[ Page 1013 ]

CONTENTS

Routine proceedings

Committee of Supply; Executive Council estimates.

On vote 5.

Mr. Levi –– 1013

Mr. Barrett –– 1018

Mr. Lauk –– 1019

Division on motion to rise and report progress –– 1019

Mr. Levi –– 1020

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1024

Mr. Levi –– 1025

Mr. Macdonald –– 1028

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1030

Mr. Macdonald –– 1032

Mr. King –– 1033

The House met at 8:30 p.m.

Orders of the day.

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

ESTIMATES: EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

(continued)

On vote 5: executive council, $753,760 -continued.

MR. LEVI: One of the wonderful modern-day inventions in the parliamentary system is Hansard, where we enshrine all the immortal words of all the members in the House. It gives everybody an opportunity to go back over some of the things that they have said, and also to go back and review some of the things that have been said by other people. .

Last night when the Premier was in full flight as a butterfly and as a caterpillar he made mention of the tax negotiations. I just want to quote him, Mr. Chairman, to remind him of what he said, and then to make some comments about it. He's talking presumably to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett):

"Let me just remind him of a few things such as the tax negotiations that took place between the provinces and the government of Canada a year and a half ago in which tax points were given back to the provinces and which more accurately allow us to meet the responsibilities under fixed cost programmes rather than wait to chase those mythical 50-cent dollars which led this country into some of the most foolish spending programmes and which are part of the problem we faced."

I think it is worthwhile pointing out to the Premier that the world was not created on December 12, and prior to that there were a number of extended negotiations going on between federal and provincial governments in respect to the whole question of tax sharing.

One of the things that either the First Ministers or ministers attending federal-provincial conferences found out was that it wasn't sufficient for a province to go down to -a federal-provincial conference and simply argue the particular position of their own province and then go back to the province and talk about federalism or, as it is today, national unity.

Many of the discussions around taxation sharing, particularly in relation to Lax points, really related to what programmes the have provinces would have - because they had the tax base on which to get the tax points -versus the have-not provinces. Contrary to all its statements about national unity and how everybody has to work together in the country, this government has indicated very clearly that it doesn't really give a fig about the rest of the provinces, particularly the have not provinces.

It's just not good enough for the Premier to say that it's the mythical 50-cent dollars which caused all our problems. I would refer him to page A 11 in the public accounts for 1976-77 and remind him that under the heading "Contributions from other governments: grants-in-aid and shared-cost contributions, " it says that in 1972, $318 million came from the federal government; in 1973, $321 million; in 1974, $356 million; in 1975, $492 million; in 1976, $593 million; in 1977, $667 million. Presumably, part of that $667 million included the $80 million that the government received in respect to the federal contribution to the education programmes for the post-secondary schools, which had been in negotiation for several years, plus the $80 million from DREE, plus another $8 million for the ferries. So we are not talking about mythical 50-cent dollars; we are talking about real money of the order of $500 million to $600 million. There is nothing mythical about it.

If we are going to talk about national unity and some kind of equity for all provinces on some kind of national standard, you are not going to achieve that by pushing the tax point system in a hard fashion. It's all very well for the have provinces to talk about that, but what about the rest of the country?

The Premier and the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) often say that we have many people coming to the province from places like Quebec and the Maritime provinces. Why are they coming? Because these people can't find work; because there are no programmes that can be developed; because they're not in a position like the have provinces. So I don't accept the Premier's argument about the mythical 50-cent dollars. He's gone off on his own. He doesn't want to stand up here in this House and talk about national unity and, everybody sticking together. What you've really done is stick it to the have-not provinces in this country.

Further in his discussion last night he made a great deal of argument - which he didn't back up, of course, with any facts - in respect to the employment field. One of the things he said was that on March I there were 1,082, 000 people working in the province. That's very good. Nobody's knocking that, be

[ Page 1014 ]

cause the more people who work, the better off we are. But 1 point out to the Premier that in July, 1975, there were 1,090, 000 people working. In August there were 1,074, 000. Now he started to say - according to Hansard -that there were more people working today, and in fact the statistics of March I show 1,082, 000. Well, the world didn't start on December 12. There were lots of things going on in the province. There were a lot of people working.

That kind of argument that he offers is very similar to the argument he offered last night, that the tourist industry is up 25 per cent over last year. Well, isn't that beautiful, considering that you knocked it down about 35 per cent two years ago.

