver-Burrard to say good-bye to the minister.

I ask the minister this question: will he order B.C. Hydro to answer the questions submitted to them by the Vancouver Province, to the best of their ability? Will he, as a board member, instruct the appropriate staff in B.C. Hydro to answer the questions put to them by the Vancouver Province, freely and openly? Yes or no.

Will the minister instruct B.C. Hydro, which is owned by the taxpayers of British Columbia, to answer questions put to them by the Vancouver Province?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I will remind you that we can ask questions, but we cannot insist on answers.

MR. BARRETT: I'm not insisting on an answer. I just asked the question. I don't think he heard me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm quite sure the member did hear you.

MR. BARRETT: Are you sure? Would you ask him? Did the minister hear me?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chairman will advise you.

I'm sure the member can hear you from your position; it's quite audible.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are agreed that he heard me. That's correct. We are agreed. Can I ask you this, Mr. Chairman: would you advise me if the minister understood my question?

MR. CHAIRMAN: It's not the position of the Chair, hon. member.

MR. BARRETT: Well, you gave me advice that he could hear me. I want to know if he can understand me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 92 pass?

MR. BARRETT: Now that You assure me that the minister can hear, and we left the question up in the air as to whether or not he understands, I ask, through you, Mr. Chairman: Will the Minister of Finance of this Social Credit government that promised to be open to all the people of British Columbia, promised not to hide anything from the people of British Columbia, to be fair and not to keep bureaucratic government away from the people, order the officials concerned in B.C. Hydro to answer the questions put to them by the Vancouver Province newspaper? Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman: are you willing to say no or yes to the Crown corporation in terms of policy about answering questions from a newspaper?

These are the times I wish that in the Finance Minister's expenditures we had a little money for television. Just think how a $20 television shot would pay off for the people of this province. The minister has been asked clearly if he would have the responsibility to tell the B.C. Hydro to answer questions from the newspaper, and he turns his back. That wouldn't look good on television, would it, Mr. Chairman?

Do you know what, Mr. Chairman? I believe that there may even be MLAs who would leave this chamber and go out and tell people that the minister turned his back in the House when he was asked that question.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who would do that?

MR. BARRETT: I don't know who would do that. I ask you all to pledge here in this House not to tell the people that the minister turned his back when he was asked a question. You know what the Premier said %ten he formed that coalition over there? You know what all those ex-Liberals said when they joined that

[ Page 698 ]

coalition? Even that ex-Liberal, ex-Tory joined that coalition, and they wanted the people of British Columbia to let the sun shine in.

MR. KING: Financial accountability.

MR. BARRETT: A friendly newspaper of theirs - the NDP's opponent. The Vancouver Province has asked some simple, straightforward questions of a Crown corporation. I ask the minister: will he give a simple, straightforward answer to that Crown corporation, telling them to answer the question?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, that's just out of character.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: It was not me who, at the opening of the debate, referred to the occupation of the Minister of Finance. It was not me who suggested he was a car dealer. But now that he brought it up, isn't it out of character for a car dealer to say nothing?

MR. GIBSON: He'll make you a deal.

MR. BARRETT. jake me a deal . How much of a trade-in for an old question? How much mileage can we get out of that question? Can the minister tell me whether or not the question was asked by a little old lady who kept it locked up in her closet?

MR. KING: Do you have any wear left on your treads?

MR. BARRETT: Can the minister tell me that the questions have never been outside of a drawer? Brand-new model questions - got chrome on them.

Mr. Chairman, I ask the minister if he would tell me whether or not, in the vernacular of that experience that he brings to this House, he would prefer me to roll back the questions?

MR. GIBSON: He wants a recall.

MR. BARRETT: A recall. Mr. Member, you are a Liberal. A fine man, a man of principle, and you've stuck to your party. If there's any recalling to be done in this House, I think the voters should recall that coalition over there and say: "Let's have another go at it."

You know, Mr. Chairman, I'm glad that the galleries are not full. I'm glad that there's no direct radio broadcast of this debate today, because there are 49 per cent of the people who voted Social Credit believing that it was a group that was dedicated to informing the people of British Columbia of everything that goes an with their tax dollars. They were not going to hide a single thing, and those cracks made about used-car dealers and millionaires were just nothing more than a figment of imagination of gossip writers in newspapers.

What do we have today, Mr. Chairman? A struck-dumb car dealer, a unique phenomenon in itself.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Ron. member, I must ask you to use temperate language.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, when I can think of the things I can call car dealers, that's pretty temperate.

A struck-dumb car dealer will not answer questions put to him in this House, hasn't even offered to make me a deal on the side, and he's supposed to be the Finance minister of this province. Sitting around him are a coterie.... How do you like that one - a coterie? That's a car. A coterie of ex-Liberals....

MR. COCKE: That's better than a Chevrolet.

MR. BARRETT: Better than a Chevrolet - a coterie. The ex-Liberals do not open their mouths; the ex-Tory is busy down there writing. There he is. I did not mention a name, and look who looked up. Oh, boy!

HON. MR. CURTIS: I don't mind, Dave. That's all you ever talk about. You have nothing else to say.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, if the hair fits, wear it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please address the Chair.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I'm simply asking the Minister of Finance of the wonderful coalition government that brought together Conservatives and Liberals an behalf of the people to fight for information, if he would please order the Crown corporation, B.C. Hydro, to ask - not under "Help Wanted" - a few simple questions about that publicly owned Crown corporation's past dealings. Yes or no, Mr. Minister. Will You ask Hydro to answer those questions?

Now, Mr. Chairman, you told me that he was listening. Mr. Chairman, I had the impression f rom you that he heard what I was saying. Mr.

[ Page 699 ]

Chairman, I don't want to accuse you of anything, but you may be incorrect.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, what I said is I'm sure he can hear you.

MR. BARRETT: Oh. Well, we've established that.

MR. KING: We won't vouch for his understanding.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Ron. members, as the chairman of this committee I can attest to the working facilities of the public address system in this House. In that regard I attest to the fact that he can hear you.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I find myself in a most embarrassing position.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I would think so.

MR. BARRETT: I am making an appeal on behalf of the Vancouver Province. In 18 years I never thought I would get up and make an appeal on behalf of the Vancouver Province, and in case anybody misunderstands this, I'm not suggesting that they renew their subscription or send them any money. The Vancouver Province has asked the Minister of Finance to allow them to ask B.C. Hydro some questions. Everybody who uses electricity in this province is paying $46 out of every $100 in interest alone because of the mess Social Credit got us into - not this government, the previous Social Credit government. The newspaper wants to ask some questions about that mess. It was not caused by that group, that coalition; they inherited the mess. It's $46 out of every $100 that goes to Hydro that goes to pay interest on that mess alone.

The people of this province are not children. The people of this province have a right to know how you are administering the mess that was inherited from the previous Social Credit administration. The people of this province have a right to know, through the newspapers, the answers to the questions that any newspaper puts to that Crown corporation.

I would ask this of the minister: Do you see any reason, Mr. Minister, do you know of any reason why a newspaper should not ask those questions of a Crown corporation? Do you believe it is the responsibility of a newspaper to ask questions of a Crown corporation?

Oh, I think the minister's stonewalling, Mr. Chairman. I think the minister does hear me. I don't think he wants to answer me. You have that sane impression, too? My what a lovely smile you have! Mr. Chairman, I ask a simple question of a simple man - through you, Mr. Chairman - a humble servant of the people, Mr. Chairman. Does the minister think it is the right of a newspaper to ask a Crown corporation questions? What do you think of that, Mr. Chairman? Do you think it's cheeky of a newspaper to ask questions like that? Do you think it's spoiled-brattish of a newspaper, asking questions like that? Do you think that it's bad behaviour by reporters, asking questions like that? No.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, the former President Nixon. Yes, oh, the reporters asked questions of former President Nixon - they had to go to Deep Throat; that's right, the newspapers were stonewalled by Nixon's staff. Is that right?

AN HON. MEMBER: That's right.

MR. BARRETT: Maybe they learned something from Nixon. What was it they used to call Nixon? Tricky Dick. Evasive Evan. Is it the same thing? Tricky Dick and Evasive Evan. No, he's not evasive; he's not even answering. Mr. Chairman, what a fraud this government is, using every single device, including struck-dumbness, to avoid answering responsible questions by the people of this province. They had a lot to say when they were in opposition, had a lot to yak about on hot-lines and television. Where are they now that they've got power? Sleazy; manipulative; evasive; write them all down, Mr. Minister; they're all appropriate.

The people of this province are paying to the teeth over B.C. Hydro's history under Social Credit. The Vancouver Province asks a few questions of the minister, and he refuses to answer those questions, or order them to answer those questions. I ask again, Mr. Chairman, will the minister ask B.C. Hydro to answer those questions for the Vancouver Province. Would you like a little recess to think it over?

Mr. Chairman, am I asking the question in an impolite fashion? Is that offending the minister? Mr. Chairman, would he like me to grovel? Mr. Chairman, would he like me to address him as His Honourable Highness -through you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, what is it that he would like me to use as an introduction before we get to the question?

HON. MR. MAIR: How about "goodbye"?

[ Page 700 ]

MR. BARRETT: No, we said: "Hello." The voters are going to say: "Goodbye." You know, Mr. Chairman, I always like to see the jolly member in the background there - was that a burp or a sigh?

HON. MR. MAIR: Both.

MR. BARRETT: Now we got an answer to a question. He set a pattern; he said: "Both." Now we have to define what "both" means.

HON. MR. MAIR: I threw up.

MR. BARRETT: Well, that was pretty obvious about half an hour ago. Mr. Chairman, I asked the Minister of Finance a simple question: will the Minister of Finance instruct B.C. Hydro to answer questions from the Vancouver Province newspaper?

MR. CHAIRMAN: We can only have one member on his feet at a time.

MR. BARRETT: That's right, that's me. Does he wish to answer?

MR. CHAIRMAN: If he wishes to answer....

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I'd gladly yield the floor to the minister if he indicates he wants the floor. Do you wish the floor, Mr. Minister? No, he doesn't want it. Mr. Minister, will you instruct B.C. Hydro to answer questions from the Vancouver Province?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, the member, to my knowledge, has only asked one question, and he's had lots of time to ask several others. But he asked a beauty, because he alluded to questions - which I, as minister, have been asked - having to do with Hydro's past operations, having to do with tendering procedures, having to do with a lot of alleged activities, which appear to be of a serious nature, Mr. Chairman. I would ask that member, as a member of this Legislature - an hon. member - how he would respond to information of this kind ....