You know, one of the things we are going to have to do, Mr. Chairman, is - under the Labour minister's (Hon. Mr. William ') estimates - have a real good go at these statistics on labour, and really examine just where and when there was employment in this province, and when employment started to decline. The facts speak for themselves. The decline of employment in this province started with the onset of that government. From January, 1976, on they've done nothing. They haven't been able to demonstrate anything in terms of whether they've created any jobs. Everything is in the future.

Last night he also alluded to the fact that capital investment is not available in the province. That isn't the fact. The mid-year economic review, published in either July or September every year, indicates that there's been a steady 8 to 10 per cent increase in capital investment in this province ever since 1971. 1 just want to talk for a minute, and get the Premier's opinion on this.

Just before I came in here I was in the library looking at some statistics based on deferred taxation of corporations. Now last year in this House I talked about the four major real estate corporations that have gone down to the United States and invested over $100 million. I pointed out at that time that those four corporations alone had deferred taxes of $48 million. In case anybody doesn't know, deferred taxes are an interest-free loan from the taxpayer. Now the figures today amount to some $8 billion of deferred taxes in this country. We don't have a breakdown by province. Well, let's presume, and let's use the old 10 per cent formula, which is of ten used in comparing B.C.'s role in a range of things - and 10 per cent would in no way be understating the tax deferment situation for corporations in this province. Corporations are able to defer anywhere from $700 million to $800 million - an interest-free loan. That's the investment that the taxpayer makes in this province, which is a little bit more than the capital investment that goes on in the province on a yearly basis.

None of this is mentioned. Everything mentioned is, from the Premier's point of view, in terms of the private sector. The private sector has to do everything. Yet we have a perfect example, in the last 10 years, of the private sector not being able to keep up with the demands of the labour force. He talks about the involvement of government in the marketplace. Well, if we didn't have the involvement of government from time to time, we just wonder how many unemployed we'd really have. At the moment in the country we have something like almost 1.5 million people who are not working. In this province the number of people looking for work in March was something in the order of 140,000. He said that there is a role for the private sector. What kind of leadership does he demonstrate in assisting the private sector to do something about job generation? We have a Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) , and all he's presided over since he's been the minister is the highest rate of mortgages, the highest rate of business failures, the closing down of endless operations. That's what he has done. That's the attitude of the government. They don't want to get involved in the private sector.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Oh, yes, 13,000 corporations - and all of these become statistics, and somehow they generate jobs.

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: Green is not the right colour, Mr. Minister, through you, Mr. Chairman. That's not the right colour. It's a little bit more on the puce side.

This afternoon we had a great discourse from the Premier on conflict of interest. He's been very fond of talking about conflict of interest. and I really have not heard it defined. He should define it for us. What does he mean by conflict of interest? You know, my definition of a conflict of interest in terms of this province is when you put the political parties together to form a coalition like the Socred coalition to defeat socialists in order to represent and protect the capitalist system in the province. That's basically what it's all about. You know, these are guys aver there, Mr. Chairman, are bought and paid for

[ Page 1015 ]

by the corporations, so he tells us that what he's going to do is to develop the assets.

We had a long and detailed discourse this afternoon from the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) , and he explained the position in terms of the investment corporation. While he was talking he mentioned the role of one of the people who is involved in looking at an evaluation process for the resources corporation. He talked about Mr. Austin Taylor, and he mentioned that Mr. Austin Taylor was connected with McLeod, Young and Weir, which is a company that has been very much involved in putting together financing for governments and for large corporations.

It was interesting reading one of Fotheringham's articles in 1974 on Mr. Taylor. He has a nickname; he has some very interesting relatives. He's apparently the brother-in-law of that well-known progressive in the United States, William F. Buckley. That's his brother-in-law, yes. One can imagine that he gets all of his very right-wing ideas perhaps from him. He also has a nickname apparently; they call him Fur. I'm not quite sure where that comes from, but he's known as Fur. It must have some derivation, but it escapes me.

In January the Premier, in answering some charges made about conflict of interest, rejected the charges of conflict of interest. There's a Canadian Press statement that was in the Colonist on January 7:

"Premier Bennett has countered claims that an investment firm appointed to the syndicate that is helping establish the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation is in a conflict-of-interest position. Opposition Leader Dave Barrett said last week that the appointment of McLeod, Young, Weir and Company is a serious conflict of interest and breach of political ethics. Bennett said at a news conference this week that Taylor's firm and three others were appointed financial managers for the government by the former New Democratic Party government headed by Barrett."