MR. BARRETT: I would order Hydro to answer the questions.

HON. MR. WOLFE: No, you can answer later on, Mr. Member. I took, as a member of this House, responsible action, Mr. Chairman. We have established now, in this province - the first place in the Commonwealth - a Crown corporation reporting committee, established exactly for that purpose. And what did the member ask me just now? He says: "What am I trying to hide from?"

MR. BARRETT: I don't know.

HON. MR. WOLFE: He says you have an obligation not to use this Legislature as a buffer.

MR. BARRETT: That's right.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I think that's a beauty of a question. I have an obligation not to use this Legislature as a buffer? What's it here for, Mr. Chairman, but to bear these things out in the open in front of the people of British Columbia, not to have these matters debated in the newspapers? What are they afraid of, Mr. Chairman? What are they afraid of, trying to raise a smokescreen, a charade of questions like we've had here this afternoon? - a total charade by that Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Chairman. That's all we've got here. He's trying to hide the true facts.

MR. BARRETT: What true facts? What false facts?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Because, Mr. Chairman, we have a committee which will, of course, as indicated by the officials of Hydro, oblige these officials to answer those questions in the proper place before a committee of this Legislature, an all-member committee with members of all parties of this House. Has the member not read the Crown Corporation Reporting Act? This committee shall, under section 2 of the Act, whenever directed to do so by resolution of the House or on its own initiative, and in any case not less than once in every three years, examine such directors and officers.

So Mr. Chairman, this Crown corporation reporting committee was designed for this purpose. I say to the members of this House, as a responsible member I have taken the action which I thought appropriate so everybody in British Columbia can hear and see what these questions mean. They can ask any questions which they want to, Isn't that better than trying to attempt to debate the matter in the newspapers?

This is not an attempt to refuse answers to those questions, Mr. Chairman, but rather it will oblige those questions to be answered. Hydro has already indicated before I was ever in touch with this matter that they were prepared to answer to this Legislature or to the Crown corporation reporting committee.

So these series of questions, Mr. Chairman,

[ Page 701 ]

are really a charade. I would hope that the member would study the Act more closely and realize that this is an attempt to lay the matter open before the people of British Columbia. I would just repeat and remind him of the implications of what he said. He said that I as a member have an obligation not to use this Legislature as a buffer. Is this Legislature here to protect us from the public? Just the opposite is true. What a ridiculous suggestion.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the minister for a little pitch of salesmanship. The Vancouver Province will decide for itself. I won't decide for them, you won't decide for them whom they would like to ask questions of. If any government starts telling newspapers where they must not ask questions or where they can ask questions, then there is a serious doubt as to whether or not that government is committed to freedom of newspapers in our society.

If the newspaper wants to ask the committee questions, it will write to the committee and ask the questions. If the newspaper wants to ask me questions, they are welcome to come and ask me questions. If the newspaper decides in its wisdom that it wants to ask the Grown corporation the questions, then that Grown corporation has an obligation to answer those questions.

"Where does it say that?" says the Minister of Labour. We have built up a tradition in our free democratic society about the freedom of the press to decide for themselves who they are going to ask questions of. "Where does it say that?" says the minister. Does he not have any understanding that the newspapers in a free society will decide for themselves where they ask questions? The government decides the policy of whether or not they're going to answer.

Well, what do you think should be done, Mr. Lawyer? I ask you, through the Minister of Finance to the Minister of Labour: do you think that any newspaper has the right to ask a Crown corporation questions directly without having to go through the minister and a committee?

HON. MR. MAIR: Sure. No question about it.

MR. BARRETT: Okay. Now you're a better answerer than the minister. One minister believes that a newspaper has the right to go to a Grown corporation and ask questions.

HON. MR. MAIR: Right.

MR. BARRETT: We've established that. Then he said: "Do they have to answer?"

HON. MR. MAIR: Right.

MR. BARRETT: Right. Now that question is decided by the government of the day. I want to thank you for your help, Mr. Member for Kamloops; you have really made the point.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Not true? Do you mean to say if the Minister of Finance told B.C. Hydro to answer the questions and B.C. Hydro refused, that the minister didn't have the power to order them to answer those questions?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: That's right.

MR. BARRETT: That's right, you bet your life. The minister I've asked today should tell B.C. Hydro to answer the questions. That's what he should do.

Now if the newspaper doesn't want to go to the committee, that's their business. You have no right to order newspapers or to tell newspapers how they are to gather information. In a free society, any political interference with how newspapers gather their information is a suppression of the right of the press to make its own mind up how it wants to get information. There have been enough court cases about that.

Traditionally, the press gallery doesn't even reveal the sources of their information.

Now, Mr. Minister, you got up with a little smokescreen. I don't know what you are nervous about. What are you scared of? What are you nervous about?

HON. MR. WOLFE: What are you scared of?

MR. BARRETT: I'm not afraid of anything.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Talk about smokescreens!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Minister, why don't you tell the Grown corporation? I'm not afraid of the Crown corporation. If I was a minister I'd tell them to answer the questions. All I'm asking the minister is: would he please tell B.C. Hydro to answer the questions? Is that all right? That's okay. I opened the box and the answer came out. What was the name of that guy? Oh, it was a long time ago.

Mr. Minister, I suspect that you rushed into this place to protect the present B.C. Hydro

[ Page 702 ]

board of directors, and wrote a letter out to the chairman, saying: "You get these people in front of the committee." I want to warn the newspapers and the free press of this country that if ministers of the Grown are going to determine how they should go about collecting their news, then we're going to be back to the old Alberta press Act, when Social Credit tried to suppress the rights of a newspaper.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Smokescreen. Absolute smokescreen.

MR. BARRETT: On what? What is the smokescreen on? Tell me.

[Mr. Lauk in the chair.]

MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance says: "Smokescreen." I'm saying clearly that if a newspaper asks a question, the Crown corporation should answer that question.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why not?

MR. BARRETT: Is that a smokescreen.

Thank you, Mr. Assistant Chairman. I knew you'd agree with me.

Mr. Chairman, the minister has been asked a very clear-cut question that even has the attention of the Table. And now that the Table is aware of it, I want the minister to kindly tell me whether or not it is government policy to direct all newspaper questions to a Crown corporation directly to the committee. Is that going to be policy from now on?

MR. GIBSON: Why don't you move that the Chairman leave the chair?

MR. BARRETT: Well, he just got there.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order!

MR. BARRETT: Well, Mr. Minister of Finance, through you, Mr. Chairman, is it government policy now with the new Crown corporations committee that all questions of Crown corporation directors must be addressed to the committee rather than to the Crown corporation itself? Is that the policy? Is that what you're announcing today?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Oh, that's not the policy. Thank you. We agree on that. That is not the policy. The minister has indicated that it is not the government's policy that all questions asked of Crown corporations are going to be referred to the committee. He agreed to that. Thank you very much, Mr. Minister. Would the minister please tell me what is unique about the question the Vancouver Province is asking that forces them to go the route you suggest rather than have the Crown corporation answer it? Could you tell me that?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. May 1 commend you on the job you're doing?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No.

HON. MR. WOLFE: The member has asked the question whether all questions related to Crown corporations would be referred to the committee. The answer, of course, is no. But I would ask him to place himself in my shoes in a situation where he is advised of information where the allegations are of a serious nature....

MR. BARRETT: What allegations?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Well, in the questions that are being asked ... and if he doesn't feel some obligation to take action as a result of it. I would ask that member to answer what he would do in similar circumstances. This is simply taking responsible action to refer to this House a matter which at the earliest opportunity has been brought to my attention.

MR. BARRETT: I want to thank the minister for conscientiously trying to answer my question. What you're saying is that you made a judgment about the nature of these questions and you felt that the nature of these question was such that you would prefer them to go to a committee rather than have the Hydro board of directors answer them. Is that correct?

HON. MR. WOLFE: The member continually refers to: "rather than have them go to the Hydro, directors." The Hydro directors or staff have already indicated they'd be more than willing to answer these questions in the proper place. So they'll be quite willing to address themselves to these question, I feel sure.

MR. BARRETT: Now just a minute. You're slipping off a little bit of the hook there; you're wriggling. Who defines the proper place? The newspaper, Mr. Chairman. The point that I'm trying to make is finally penetrating. The newspaper has its own right to determine what they consider to be the appropriate place. The newspaper defined

[ Page 703 ]

itself that it wished to go to the board of directors and ask them these questions.

You allude to allegations. What allegations? What allegations were there in the newspaper's questions that caused you to suggest this route?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: That's the trouble. You were better off when you kept quiet.

HON. MR. WOLFE: So were you.

MR. BARRETT: No, no. I'm getting better.

AN HON. MEMBER: Digging yourself in bigger and deeper.

MR. BARRETT: My dear friend - that is you, Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please, not in public!

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, slowly the minister flounders around and gets himself into a little bit of a glue. While some of his colleagues get unstuck, he gets more bound up. He informs us that because of the nature of these questions ....

HON. MR. WOLFE: You're not answering my question. What would you do?

MR. BARRETT: What would I do? All right, if you'd do what I'd do, will you take what I do as the source? I would order the corporation to answer the questions of the newspaper; that's what I would do. Regardless of the nature of the questions, regardless of how You define those questions, answer them to the best of their ability.

HON. MR. WOLFE: What would you ask them to answer?

MR. BARRETT: There are two areas where I would tell them that they must not enter into answers of questions: one is in personnel matters, relating to confidential personnel matters in terms of hiring people while that hiring is going on, or any judgments made in personnel evaluation. I don't think those are cause for public comment - that's one area.

The other area is when there are negotiations going on, contracts being let, being dealt with and being operated on - that must remain confidential. Mr. Minister, you're not listening. You asked for my conditions. Those are the two restrictions I'd put on: personnel matters, that is confidential, personal files ....

HON. MR. CHABOT: Sy Kovachich?

MR. BARRETT: Well, have you got any personnel files you want to share with me, my friend?

Now these questions relate to past contracts. Is that not correct? Yes, they do -past contracts.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! On behalf of the Minister of Public Works, don't sit on the furniture. (Laughter.)

MR. BARRETT: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman. on behalf of the minister who covers for BCBC, don't sit on the chairs.

Now look, you asked me and I told you: current negotiations and personnel files. Nothing else should be kept from the newspapers. They should answer to the best of their ability. That's what I believe. You asked me that, and I gave you my answer.