Yes, and Barrett acknowledged that in order to do some bond-raising, not in order to preside over the diluting of $150 million of assets.

Now I want to talk about what I think is in fact a conflict of interest, because the Premier sort of squirreled his way out of one of them. The other night I asked the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) , because he did the financing in terms of the ferry leaseback, just what x%us happening in respect of commissions. At that time I was able to get the particular issue under the Minister of Finance because he did the financial negotiations.

But the actual origin of the idea started in the Ministry of Energy, Transport and Communications, of which the Premier is now the head. Just to remind you, Mr. Chairman, the original proposal for the leasing camp from McLeod, Young, Weir and Company. As a matter of fact if you look them up in the Canadian Oil Registry.... That's about the only place you can find them. They don't appear in Moody's. They don't appear in the Financial Post. They must be operating as a private corporation. At the bottom it says: "Type of services - underwriters, dealers, governments, provincial, municipal, public utility and corporation securities, real estate and lease financing." That's one of their big fortes. They were the people who made a proposal to the ferry people and said, "We have a way to save the people of British Columbia money, " and presumably to make some money for themselves as well. By the middle of 1976 it concluded three agreements on a lease-back arrangement on the ferries.

Irony of ironies, two of The companies that own the ferries as a result of the lease-back happen to be two companies set up by McLeod, Young and Weir. One of the questions that I'm still awaiting an answer for, and I've been told by the Minister of Finance that we'll get the answers tomorrow.... The particular answer I wanted, among other things was: Who got the commission for a $48 million deal? Who got it? Did the government pay a commission, and if they did, who did they pay it to?

It's all very well for us in this House, and we have to be very careful about people's reputations who are outside of this House. We don't want to get into any of the kind of melee we got into this afternoon from the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) .

HON. MR. CHABOT: Don't twist now.

MR. LEVI: Yes, there we are. There he is. You know, he's got a brain like a pretzel. All he can say is: "Twist." He made an accusation; he withdrew it - honourable gentleman. We accept it. We have to be careful of about people's reputations out there, but we also have to be careful about how we involve people....

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: What did he say?

MR. KING: He threatened physical violence.

MR. LEVI: He did? Where's Waldo Skillings? Where's that little Edith Gunning? She'll take

[ Page 1016 ]

you on.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps we can relate this to the minister's vote.

MR. LEVI: When the Premier decided to be involved in the selection of people to look at the evaluation of the corporations, it's been said one of the people he selected was the bagman for the Social Credit Party. That's a multinational corporation, this McLeod, Young Weir. They're not just a company that operates in Canada, they operate in the United States and Switzerland - they've got worldwide connections.

One of the questions I have for the Premier is: If Mr. Taylor had not been connected in any way, had not been the bagman, would they in fact have used Mr. Taylor's firm, of which he is the vice-president? Would they have done that? Well, we are reminded that they were involved in the ferry lease-back. So I suppose, based on that experience, let them get into the business of doing something about the resources corporation. Why not? He's got that kind of experience. But the point is, how does it seem to the public? That's the important thing.

It's interesting that both of Mr. Taylor's official involvements with the government have been related to the disposal of Crown assets. In 1976 it was in relation to three ferries which they sold for approximately $48 million. That showed up in this year's budget as part of the surplus. We have a new way of creating surpluses in the province - we dispose of our assets. They ought to be very careful they don't start selling the Patullo Bridge, Mr. Member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) , because I don't know how the member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) is going to get over here. We have the disposal of assets in terms of the alleged $151 million of assets of corporations that were previously purchased by the former government.

There is an issue of correctness in terms of the public, because if you talk to the average citizen and you say that one of the individuals involved in the lease-back of the ferries was a bagman for the Social Credit Party and is now, along with three other companies, involved in evaluating the shares, what are people supposed to think about this? There has got to be a correctness about these things which evidently the Premier is not particularly interested in. There has got to be some kind of correctness. The history of this House and the former Socred Premier of this province, in discussions and debates in this House about the election funds and the people who were close to the government, the arguments about the former Minister of Highways, and Gunderson and his involvement in a number of issues, and the Williamson case - it all cam out that people who were close to that government benefited. One would have thought that they would have learned something, and yet they're going exactly the same route. How bold as brass can you be? You take the bagman, acknowledged by himself as the bagman for the party, and you have his company arrange for the lease-back on the ferries. That's no small deal - $48 million.

And you know, the Minister of Finance, whom I'm sure must be used to $48 million deals all the time, couldn't even remember if there was a commission paid. Now I can ask the Premier: does he know whether there was a commission paid?

AN HON. MEMBER: There was.

MR. LEVI: Yes, I understand that the Minister of Finance has acknowledged that in the corridor, but we want him to acknowledge it in here. When this kind of deal was brought up, presumably the former Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications (Mr. Davis) would have taken it to cabinet. He probably would have taken it to the Premier or sent him a memo and said: "This is the idea we've got; this is how we're going to do it."

MR. LEA: Fourteen per cent.

MR. LEVI: So the Minister of Finance couldn't tell us anything. He was just the fiscal agent. He just signed a special warrant, and he gets involved in making the payments of nearly $5 million a year for the lease-back of the three ferries. That's an incredible piece of Social Credit economic plus that they talk about. They sell them for $48 million and they're going to wind up paying $96 million. Then we have the privilege of buying them back for 70 per cent of the value, if they're still running.

AN HON. MEMBER: We've, bought them once already.

MR. LEVI: Well, it's the same-P thing with the resources corporation. They always go into the marketplace twice and try to sell to the same person. There ate some interesting legendary stories about the white goat and the black goat, only the black goat turned out to be the white goat painted black.

No, we've had no frankness from the government in respect to the ferries lease-back. Let

[ Page 1017 ]

me ask the Premier, who is now the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications: what happened when the former Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications came to cabinet? Surely there were a number of questions asked. How would it be done? Why are we doing it? Who is going to get the commission?

He is looking up in the air, he is thinking. He is trying to recall, Mr. Chairman - we're in good shape. He may just remember what it is. So what happened? What were the arrangements? Didn't it occur to the Premier in cabinet that when this was brought up...? Didn't somebody bring up the fact that Austin Taylor %us in the company where the lease-back was being arranged? Didn't it occur to then that it would not look seemly? Apparently not. It didn't occur to them. What kind of discussion went on in' cabinet, if these kind of discussions go on? Or maybe it's all done down there with Dan Campbell.

When you got to the setting up of the resources corporation, did anyone say: "Be careful, Mr. Premier; here we go again. There's that Mr. Austin Taylor. He's with McLeod, Young and Weir. Should we do it?" It didn't make any difference, they plowed ahead.

So they selected four companies. One of the things that interests me about this - and this is a Premier that gets up here and talks about the development of the province - is why it was he didn't use a couple of local people who can do this kind of evaluation. Odlum Brown, for instance, could do that kind of thing. That's a B.C. company. Oliver could do it; that's a B.C. company. But no, we don't have that. We have Richardson, we have Ames, we have McLeod, Young and Weir, this is what we have. But why? Are there no other people in this province that could do that kind of evaluation?

In respect to the ferry leaseback, I'm informed by people in the financial community that it's usual to pay one-half to 1 per cent of the value of the goods that are sold. So what we're talking about in respect to the ferries, Mr. Premier, is a commission of something in the order of $250,000 to $450,000. What we want is to find out who got it. That's what we hope to hear from the Minister of Finance tomorrow. But maybe, because the Premier is the head of the executive council and knows what's going on, particularly in relation to money, he can tell us. He can tell us what discussions were had.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Commission on the Westcoast shares.

MR. LEVI: Ah, the commission on Westcoast.

That's the attitude, you see. If the previous government did it, then it's okay for us to do it. But we don't happen to be talking about the same thing. When we come to deal with the Westcoast thing, then the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) will tell you all about it. But at the moment, we're dealing with your behaviour in respect to the ferry lease-back, and your behaviour in respect to the resources corporation.

MR. BARRETT: What did you pay? What was the commission, Bill?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LEVI: You're the purists. I think if I speak to you, Mr. Chairman, and it's just you and me, we can ignore the rest of them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Actually, hon. member, you are to address the Chair, and if we can get the other members to observe standing orders and extend you the courtesy of some silence, then perhaps we can continue.

MR. LEVI: We don't know in respect to the ferries because we haven't been told who paid the commission. In terms of Westcoast Transmission, the seller paid the commission.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Three minutes.

MR. LEVI: The important thing is, Mr. Chairman, that we are trying to get some answers from the Premier. This afternoon his response to the questions that were laid down by the second member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) were just nonsense. He just repeated the kind of stonewall tactics that he has repeated in this House for days. He has not been interested in sharing any kind of information whatsoever.