Now you tell me, through you, Mr. Chairman, what is it in the nature of these questions that make them different, that makes them fall into that kind of openness in answering? Would you tell me that?

You alluded to allegations. What allegations? What are you talking about? Would you tell the House? Did you hear something that you didn't share in the letter to the committee? You never said in the letter to the committee that certain allegations had been made. Did he say that in the letter to the committee - that allegations had been made?

MR. KING: No.

MR. BARRETT: Why, Mr. Chairman, there's confusion on the minister's part here. If there were certain allegations made to you by phone that caused you to refer the matter to the committee, why didn't you tell the committee what those allegations were? But now that you didn't tell the committee, will you tell us, tell the House, so that you won't be a buffer, so that you will be open? You tell us what those allegations were. Let's hear them.

Mr. Minister, it won't wash. The past is the past. What has been done has been done. Let the chips fall where they may. Let the society that we have continue as a free society. Let the newspapers of our society determine whom they're going to ask questions of. Don't stand

[ Page 704 ]

in the way of a newspaper, unless you've got other information that you're not sharing with this House why the newspapers shouldn't ask those questions.

Why, Mr. Chairman, to the minister? What makes these questions different than any other questions? What allegations are there that you have not shared with this House? Now I think you are hiding something. Now I think you are running from something. I was suspicious before, but now you've confirmed those suspicions. Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman, tell us. Level with the House.

MR. KING: Don't be afraid of the big bad wolf.

MR. BARRETT: I'm not a dentist, Mr. Chairman. I can't go on pulling these teeth, one at a time all afternoon. It's taken me an hour and a half to get this little bit of information out of you. I've stroked you; I've comforted you; I've criticized you. Now you're consulting your lawyer who gave me a little more information than you did about policy. It's a good thing you're not a widow, I'll tell you. It wouldn't be very good advice for widows, considering that member's performance. But now that you've had the advice....

MR. KING: He'll get a bill tomorrow.

MR. BARRETT: No, Bill's supposed to be back today, isn't he?

Mr. Chairman, would the minister tell the House what he was referring to when he said allegations were made? Would you care to answer that?

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

MR. BARRETT: Ah, come on.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I don't how long the opposition leader wants to carry on avoiding other questions members may want to ask. I can only say this. With regard to the questions which reporters have placed before Hydro - and there are a number of them - I'm not in possession of any information which, as I understand it, the committee now has before it - the same list of questions. I don't know what action they will take, but I would hope that they will deal with the matter. It will be within their wisdom to decide.

But I don't like to say that I think this is irresponsible action, to take the earliest opportunity I have to put this in what I think is the appropriate place to handle it. If this matter had been handled in any different way and had begun to appear in the press, et cetera, which it is now doing through a series of articles, I wonder who the first member of this House would be to be standing up in this House calling for a public inquiry, suggesting that we were trying to hide the facts. I just know exactly the one-hour speech we would hear from that opposition leader across the way. That's exactly what would have happened. Just the reverse is true. We're trying to lay the facts before the proper medium to deal with the question. It's obvious that officials of Hydro will be obliged to answer the questions, rather than pick and choose the ones they don't wish to.

[Mr. Rogers in the chair.]

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, what the minister has said is that his fear of my speech that he may not like or his dislike of my predicted reaction has forced him to take this course of action. That's what you said: "I can just imagine what would happen...."

HON. MR. WOLFE: That's not what I said.

MR. BARRETT: All right, tell me what you said again - that you were worried about what the House would say if you didn't follow this course of action. Well, I'm telling you, that's one heck of a way to make policy. If you're worried about what the opposition is going to say, quit.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I will repeat, as briefly as I can, that I'm not in possession of any information which is not now before the committee.

MR. BARRETT: Okay, why did you say "allegations"?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Have a look at the questions, Mr. Member.

And I only have intimated that had I not taken my view of the responsible action, which I have, guess who, Mr. Chairman, would be the first member of this House to be on his feet with his usual one-hour speech, saying that we're trying to withhold the facts, calling for a public inquiry, et cetera. He would be calling for this matter to go before that committee - that's just exactly what he would be doing.

MR. BARRETT: Let it be on the record that I have always believed, even before that member became Minister of Finance, that if reporters ask questions of Crown corporations the

[ Page 705 ]

responsible people in the Crown corporations should answer those questions. All I have asked of you today, instead of all the silence and flim-flam, is simply this: why can't the newspapers go directly to a Crown corporation?

Now that I have your undivided attention again, Mr. Minister, the newspapers determine for themselves who they want to ask questions of. You don't call royal commissions or inquiries simply because of questions asked by newspapers. We get asked questions every day in the corridor. Are you worried about me or are you worried about doing the right thing? Well, you're obviously worried about me because I'm telling you, Mr. Chairman, that if your best defence is telling that corporation that they can't answer the questions because the Leader of the Opposition will get up and demand an inquiry, that's asinine.

Mr. Chairman, you have a responsibility as a Crown representative and as a cabinet minister, and you are interfering with the free press and the decision of the free press to make that choice as to who they are going to ask questions of, by telling the free press that you will decide which questions the Crown corporation will answer and which ones will be shied off to committee. It's up to the press to determine whom they want to answer questions. If you don't want the Grown corporation to answer them, say so. Announce that as policy, because it's simple. All it takes is a phone call or a note from you ordering the Crown corporation to answer those questions. That's simple. You know what you could have said to the press when they phoned you? "Boys, thanks for the call. I will issue a note to Hydro and release it publicly. Hydro, answer these questions directly to the newspaper." Why did you go to committee? Because you're hiding.

MR. GIBSON: I will be very brief. It's a follow-up on the particular topic raised by the Leader of the Opposition.

To review the history of this particular case, we have two enterprising reporters of the Vancouver Province working for some weeks, I understand, on a story related to construction management practices in B.C. Hydro. The reporters developed an extensive series of questions and were largely stonewalled by the corporation, up to and including its chief executive officer, in obtaining answers to those questions.

The reporters appealed to the minister for answers to those questions or a directive that the corporation itself should be required to answer them. The minister, upon receipt of that request from the reporters, came into this House and made what to me is a most extraordinary statement. I want to quote it to put it on the record again. This was on Wednesday last and the minister said:

"I want to advise the House that yesterday I was telephoned by a Mr. Alex Young, reporter for the Province newspaper, who contacted me, as newly appointed director of B.C. Hydro, and indicated that he had been in discussion with officials of Hydro in an effort to obtain detailed information surrounding different electric generating projects initiated prior to 1976. Because of the detailed nature of these questions, and because I am a newly appointed director of Hydro, I consider it appropriate to turn this entire matter over to the Crown corporation reporting committee, which was a procedure developed by the Legislature for this very purpose.

"With this in mind, I have now written to Mr. Veitch, the chairman of this committee, and advised him to take up the matter of these questions at the earliest opportunity. Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to table a copy of that letter."

Mr. Chairman, let us agree at once that the Crown corporations reporting committee is a wonderful thing, one of the better things that has been done by this chamber. And let us agree that an interesting group of questions has been brought forward to the minister by the reporters for the Vancouver Province.

The minister's statement to this House, I say, represents a very dangerous precedent in this Legislature. The first thing his statement does is to attempt to set the priorities of the Crown corporations reporting committee. That is not the role of that minister. It is something that can be done by this whole House by resolution; that is provided for in law, and apart from that, that committee is to be independent of the executive council. Ministers were deliberately excluded from its membership, and I suggest that the committee should not and will not stand for any direction from the executive branch. That will be up to the committee, and we will see about that in due course.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I agree.

MR. GIBSON: Well, Mr. Minister, if you agree, why are you, in effect, instructing, or attempting to instruct, the chairman of that committee? You "advised him to take up the matter of these questions at the earliest opportunity." If you wanted to tender him some private advice, you could have written him a

[ Page 706 ]

letter and said: "I think it would be as well for you to try and do these things, " rather than try to pressure the committee. What the committee does, as I say, we will see in due course. That is up to the committee.

HON. MR. WOLFE: That's right. Exactly.

MR. GIBSON: The second thing, which I'm more concerned about with respect to the House than the committee, is the precedent that can be set if a minister is allowed to avoid his managerial responsibility in answering questions simply by referring things to the committee.

AN HON. MEMBER: Hear, hear!

MR. GIBSON: Are we going to see the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) standing up in this House when he's asked an embarrassing question about the BGR - which is also under the purview of this committee - and reply by saying: "I'll refer that question to the Crown corporations reporting committee."? Are we going to see the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. McGeer) , who is responsible for ICBC, when he's asked an embarrassing question about that Crown corporation, say: "I'll refer that to the committee."? We simply cannot have the possibility of ministers hiding behind the committee in that way. It's the logical upshot of the minister's statement the other day.

The committee, Mr. Chairman, is investigative. It is not managerial. It is the executive branch of the government and the minister and the Crown corporation board that are managerial. The committee investigates at its own pace, according to its own priorities. It has a limited staff and has to work in a regular and orderly way. It cannot assume the job of doing the government's work for it, or doing boards of directors' work for them; and it cannot manage. That's up to the government, and it's up to the boards of directors.

Now, Mr. Chairman, this minister is responsible to this chamber for B.C. Hydro, and I say that, whether this committee exists or not, he is bound to answer questions to this chamber with respect to B.C. Hydro, and 1 say he is also bound to answer questions to the press and to the public with respect to B.C. Hydro. The chairman of Hydro, Mr. Bonner, is responsible to the public and to the press with respect to the operation of that company. They must either answer questions, or else they can take it on their own responsibility and refuse to answer a question. They have a right to do that too, but if they do that, the blame must be clearly identified. They must accept that responsibility of refusing to answer questions, and not hide behind the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I have no doubt that in the long run, ....

HON. MR. WOLFE: Hide behind the Legislature? Is that what you're saying?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. One member at a time.

MR. GIBSON: Mr. Minister - through you, Mr. Chairman - I say that when you're asked a question you must either answer the question or not. And if you say you don't choose to answer the question, that's fine, that's your right, but it's also your responsibility to accept that responsibility. I say that in this particular case you should have told Hydro to answer the questions, except insofar as their legal position might have been prejudiced by so doing.

In the fullness of time the committee will exercise its responsibility in this regard, as it may decide.

HON. MR. WOLFE: And you're on it too, eh?

MR. GIBSON: Yes, I am on that committee, Mr. Minister. And it's up to the committee as to how it proceeds on that, but it is not up to you to tell it how to do its work; and it is up to you to answer questions from the press with respect to matters coming under your responsibility when they are asked of you. I say that's a very important principle, and no other minister aver there must get the idea that this is any kind of precedent, whereby they can avoid their responsibilities for answering to this House with respect to the Crown corporations on whose boards of directors they sit.

MRS. JORDAN: Mr. Chairman, I've listened to this debate with considerable interest. I do sit on this committee. I don't profess to be an authority in legal technicalities, but, in looking back to the original mandate that this committee was given, a number of points should be recalled.

The first is that this government - through the Premier - on assuming office, made it very clear that they wanted to remove Grown corporations from political influence and free them from the pressures they've been subjected to in previous years, particularly in the 1972 era.

[ Page 707 ]

The second thing that the Premier stated we s that he was deeply concerned about the accountability of Grown corporations to the public. He was deeply concerned about the ability of even governments, and certainly the public, to truly understand whether or not Crown corporations were operating within their mandates, and whether or not Crown corporations were actually taking into account the public interest to the degree that they should.

This is not a unique situation, Mr. Chairman, this is a common concern across North America - a concern expressed by the federal government, which is led by the party of which the former speaker is a member. That government set up an inquiry and established a White Paper about Crown corporations. Its purpose was to identify the problems related to Crown corporations as they have evolved, to suggest manners in which these problems might be dealt with, to suggest means by which Crown corporations might be made more accountable to their shareholders, the public, and more accountable to their original mandates, and a means by which perhaps those original mandates might be updated in keeping with society's needs today and the changing economic picture, as well as the changing social picture in which we live.

The federal government chose not to respond to that paper, and it's common knowledge that the legislation which was drafted to deal with the recommendations of that White Paper are, in fact, of little value, to put it charitably.

This government, through the Premier, established a completely unique body. It combined what we hope are the strengths of the American congressional committee system, as well as the strengths of the British parliamentary committee system. It has a very broad mandate. It has a fiscal mandate which allows it to secure, without question, without resorting to the usual constraints of going before Treasury Board, to seek the expertise that it needs to carry out its mandate, which does in fact stress the role of government in relation to Crown corporations and the manner in which Crown corporations are operating today, and how the interest of the shareholders - the public of British Columbia - might best be served.

In listening to this debate, Mr. Speaker, and recalling the original legislation and the purpose for which it was designed, I really must question how anyone who is deeply concerned about B.C. Hydro, in this instance and the public interest, could not see that this is the most appropriate forum for this particular subject to be referred. I believe we all have the greatest respect for the Fourth Estate, as it is called, and the media, but, Mr. Chairman, we must also recall in dealing with this very serious subject that the accountability of the media is a matter of serious public concern. Freedom of the press is a cherished democratic principle, but there is much concern today that suggests that perhaps freedom of the press is, in fact, being carried too far in the interests of other accountabilities of the media, such as ratings, selling their papers, and personal development and reputation within the media field of the individual. I don't say this critically of the media, but I do feel that it is a point that must be weighed very seriously in this debate. Because surely the responsibility of this Legislature has to be above the media and it has to be above the Crown corporation. It must be to the public we serve, and the best avenue to which we can serve that public.

I believe that the minister, in forwarding these questions, took these matters into consideration. Certainly I would have. When one considers the debate which is suggesting that it is the Fourth Estate's right to demand all that it wishes from the Crown corporation, then one is not considering the forum in which those answers would be debated, because that forum would be through the media, without the opportunity for other input. I believe that to succumb to that approach would, in fact, be letting the media control this Legislature and, in one sense, letting the media stand between what perhaps the committee on Crown Corporations should initiate on its own. It might come into question as to how the committee receives the information it does, and how it might act on that information.

But surely, with the mandate it has, it is important that that committee should be able to receive a free flaw of information, whether it comes through this House, from the media, or from a citizen at large, and then apply that information within its terms of reference, or its mandate.

In listening to the hon. member for North Vancouver--Capilano (Mr. Gibson) , I cannot help but feel that he is making a straw man. I feel that what he says in this debate is in conflict with what he has said in other debates where he had strongly opposed political interference in Crown Corporations by ministers - a fact, I believe, we are all in agreement with. I would just say, Mr. Chairman, that if we examine this objectively in terms of the accountability of the Fourth Estate, the accountability of this Legis-

[ Page 708 ]

lature, the capabilities of this committee, and the ability of Hydro, should it so choose, to in fact hide behind the questions that the media poses.... There is no guarantee, if those questions went directly to Hydro and were answered, that in fact the answers that might necessarily be required would be given. There really would be no way of checking on the criteria which Hydro used to establish whether or not those answers should be given.

If it is summoned, Hydro must go before the committee. The committee has the power to subpoena; the committee has the power to go in camera; in fact, it has unlimited powers. Hydro cannot, should it choose, hide from the committee, but, I submit, it could hide from the media if it chose; it could hide from the minister if it chose. On such a complex board as B.C. Hydro, it is unlikely that one or two ministers could in fact truly assess the details of some of these answers or of some facets of Hydro.

I think many of us, including the member for Revelstoke-Slocan (Mr. King) , have been in conversation with many people who have been on the Hydro board. It takes two to three years to even begin to understand the complexities of Hydro. But this committee has the resources to call in the type of authorities and the type of specialists needed to analyse the questions that Hydro will be asked to answer. On this basis, I must fully support the minister. 1 must say, without doubt in my mind, that the avenue for these questions is before the Grown corporations committee, where we have all parties represented, we have perhaps the strongest possible avenue for the public interest to be represented, and where there is no way, should it wish, for Hydro to hide.

MR. KING: 1 an becoming more and more alarmed. as the afternoon goes on, when I hear some of the propositions put before this House to justify the minister's rather unusual dodge in neglecting his responsibility as a board member of the directors of B.C. Hydro in shuffling this responsibility off to a committee of the House. I want to say that the previous speaker did nothing to assuage my concern about the attitude of some government members to the Fourth Estate and to the principle of freedom of the press.

To put forth the proposition that a minister of this government, or indeed any politician, has the right to make subjective judgments about questions that are put forward to Crown agencies - for that matter, departments of government - by the media, is, in my view, a misunderstanding of the role and of the need for a free, independent press and media in this province and in this nation. I'm just appalled to hear the member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) suggest that because the media is perhaps less than completely accountable in terms of what they put into print today.... It is a bit frightening. The press is subject to the laws of slander and libel, and if they go beyond the pale of those laws, in terms of questioning public policy or investigating public policy, then there is a remedy through the courts. On the other hand, the media is responsible on libel and for condemnation by the public, who are their clients and on whom they must rely on for their very survival in the sane way that a politician will be judged at the polls. There is a remedy and there is a consequence if anyone is publicly irresponsible in putting forward an interrogation of a Crown corporation or anyone else.

The dangerous thing is to put forward the proposal here in the House that the minister who is a director of this particular Crown agency should have the right to make a subjective judgment and then divert the responsibility for answers from the management of Hydro to a Crown corporation reporting committee, the function of which is fine and the concept of w;which is fine, but which is still dominated by a majority of government members.

I don't think any realistic person would suggest that we overlook the linkage between the majority of the members on that committee and the minister. They're members of the same government. Perhaps the member for North Okanagan could agree in a moment of forthrightness that those kinds of affinities have tended over the historical perspective of the ages to taint the judgment of certain people when there's that kind of a political affinity. I think even the member for North Okanagan would admit that.

I want to ask the Minister of Finance precisely what he conceives as his responsibility as a member of the board of directors of B.C. Hydro. The government has said they don't want the Hydro agency to be dominated by politics. The fact of the matter is that the minister is still a director of that board. I'm not sure he is the only one. I think he and one of his colleague both sit on the board. But the minister definitely sits on the board. Perhaps the minister would be kind enough to explain to me precisely what he sees as his role and his function on that board.

I was always under the impression that one of the functions of directors of boards of any agency is to govern, formulate and set policy. Now surely it would be within the terms of his

[ Page 709 ]

reference, within his purview, to say to Hydro: "You should answer questions put to you by the press regarding public interest matters in this province." I would not see that kind of direction to be politically coercive in a destructive way in terms of Hydro meeting their public obligations. I would see that, indeed, as being a responsible proposition. If he is not there as an instrument of policy, I'd like to know what the minister conceives his role to be on the board of directors of B.C. Hydro.

I'm very interested also in the minister's reference in the House this afternoon to allegations contained in the questions put forward by the Vancouver Province reporters. Perhaps the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) would help the Minister of Finance. Since when does a question become an allegation? What did the Minister of Finance find in the questions put forward by the Vancouver Province that he would characterize as allegations? The minister has obviously made some judgments about the wisdom of responding to the questions put forward by the Vancouver Province reporters. I become very concerned and very alarmed, indeed, when I hear of members of the executive council making these kind of subjective judgements about the obligation of Grown corporations - Crown agencies - to respond to the media in an open and f rank way, rather than to do so on the basis of judgments made by politicians on those boards of directors. This is a new twist that I haven't encountered in this Legislature before. The proposition being put forward by the minister is one that frightens me, quite frankly.

You know, this is similar to the proposition of government control of the press, a government monitoring of what the media is free to ask. I wouldn't say that it's as far as Idi Amin has gone in terms of controlling the press and the rights of free agencies in that nation. I wouldn't say that at all. But the chipping away....

Interjection.

MR. KING: It looks like I have some company. No, I do not believe in censorship of the press in any way. Province reporters have come forward and they've put some questions to the management of B.C. Hydro. Mr. Chairman, that government over there sees that Mr. Bonner, former Social Credit cabinet minister - he knows his way around politically - is well paid as chairman of that corporation. I would think that the government would have enough confidence in Mr. Bonner to answer the questions put to that agency. 1 would think that they'd have that kind of confidence in him.

Interjection.

MR. KING: Well, the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) is very vocal, Mr. Chairman. 1 hope that he's that brilliant when we come to his estimates, because I've found that the Minister of Finance is not willing to discuss his responsibilities this afternoon. It's the Minister of Finance that we're directing our attention to at the moment, and I would rather not be diverted by any red herring or any other coloured herring.

I'm very concerned about the need for the minister to filter both his responsibility as a Hydro director and the responsibility of the management of that corporation to answer questions to the free press of this province through a committee which, everyone will have to acknowledge, is dominated by a majority of government members.

Perhaps the minister would explain that to me - I would appreciate it - particularly what he sees as his role, his function and his obligation on the Hydro board.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, 1 think the member well knows, from his prior experience, that there's one government minister member on that board. He's one vote on that board. He doesn't tell the board what to do, what not to do - no way.

A variety of statements were made in the last few minutes in which there was concern expressed that we have established a precedent. Well, naturally it's a precedent; we've never had this committee before.

Mr. Chairman, I have been accused of avoiding my responsibility, which is absolute nonsense. I'm still responsible, as the appointed minister on that board, for whatever actions Hydro might take. Whatever decision the committee may want to make in regard to this matter, I'm still the responsible member to this Legislature for the Hydro board.

Furthermore, it is clearly indicated in the statement which I made and the letter which I wrote to the chairman of the committee that I did not order them or instruct them. I turned the matter over to them for their consideration because I felt that this was an appropriate place for it to be dealt with by the Legislature on a matter which concerned me. 1 still think that's appropriate. 1 have not instructed them. They can take whatever action they may see fit as a result of having

[ Page 710 ]

this matter before them. They may chose not to deal with it. But I've turned the matter over to them for their consideration. That committee has the power to call witnesses and to examine the matter right out in the open, where the public can see what's going on. I think that's the appropriate way to deal with it.

Furthermore, we should not lose sight of the fact that this committee is strictly a committee of members, not members of the executive council. It will have an unbiased view. It's represented by all members of this House, a completely unbiased view.

MR. KING: Who holds the majority?

HON. MR. WOLFE: It's an all--party committee. So once again, Mr. Chairman, I think this is the proper place to deal with a matter of this nature.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, would the Minister of Finance care to advise the House what would be his approach if the committee decides, in their wisdom and in their independence, that they do not wish to take up this particular question put forward by the Vancouver Province? What will the minister's position be then?

The minister is saying then that he, in fact, is aiding and abetting the silence of B.C. Hydro management with respect to any answers to these questions.

HON. MR. WOLFE: That's baloney!

MR. KING: The minister has said a number of things. He said that he's referred it to a committee of the House. He's agreed he has no right to instruct that committee. He says, if the committee decides not to investigate it, that's all right too.

HON. MR. WOLFE: That's up to them.

MR. KING: That's up to them. Okay. In that event, unless the minister has a commitment from that committee - perhaps he does - well then, in that event, what will be the minister's approach? What will be his approach to obtaining answers for the Vancouver Province reporters, if the Crown corporations reporting committee refuses to take under advisement the matter that he has suggested they take under advisement? Where will he go then?

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, very clearly, I have not instructed the committee, and secondly, that question about what I would do if so-and-so is clearly hypothetical and presupposes turns of events. We'd have to deal with the matter at the time.

MR. KING: My point is, Mr. Chairman - and it seems to me very clear - that the minister is avoiding his responsibility as part of the board of directors of Hydro. Now he has no authority to instruct the committee to provide answers put forward by a private newspaper. Surely the issue here is the right of a newspaper, or any of the other media in this province, to ask questions of and expect answers from Crown corporations and government agencies.

Now if the minister, as a director of that particular corporation, is not strong enough to influence the policy of that corporation, and if he is seriously suggesting to this House that the government itself - the funding agency for Hydro in large part - has no influence and control over its policy, then I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that he should resign as a minister and they should resign as a government, because clearly B.C. Hydro and Power Authority exists and survives at the pleasure of this Legislature, controlled by that Social Credit coalition. He's dodging his responsibility. What is it in the questions put forward by this paper that he refuses to deal with and meet his responsibility on -either through the board of directors, himself answering the questions, or his insisting that the management of that agency answer them?

There is no assurance that the committee will take up this matter, no assurance whatsoever. Is the minister saying that from now on any question that is asked by the media people with respect to Hydro, Can-Cel, a variety of other agencies such as the railway and so on are all going to be diverted through a committee dominated by a majority of government members? Why is that necessary? If that's the case, what have we got directors from the executive council sitting on these boards for? What kind of responsibility do you accept and acknowledge through your directorship? What a pale, miserable excuse for responsibility in this House, Mr. Chairman.

MR. STEPHENS: Mr. Chairman, I think it should be clear that this is not an all-party committee. The Conservative Party is not represented on this committee and for that reason I think that my remarks in this debate....

MRS. JORDAN: You weren't around.

[ Page 711 ]

MR. STEPHENS: Well, I might not have been around, but you should know that I requested that the chairman of the committee arrange for my appointment to that committee. He has assured me that that request has gone forward now, but I've been here three weeks and I've had no indication that my party will be represented at all.

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't be impatient.

MRS. JORDAN: You don't have enough members to go around.

MR. STEPHENS: So let's get that straight: , Lt's not an all-party committee. I think that's important, Mr. Chairman. I think the minister should give that consideration, because it greatly detracts from your argument that you feel that this committee is totally unbiased and totally representative of this House. It simply is not.

The second thing that I'd like to point out.... This is probably a matter that has not yet been mentioned, and I think is very important, Mr. Chairman, through you to the minister: you've stated that the committee, because it has the powers of inquiry, can do a better job than you might do as the minister in finding the true facts and answering these questions. I'm inclined to agree with chat and I think I'll accept that your motivation in handing this matter to the committee.... I think you're well motivated and I see no indication that you're attempting to hide anything, as has been suggested.

But the dangers involved are obvious and it's quite apparent to me that when you make these decisions, because of the partisan nature of this House, it's sometimes difficult for you to retreat or back up. But I think you should consider something that's not been mentioned, and that is when the press or any member of the media asks you, as the minister, for information, you can refuse to give it or you can give it, but you do not have any authority whatever to inquire into or demand any answers from the press as to why it's asking these questions.

Now I'm concerned that this committee, with its power of subpoena and its wide powers....

Interjection.

MR. STEPHENS: The member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) said it has unlimited powers. That's not quite right, but it certainly has strong powers.

What is to protect the media from being subpoenaed before this committee and being cross-examined as to why they're asking these questions and the information they want? It would be a very dangerous precedent, and if that kind of a precedent is set here, there may be no turning back from it. So I'm going to ask the minister to reconsider his position on this. You've now had the opportunity of hearing the arguments from the other side of the House - and 1 accept that a lot of the reasons you have given are valid - but sometimes the dangers on the other side of the scale should require you to reconsider this matter, because of the direction that we might be going in. That's my point.

MR COCKE: I'd just like to review a bit of the history of this whole area in terms of the Crown corporation reporting committee. The committee was set up in response to a piece of legislation that, prior to its enactment, was debated by a number of government members and by a number of people in the House and, at the time, it was a sunshine sort of bill. It was indicated that it would be just private members on the committee, that we wouldn't have government direction, that the committee would be out there developing its own priorities. Instead, Mr. Chairman, what we have found is that at the very first meeting of that committee it was decided in the infinite wisdom of the government members that we should be discussing Hydro transit. We had a short little flurry on Hydro transit, a matter of one day when you couldn't get into anything in depth, and then suddenly we were veered off Hydro transit and onto the now almost defunct B.C. Housing Corporation.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. We're on the estimates of the Minister of Finance.

MR. COCKE: I recognize that, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The procedures of another committee are not to be discussed in this committee.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance in this House provided a statement and a letter directing that committee. Now if the Minister of Finance wants to take no responsibility for that committee, then he should not have done what he did in this House, Mr. Chairman. And I'm just trying to indicate to you and to the House that what we've seen to date has been something less than lacklustre about the whole way this committee is being run. All of those great

[ Page 712 ]

ideals that were set to begin with are under a cloud, a cloud that included a chairman who got himself into trouble very early.

But let me get back to this whole question. I suggest to you that what I'm saying here is that that minister is a part of a cabinet that's giving direction to the committee. 1 say it's giving direction because there was no question in the chairman's mind .... Once the ministers letter was on the table, there was no question in his mind. He got up to give a statement. He could not give a statement in here; he gave it in the hall. And what was that statement? He said: "I will immediately summons the subcommittee...."

HON. MR. CHABOT: Should he delay it?

MR. COCKE: There you are. Mr. Chairman, that's the whole question I'm trying to debate. The ministers are proving themselves irresponsible, because at the beginning they debated this committee as being a committee that would set its priorities, except by resolution. The minister brought in no resolution. He brought in a PR job and put it on the table, and said: "Committee. go do your work." And the chairman went out in the hall and said: "Yes, I'll respond to the minister by jumping to his command." What kind of a private members' committee is that?

Mr. Chairman, 1 suggest to you this: if the newspapers are to be responded to - not debating it in the newspapers - properly, let Hydro answer their questions. If the committee feels that there's something there after seeing their response, then the committee in its own wisdom, or by direction of the House, can then go into this whole question. I'd love to go into the Hydro situation for a couple of years. Unfortunately the committee doesn't have that much time.

MRS. JORDAN: Oh, are you planning on leaving?

MR. COCKE: No, I mean the committee doesn't have that much time to deal with one Crown corporation. There are a number of them. But it strikes me there are all sorts of areas in Hydro that should be smartened up. I'm not sure whether we should go over the whole history of Hydro, but I'm certainly sure, as 1'm sure our chairman is and the chairman of our committee today is, that Hydro has to be thoroughly looked at. There are some areas that would make one feel that there is a great deal to be looked over in that area.

Mr. Chairman, I suggest to you that the minister pulled what he's been noted for pulling - a bit of a headline-hunting job on that day.

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh, oh!

MR. COCKE: Oh, yes, and I saw the headlines the very next day in response to this sort of airy-fairy request.

I suggest that the reporters have done the research; the committee hasn't in these particular areas. Why shouldn't the reporters ask the questions? Why should a group of people on a committee ask specific questions? Why not let the reporters ask the questions? If we feel at that time that the matter hasn't been looked into in sufficient depth, then let the committee do its work. But why, why, why?

I tell you, Mr. Chairman, that same minister ordered Clarkson Gordon to do a job. What a put-up that was. How can we be asked to trust him? And how could we be asked to believe that that committee isn't under instruction from the government - that is the government members on that committee - when our chairman jumps up and says immediately, without "consultation": "Yes, yes. Call the subcommittee together immediately and respond in that manner."

Mr. Chairman, I don't think I can trust this whole situation. I say that to date we have something to worry about the way this thing is being handled. I say that if Young and Turnbull have done a job, they've researched the question, then let them ask the questions. They're not going to be able to ask those questions on the committee; it's up to us to ask the questions. Why, then, are we being asked as committee members to ask their questions for them? How do we know, under the circumstances, who to summon as witnesses? Obviously, Young and Turnbull might. Would not it be great! I suppose our chief witness would be Bob Bonner. What a star witness that would be. He isn't noted for his fair play and candour in matters such as protecting governments, et cetera, et cetera, especially when they're of his own political stripe, although I'm sure that he's looking at the divergence of the stripe at the moment.

MR. LAUK: Yellow.

MR. COCKE: That's the one in the middle.

MR. LAUK: Going down the back.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) has asked, and I would ask the same question of the minister: have a second look at this question. Let Hydro

[ Page 713 ]

take the responsibility for its actions, and let Hydro speak for itself. If the committee wishes to, the committee can respond later, in terms of its needs.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I have some very serious questions to ask the minister with respect to a board member of B.C. Hydro. I would ask if he would make a note, and if he cannot answer immediately in committee, if he could indicate when he replies when the committee can expect the answers.

My questions revolve around the person George Brazier, Sr., who is on the board of B.C. Hydro. I would ask the minister whether he could inform the committee on what boards....

HON. MR. GARDOM: That's the wrong Brazier.

MR. LAUK: It's George Brazier, Sr., isn't it? The lawyer?

AN HON. MEMBER: It's Charlie.

MR. LAUK: I'm sorry, Charles Brazier. Charles is dad, right. Sorry. George is a classmate of mine, so I just.... All right.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: He always does, and he speaks well of you, too, which indicates, Mr. Chairman, that his judgment is not always correct.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, through you to the minister, Mr. Charles Brazier sits on the board of Hydro. On what company boards does he sit as a director, other than that of Hydro? No. 2, what contracts of supply or service were let by Hydro to these companies on whose boards he sits as a director during his term of office as a director of Hydro?

While the minister is contemplating [illegible] that answer can be given to this committee - 1 assume during the course of his estimates, because I have follow-up questions to ask, Mr. Chairman - I want to express on my own behalf, as a member for Vancouver Centre, my views on the Crown corporations reporting committee involved in this matter.

As 1 stated at the time that the bill establishing such a committee was introduced and debated in this Legislature, we will soon see this committee being a sap of the powers and structure of the Legislature itself. It defies common sense - as was argued in the press and, I might say, on all sides of the

House during that debate - to take a 100-year old Legislature, which has been partisan, sometimes bitterly, sometimes less so, and to construct a smaller version of it, call it a committee, and pretend that it will not be so partisan.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the Crown corporations committee does not come directly under the purview of the Minister of Finance. Under standing order 43, there are some details about relevance, and this is not really relevant to the Minister of Finance. Now there is the f act that he ref erred a question to the committee, and that's debatable, but not the function of the committee or the workings of the committee at this time. I would refer you to page 451 of the 17th edition of Sir Erskine May.

MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll thumb through that tonight instead of having supper.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please keep it strictly relevant.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, I only refer to it in passing, because what we have is a situation whereby the traditional powers of members in this Legislature are being siphoned off, in one example, to this committee. Here is the kind of situation we're faced with. We have questions to ask this minister with respect to the very questions that are now referred to the committee. I now hear that the committee is meeting in camera and that the press have no access to such a committee, as they do to the Legislature here and to the Committee of the Whole House.

MR. STRONGMAN: Your members agreed to it.

MR. LAUK: This is a startling detraction from the power of the Legislature.

I said at the outset of my remarks that I happen to be speaking on my own with respect to my views of this committee. I was very vociferous against its establishment for the fear that it would siphon off the power of the Legislature. You mark my words, in the next several years it will be used by any government in power to hide and to keep back from public view the real facts of Grown corporations. I am glad the Hydro questions have come up before this committee. At least now we will have a firsthand view to see how this committee is a mistake, and always was. It camp in on the slogan that we'll open up the Grown corporations. I knew that it was

[ Page 714 ]

going to do the opposite; I predict that it will do the opposite, and we'll all be worse off for it.

I think here is the proper place for airing the issues that should be before the public. There's nothing to hide. We can't vote to hear anything in camera in Committee of the Whole House, and the press have access to the whole House.

I deeply regret the undemocratic use of committees of this Legislature to hide from the public facts that may embarrass any government, but facts that should be known by , the public so they can make an informed decision. Could the minister indicate when I could receive an answer to my questions?

MR. CHAIRMAN: As you know, we can ask questions but we are not bound to ask for an answer.

HON. MR. WOLFE: They are answers which I just don't have before me at this moment. I'll have then as soon as I can.

MRS. JORDAN: I don't intend to prolong this debate, but there are two or three issues which have been left hanging, which I think should be cleared in view of the fact that there are other committee members here not able to defend themselves under this estimate.

First, to the hon. member who has just spoken. His suggestion that he opposed the formation of such a committee financed by the province because it would be used to siphon off information is contrary to everything that has been said by literally every member in this House. In discussing financial estimates, there has been a plea for funds to establish new and more effective ways of managing the business of this province. I'm sorry I haven't had the time to peruse Hansard, in view of the fact the member just sat down, but I'll bet, through you, Mr. Chairman, $100 that that member has said in this House and outside this House that there must be a better way of managing the public's business; there must be a better way of handling the business of this Legislature. That's exactly what this committee was established to do. In listening to this debate, it seems to me that the NDP are taking the position of - as we say in obstetrics - is she is or is she ain't - half pregnant? Do those members want a better way? Do those members want this committee or do they not?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I must stop you at this point and call you to order. We are now discussing the estimates of the Minister of Finance and not the Grown corporation reporting committee. I would again refer you to page 451, 17th edition, of Sir Erskine May, which states quite clearly: "The proceedings and reports of a select standing committee may not be referred to in the debate before they have been laid upon the table." We are here to discuss the estimates of the Minister of Finance and not the Committee on Grown Corporations. Please continue.

MRS. JORDAN: Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman. I'm sorry if I strayed, but the point in dealing with the Minister of Finance's estimates is that he laid on the table of this House information relating to his responsibilities upon which a body that has been established by this House can or cannot act, depending upon its decision. My only point here is that you can't have it both ways. If you wish the Minister of Finance to finance activities, and if you wish ministers of the Crown - in this instance, the Minister of Finance - to bring matters to the public attention, then you have to be prepared to live with the consequences, and I suggest that that side is not.

I would also remind that member that it was the NDP who brought in limited time on debate., it was the NDP who almost forced closure in this Legislature. And they have the gall to stand up here and talk about an open, laying on the table by a minister of information of public concern and that it should be referred to a properly constituted committee of this House, and suggest that that's an abrogation of his responsibility. How ludicrous! How ludicrous, Mr. Chairman! That's the government of closure. That was the government whose minister was accused of having amnesia before a court, before a judge of the province of British Columbia.

MR. NICOLSON: Are you talking about Don again?

MR. LAUK. Who are you referring to?

MR. NICOLSON: The Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) .

MRS. JORDAN: There is an issue in this debate that is not clear and it has been ably clouded by the NDP and that is the right of the media to have access to Hydro directors. Let's clearly understand that should the committee choose to look into this matter that has been laid before the House by this minister, there is nothing to preclude the right of the media to question whoever

[ Page 715 ]

appears before that committee, except during the time of the actual hearing. The minute the hearings are over the media have the access they have always had. In f act, their opportunity to place their questions should be substantially greater because of the information that is likely to come before that committee. so let's not have any misunderstanding that the function of this committee on this matter, if the committee chooses, that this minister has laid before the House precludes the right of the media, because it does not. Today they can pose to Hydro any questions they wish; tomorrow they can pose any questions they wish to Hydro right up to until two minutes before those hearings take place, if they do take place. They have the right to pose any questions relating to their own information or to what comes before that committee the minute that committee meeting adjourns. I would suggest that it aids the media in this instance - that they are going to have a better opportunity to pose responsible questions.

In view of the fact that the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) brought it up, 1 would just like to make one other comment. [illegible] distortion of the events within the [illegible] not only violates the oath of this committee and the confidentiality of its internal business, but is not true.

Mr. Chairman, the priorities of this committee - as in this instance, on the information tabled by this minister - are set by that subcommittee and approved of by the committee.

MR. COCKE: What the hell are you talking about?

MRS. JORDAN: In the initial. instance, every committee member was circulated with a letter in which he could set his priorities, as every committee member will make up his mind on this particular subject.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, order, please. You are again straying off the subject of the estimates of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) .

MRS. JORDAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, 1 don't intend to take the time. But let's not cloud the issue. We have to decide in this Legislature - and that includes the members who have just spoken - if we want subjects which are of public concern which come before this House, which come before ministers, or which come before a committee to be examined within the context of that committee or not, because w- can't have it both ways.

I suggest that the members must decide whether, in f act, they want such a new way to survive or not. Certainly, listening to this debate today, the attitude would suggest that there is incapability of having such a structure function on an open and responsible basis. The member for New Westminster was guilty initially in this committee of detracting from the basic purpose. He had to retract, and he should consider his statements most carefully. Does he really want to see a new avenue in openness in British Columbia, a new avenue for the rights of the people of this province to have the information that they should, regardless of the Crown, regardless of Crown corporations, or regardless of the media? Let's have the facts, let's have the truth and let's have the public have the opportunity to have it in the most open way.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, I suggest the Minister of Finance should listen very carefully to what the former speaker just said. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, in the first place, that when that minister and his fellow ministers set up this committee, they did not set it up in order to manage the affairs of this province; and that's what that member's calling for - better ways of managing the business of our province. What kind of a committee do we have here? Is it an executive council, a sub-executive council, a sub-committee of the executive council? Because it's the job of the government to run the affairs of the province, not the job of a committee. It's an investigative committee -period, amen. So it's nothing to do with managing the affairs of the province, or managing the business of the province.

Mr. Chairman, the member asks if we want a committee or not. I say to the Minister of Finance: yes, under certain circumstances. And you know that same....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: The circumstances are fair circumstances. Not a smokescreen committee that dips into this and dabs into that, but a committee that is going to look in depth some day at something.

Mr. Chairman, I would like the member to stand up in this House and let me know what I have to retract, anytime, in any business that I had to do with that committee. The only thing I did was relent. I called for the resignation of the chairman of that committee,

[ Page 716 ]

and now I'm rather sorry I did relent.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Repent, repent.

MR. COCKE: That was not retracting. Trying to just be a responsible person around here is made impossible by those Socred, coalition people, made absolutely impossible.

HON. MR. GARDOM; Be careful, Rae Eddie is watching you.

MR. COCKE: Rae Eddie, just before he died, said how proud he was.

Mr. Chairman, I neither retracted, nor did I take an oath as part of my responsibility on that committee. I can't believe it: first private meetings, and then an oath. What's next on that committee? It's a public committee doing public work. It's not a Star Chamber, and if it is, I want no part of it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, just before you start, I wonder if w-- could just review that this is Committee of Supply and we're discussing the estimates of the Minister of Finance, vote 92, which is the minister's office. We seem to be getting off on the Crown corporations.

MRS. WALLACE: I will endeavour to stay within the realm of the minister's responsibilities, one of which is B.C. Hydro. The member for North Okanagan (Mrs. Jordan) said something that I agree with, and that doesn't happen very often. She said that the press have the right to ask questions. I agree. But I suggest that they also have a right to have an answer and that is not coming forth, Mr. Chairman.

I have a very interesting article on my desk. It's written by Mr. Norm Olsen, the manager of B.C. Hydro. He says some very interesting things about communications. He's concerned about the adverse publicity B.C. Hydro has been getting, and he's making some points as to what has been happening and what he can suggest to improve the situation. He's talking to the employees primarily, but 1 think that the points that he makes are well worth repeating in this Legislature.

He speaks about the various stories that are appearing in the press which put Hydro in a rather bad light. He says - I'm quoting and I think the minister should pay attention to what I'm saying: "Hydro is a law unto itself. Not so. Life would be much simpler if it were so. For example" - and this is Mr. Olsen, the general manager of B.C. Hydro - "Hydro's board of directors is appointed by the government and can be removed at any time by cabinet decision. Hydro's finances are controlled by the Minister of Finance." He goes on, he says that no major projects can be undertaken without licences; that the laws of the province apply with some few exceptions, expropriation is done by the cabinet, not by Hydro. Then he says: "The public, through its elected government, has as full and direct control of Hydro's activities as it wishes to exercise."

Now we are the spokesmen for the public here in this Legislature. That minister, who is responsible for the operation of Hydro, has that responsibility. He is the boss, Mr. Chairman. He calls the tune and it's up to him to ensure that the public has the kind of access that his general manager is indicating they should have.

He goes on to say that Hydro goes to considerable lengths to provide the media with factual information through frequent news releases and other information bulletins. He says too: "Communication is a two-way effort. We go to considerable length to provide the media with factual information through frequent news releases and other information bulletins." This is the manager of Hydro speaking. Then he goes on: "Communication is a two-way effort." lie's talking to staff, primarily. He says: "While we are finalizing arrangements for the staff information meetings" - in which he's going to have to tell the staff what's happening - "if there are questions about Hydro which you would like to have answered, raise them through your line organization or through the public and customer relations and we will provide the answer."

Obviously the manager of Hydro believes that he has, as a responsibility, the provision of answers not only to his employees but to the public generally. It seems a very strange coincidence, Mr. Chairman, that when two responsible members of the press approach Hydro with a series of questions, suddenly the officials of Hydro have a change of policy. That policy is stated very clearly here, that it is a policy of public communication of making press releases, of allowing the public to know. In fact, it indicates that the public has the right to know because: "The public, through its elected government, has as full and direct control of Hydro's activities as it wishes to exercise."

Now it can't exercise those privileges without information. When, through the press, those questions are raised, the manager of Hydro has indicated that it is their policy to respond. Why are they not responding to these

[ Page 717 ]

questions, Mr. Chairman? Why not? They take direction from the cabinet. It seems to me very obvious, Mr. Chairman, that that direction has come through this minister not to release that information, because it is certainly contrary to the policies and directions that Hydro normally takes. Why have they received this kind of instruction from this minister not to release this information? Why? I ask you. We've had talks back and forth across this floor about motivation and reasons. I'm not going to question the minister's motivations but I do question his judgment, Mr. Chairman. I think his judgment should have told him that because Hydro is a public Crown corporation, he should simply have instructed his manager to follow the usual procedure and make this information available. It's public information. That company belongs to you and to I, to all the taxpayers of this province. They have a right to know the answers to those questions. They have a right to know about the billion-dollar cost of the Columbia River and how we got it. They have a right to know all those things.

It's ridiculous that this Minister of Finance has taken it upon himself, as he must have done, to instruct his general manager to change from the normal policies of Hydro and refuse to answer questions from the press.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Chairman, now for something different. 1 will probably make some comments about Hydro, but at this time I would like to ask the minister if he could inform this House and fill us in on some detail as to the revenues which he expects to receive from the federal government for different programmes. There are certain programmes in which the federal and provincial governments share. One with which I am familiar is the operation of the B.C. Housing Management Commission where, I believe, both governments make their contributions directly to the commission and the federal government does not actually give the money to the provincial treasury.

What 1 am asking about is the contributions which are made directly to the provincial treasury, contributions such as, 1 suppose, that which will be made as part of the sales tax agreement to the provincial treasury.

I ask the minister if he could give a detailed account to this House of the various programmes under which the treasury is receiving funding from the federal government, and give us a very brief description of those programmes. I would wonder, Mr. Chairman, if there would be programmes such as.... Would there be contributions from the federal to the provincial treasury concerning fisheries enhancement programmes and that type of thing? I think that we should have this for all departments. If there is something in the area of health, and something in the area of social assistance and housing, municipal affairs, I would very much appreciate all of these things. I think it would be of great assistance to the committee if we could have some detailing of what programmes we are jointly engaged in with the government, but not programmes such as the B.C. Housing Management Commission, where I believe they are both made into the institution directly by each government.

HON. MR. WOLFE: The answer to that question would be quite involved, but I think it is appropriate to indicate to the member that for the first time this year there has been an attempt to break that all out into a separate category in the revenues estimates. If you refer to page H7 in your blue book, you'll notice a complete breakdown of contributions from other governments, including municipal share of joint service programmes, totalling a gross amount of $825 million.

There is further detail I could give you, if you want to ask any specific question on that particular breakdown.

MR. NICOLSON: I'll do that later.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I've been listening very intently and I haven't heard the minister answer the initial questions that I and a number of others put to him earlier on with respect to the policy on the public accountability of Crown corporations. I know it was a stated policy of the government, certainly during the last election, to make Crown corporations more accountable to the public.

I know that the Premier has commented a number of times on his concern that British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority, particularly, is becoming an unyielding bureaucracy, insensitive to the public, and one which the Premier stated concern that the Legislature, in fact, does not have enough control over. And it seems to me that the minister, through his direction of protecting that agency from answering questions to the media, is reinforcing their autocratic posture rather than seeking to conform to the stated government policy and break it down, requiring it to be more accountable to the public. And surely it's recognized in an open society that the media, the Fourth Estate, has a role to play in ensuring accountability of public

[ Page 718 ]

agencies in a different arena than we, as politicians, have in this particular Legislature.

I'm very concerned that the minister is seeking to set a precedent here where public accountability is being eroded even further, and I want to know why. What good reasons can the minister put forward for diverting the questions that the Vancouver Province put forward to B.C. Hydro to the Crown corporation reporting committee? Was it the nature of the questions themselves? Are there any questions that the media would ask that the minister would insist on having answered by the Crown corporation? Or is it his intention in the future to divert all and any queries through committees of this House? Certainly we, as legislators, have a right to know that. That was not contemplated by the Legislature, as far as I know, when the committee was formulated.

HON. MR. WOLFE: I answered that earlier; you were out of the house.

MR. KING: Well, I would appreciate the minister responding again to that. It's a point that certainly doesn't take the minister long to answer on, and I would appreciate that advice.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, the answer is no.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, if it's not the minister's intention then to divert all and any queries, on what basis will he make the subjective judgment as to what should be placed before the committees and what should be answered in a forthright way by a Crown corporation?

HON. MR. WOLFE: On the same basis that any other responsible member of this House would make that judgment.

MR. KING: Well, that's a subjective answer, Mr. Chairman. I certainly do not accept that as a responsible posture.

British Columbia Hydro and Power Authority has a management structure, well paid, provided for under the statutes of this House. They have a board of directors governing the policy of that agency on which the minister sits. To suggest that he has the right to make subjective judgments as to when and under what circumstances this agency will answer questions put to them by the press is just a terrible principle, in my view. It's the converse of what the minister suggests; it's totally irresponsible. The minister is making political judgments, he's making political assessments of what might be embarrassing to Hydro and to the government that happens to be in office at this time. To me, that is anything but public accountability, that is anything but open and frank, that is anything but accountable.

One of the things that is wrong with it, Mr. Chairman, in my view, is that we don't know what the Vancouver Province is after. We don't know what the questions are. We don't know what their supplementary questions might be. We don't know what their motivation is in asking these questions or what documents or information may be in their hands that have motivated these questions.

To suggest that a committee of this House, which is not privy to that information, can do an adequate job in eliciting from the Hydro corporation and authorities the precise information which the newspaper wants is just totally unrealistic. Would the minister suggest that in order to satisfy the newspaper's queries those reporters are obligated to lay before the committee all of the background information they have which elicited these questions in the first place? That's an intrusion into the traditional rights and privacy of the press.

For the minister to get up and rationalize and say that this is the responsible thing to do is just not good enough. Surely he must see that there is some inherent threat in this kind of an approach to the traditional role of newspapers.

HON. MR. WOLFE: You would walk around and keep that information to yourself, would you?

MR. KING: It is a tradition that newspapers have sources of information, and it's also a tradition that in most instances newspaper reporters would go to jail rather than compromise the source of their information. If that were not the case, in all probability the Watergate case in the U.S. would never have broken in the public way that it did. In all probability that administration would have been able to continue to stonewall against full public disclosure, and that is why it's an accepted tradition that newspaper reporters who are tipped off about any particular administrative decision or practice or conduct that may not be in the best public interest of their particular jurisdiction have a right and an obligation to question. What the minister is doing in my view is intruding and interfering with that process in a very insidious way.

[ Page 719 ]

Now how can the committee of members of this House know what is at the disposal of those reporters that have put this list of questions forward for B.C. Hydro to answer? The committee members lave no knowledge of the background. They are not privy to the documents that those newspaper reporters apparently hold in their hands. They are not privy to the particular motivation for putting these questions forward. How then can the committee members interrogate the Hydro officials in a way which will elicit the information the reporters are looking for, much less the follow-up questions that those reporters might be interested in learning? There's no way the committee can serve that function, because the committee was never contemplated as an agency that would follow up moves and queries initiated by agencies extraneous to this House. The committee is an investigative agency. The committee gains its authority from this House, and it should gain its initiative from this House, not from the Vancouver Province or any other extraneous agency. it's unrealistic and it's irresponsible to suggest that queries brought to this Grown agency by a newspaper can be effectively handled and answered by referring and diverting the responsibility of Hydro management to answer for its tenure and for its administration by diverting that responsibility to a committee of this House. Absolutely irresponsible. It's not good enough for the minister to get up in a bland way and say that this is the responsible thing to do; it's not good enough at all. There are dangerous precedents at stake here.

Mr. Chairman, when the minister is through with his conversation 1 have one other question to put to h" I want to know if the minister would allow newspaper reporters to sit in on that committee meeting when all of the questions that they have asked are answered by Hydro officials.

I understand it is the prerogative of that committee to sit in camera. If that is the case, Mr. Chairman, how does the minister suggest that it satisfies the spirit of the purpose here to have the agency answer and be accountable? If they answer the questions in an in-camera session of the committee, that information may never reach the initiators of the questions.

There are so many ifs. The Conservative leader (Mr. Stephens) raised an important point this afternoon with respect to the subpoena of witnesses. As I understand it, it's quite within the authority of the committee to subpoena the newspaper reporters and to demand of them under oath that they reveal information that they have in their possession relating to this inquiry and again, this is an attack on freedom of the press and it's an incursion on the traditions of newspaper reporters protecting their source.

I'm overwhelmed and just amazed that there are people on that side of the House, Mr. Chairman, who for years were involved in the media. I'm just overwhelmed that there were people involved in the media over there who sit silently and allow this particular, in my view, insidious proposition to be put forward by the government.

We've seen in the last few months in the federal House in Ottawa a member of the House of Commons brought to a point where he had to risk charges and possible incarceration for protecting his source. We witnessed in the province of Ontario a member of the provincial Legislative Assembly facing charges and incarceration for protecting his source of information as well. I suggest that the government line being put forward here is a line which undermines the integrity of the whole freedom process that's been inherent in our system for generations.

I would think that people like the Minister of the Environment (Hon. Mr. Nielsen) would express concern over this. He was involved in the media, Mr. Chairman. Perhaps nothing quite as interesting or as well regarded as the newspaper industry, but certainly with respect to one aspect of it.

I would like to hear the minister expand on his views on this matter. All he does, Mr. Chairman is get up and say that this is a responsible position. I just don't buy that. I think there are serious enough implications that the minister should expand on his reasoning and explain precisely to this House his refusal, as a member of the board of directors for Hydro, to instruct the management of that agency to answer questions put to them, rather than divert them to a government-dominated committee that may or may not ever get to the heart of the real questions being put by those newspaper reporters.

I would like him to explain how that strategy and that approach is consistent with the stated intention of the government of holding all government agencies accountable and open to the public of this province.

MR. LEA: The minister is not explaining, so we can only draw some conclusions. There's been no explanation from the minister. So let's examine the number of things that could have happened, those things we know and those things that we have to raise a hypothesis on.

[ Page 720 ]

Okay, we know that two reporters from the Vancouver Province went to B.C. Hydro, which is part of the jurisdiction of this minister, and asked some questions. We know that B.C. Hydro authorities examined the questions.

We have to assume one of two things. We have to assume that either the people from Hydro who examined those questions know that there are no answers to those questions, or, conversely, we have to assume that they know that there are answers to those questions and that they know what the answers are.

Then what happened? The minister comes into the House and says that a committee of the House should answer the questions or find out what the answers to those questions are instead of the reporters finding out what the answers to those questions are. Well, if there are no answers to those questions, our first assumption, then why won't Hydro just come right out and say: "There are no answers to those questions, good day."' Then the reporters could do what they had to do.

But let's assume that the reporters know a little bit about what they are going after and that there must be at least one or two of those questions that there are answers to. We have to assume, then, that they are questions that Hydro doesn't want answered. Why? Why wouldn't Hydro want a question answered?

I've looked aver the list of questions, Mr. Chairman, and I don't think there's too much in those questions, even if they were answered, no matter what the answers are, that would drop the Social Credit Party or the government into any kind of trouble. None. So why is the Social Credit government protecting B.G. Hydro for a period when Social Credit weren't even responsible? That's a good question. What's the answer? The answer must be that they're afraid of setting a precedent. Two reporters go to B.C. Hydro, ask questions, get answers to them. The answers don't embarrass the government, but a precedent has been set. The reporters had their questions answered by B.C. Hydro. That would be the precedent.

Are there more questions? Where would those questions lead us after those answers are forthcoming? Would they lead us into history? Would they lead us into the previous Social Credit government and the Columbia River Treaty? Or would they lead forward into the new administration under Social Credit? Why won't B.C. Hydro answer those questions?

You know, you'd have to wonder why they wouldn't answer those questions when you have a political chairman like Mr. Bonner, and on that board is the present Minister of Finance, who's well known in some circles for being

Social Credit. You'd have to wonder why they wouldn't want to answer those particular questions that don't even pertain to their own administration. Why? Because they're afraid that if they let those questioners, those two reporters, have that kind of answer, they're going to get answers on a great deal more because a precedent has been set. So it is perfectly safe to shuffle those questions off to a committee and hold the questioning down to just those answers on a committee that they control by having the greatest number of partisan members on. That is what they're up to.

But I agree with the member for Revelstoke Slocan (Mr. King) . When this sort of thing is happening, why isn't the media upset about it? Why isn't the media out there asking the very questions that we're asking on this side of the House? I don't think it's because there's any big plot. I just think they haven't even thought about it. I think that's the case.

But I think if they were to think about it, they'd have to wonder why B.C. Hydro and the Social Credit government will not answer questions that basically pertain to when they were not in power. That is a question that everyone should wonder about. The only answer can be that they want to confine those questions as the only questions that are going to be answered by B.C. Hydro through a committee, a committee that they control through more government members than opposition members. Then if those reporters want to ask further questions because of those answers, the precedent has been set. Any question that goes to B.C. Hydro then comes back to the committee. How often does the committee sit? It has sat about six times in the last eight months, and the committee is basically called to sit at the discretion of the chairman of that committee. So there you have what could very well be a very neat coverup process.

So what we have here is not a coverup of the questions that have been asked by Turnbull and Young. What it is is an attempt to make sure to make sure that they are the only questions that are going to be answered, that have been asked by Turnbull and Young. That's what it is.

MR. KEMPF: Garbage.

MR. LEA: No other questions will be answered. They are attempting to shovel off into that committee the only questions that they want answered. That's what they're trying to do. Then what? Young and Turnbull will say: "Oh, we have these answers now; here are some

[ Page 721 ]

further questions from Hydro." hydro then brings the questions to the minister. The minister then comes into the House when the House sits - it may be seven or eight months away - and he turns them over to the committee again. You can stall and stall and stall.

I don't agree with the member for Oak Bay (Mr. Stephens) . I think the motivation behind the minister's actions is purely political. That minister is deathly afraid that once the precedent has been set of Hydro answering those kinds of questions, then they're going to be allowed by precedent to get answers for other questions, and that's what they're afraid of.

The Attorney-General (Ron. Mr. Gardom) , when he was on this side of the House as a Liberal, the Minister of Education (Ron. Mr. McGeer) , when he was on this side of the House as a Liberal, and the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) , when he was on this side of the House as a Liberal, asked the very same questions - or not these exact questions, but questions of a very similar nature - and got quite upset when they weren't answered. Now they sit over there doing the same thing that they said they were against.

So I think the media in this province editorially should rise up as if one voice and demand that B.C. Hydro answer those questions, or the media is going to be shoved into the same back room as the opposition, meeting a wall of silence from that government and its Crown corporations. No daylight.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, before the House adjourns, I had committed myself to bring a decision regarding a matter raised earlier by the member for Alberni (Mr. Skelly) , and I would like to do that just before we leave.

I have considered the matter raised under standing order 35 by the hon. member for Alberni, namely: "Press and other material relating to a decision i Lacing the chemical 2, 4-D in a 'pre-review status, ' and a statement by an official in the United States that: 'we are looking at the studies to see if there should be a full review' with respect to the use of the said chemical." The member further states that "it appears" to him that without immediate action by the assembly certain people may be exposed to a chemical with carcinogenic properties.

This matter is similar to that raised on an earlier occasion under the same standing order, namely: "press release statements relating to Eurasian milfoil weed in the Okanagan system, " and the proposed use of chemicals in relation thereto.

The reasons for not setting aside other business of the House on that occasion are to be found in the Votes and Proceedings of June 13,1977. It is my opinion that the matter clearly fails on one or more of the number of grounds set forth in the 16th edition of Sir Erskine May at pp. 370,372 and 373, including the following:

1. the matter must not involve hypothetical circumstances;
2. it must not involve the exercise of discretion under statutory powers;
3. it must not be offered when facts are dispute;
4. the motion has been refused when an ordinary parliamentary opportunity will occur shortly, or in time - namely, consideration of the estimates which now have priority over all other business, except introduction of bills.

Hon. Mr. Gardom roves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

[ Page 722 ]

APPENDIX

18 Mr. Cocke asked the Hon. the Minister of Education the following question:

What are the investment holdings of ICBC to the latest date available?

The Hon. P. L. McGeer replied as follows:

"SHORT-TERM INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO

SUMMARY OF POSITION

as at April 7, 1978

"SHORT-TERM INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO

CALL LOAN PRINCIPAL BY DEALER

January 1, 1977, to December 31, 1977

"INSURANCE CORPORATION OF BRITISH COLUMBIA BOND PORTFOLIO

as at April 7, 1978

[ Page 723 ]

APPENDIX

20 Mr. Cocke asked the Flon. the Minister of Education the following question:

What are the names of the companies who received short-term loans in 1977 from ICBC and what are the amounts of the loans?

The Hon. P. L. McGeer replied as follows:

"COMPANIES WHO RECEIVED SHORT-TERM LOANS IN 1977 FROM ICBC

21 Mr. Cocke asked the Hon. the Minister of Education the following questions:

1. Were any borrowings made by ICBC in 1977 and to date in 1978?

2. If the answer to No. I is yes, what were the amounts, dates, source, and interest rate paid on each loan?

The Hon. P. L. McGeer replied as follows:

"1. No.

"2. Not applicable."