I'm not dealing now with the resources corporation; I'm dealing with the Ferry Corporation. I'm dealing with the sale of the ferries that emanated from the ministry of which the Premier is now head. Now he has to tell us if a commission was paid for the ferries, and if so, who paid it, who received it and how much it was. It's very simple. We're talking about the people's money, the money of the taxpayers. This was your idea. This was the way we were going to make money, beat the income tax system. But we didn't know that part of that money $46 million of it for the sale of assets was going to go to the surplus that you've been bragging about in the last budget.

[ Page 1018 ]

So we're back into a new syndrome, Mr. Chairman. We can now start selling off little bits of the province in order to develop some surpluses. Well, if he insists on doing that, the only thing he has to do is to be frank with the people who pay the money. And the members in this House represent those people, and they have every right to know. What are you hiding? How come it hasn't come out? It's taken the Minister of Finance over a week, and the opening remark today from the Premier was that they have an incredible information retrieval system in his office which tells them about everything - and we can't get any answers. So I think he should go down there, plug himself into the computer and get some information, and then we can be a little better informed.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I want to first of all remind the Premier about the Westcoast Transmission purchase. Something that escaped him, as a businessman, was that the commission paid when that purchase was made was paid by the seller, not by the people of British Columbia and not by the Crown, and that's a matter of fact. If the Premier wants to go out and check the records and come back, then we'll find out. That's always the case. The Premier will try to twist that around, and not recognize the fact that the seller paid that commission.

Now the member for Vancouver-Burrard has asked you what the commission on the leaseback deal on the ferries was. How much was it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Fourteen per cent.

MR. BARRETT: No, it couldn't have been 14 per cent. Oh, this is a simple question. Perhaps a simple answer will do. What was the commission on the lease-back deal, and who got the commission?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we cannot insist on answers. We may ask questions and wait for answers but the Chair can only recognize one member standing.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, the other question I have for the Premier, who is taking note, is: How much was the commission on the lease-back arrangement on the ferries and who got the commission? Can the Premier now tell us the current worth of the Westcoast Transmission shares on the market? Can the Premier tell us the current worth of the B.C. Telephone shares on the market? Can the Premier tell us the current worth of the Bank of B.C. shares on the market? Can the Premier tell the

House what the difference is - if the difference of the purchase of the Bank of B.C. shares by Social Credit out of the pension funds is different from the purchase of the B.C. Telephone shares out of the same accounts? Can you tell us the difference, other than Social Credit bought the Bank of B.C. shares and the NDP bought the B.C. Telephone shares? Can you tell us the difference in that, in terms of philosophy and who established that philosophy in this province?

The member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) asked today for the Premier to tell the people of this province how much the Resources Investment Corporation executives are receiving. How much is Mr. Helliwell receiving? Do you know, Mr. Premier? Do you know how much Mr. Helliwell is receiving? Got that down? That's very good. Print it.

Now, Mr. Chairman, the Premier of this province has tried to give the impression that he wants everybody to know what's going on and yet he's refused to answer questions. One of the most serious charges made today was made by the Liberal leader (Mr. Gibson) about coal leases. The Liberal leader went through a system of coal leases which had been originated in what appeared to be a conflict of positions between the Premier and the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) . The Premier's answer was: "Well, you can't anticipate legislation." My question is: why have you given coal leases if you're planning new legislation?

I ask that, through you, Mr. Chairman: Why have you given coal leases if you're planning new legislation? Are you telling us that you're planning to lock the barn door after the horse has gone? The leases have been given. The member for North Vancouver catalogued how those leases were given in a conflict of statements between the Minister of Mines and the Premier. The Premier's defence was: "Well, we may change the legislation." Are you threatening to punch him in the nose?

Mr. Chairman, the Premier of this province is telling us that his administration operates this way: we're going to give the leases on the coal, but once we've fooled those companies by giving then the leases, we're going to change the ground rules on how they'll operate those leases. That's what he said today.

MR. LAUK: He doesn't know what he's saying.

MR. BARRETT: Well, that's true. That was this afternoon. The story can change tonight.

My next question to the Premier is: has he brought in the Martens statement that he promised to bring into the House? He promised it last night, but still hasn't produced that

[ Page 1019 ]

statement. He said it-s publicly known all over British Columbia. Twenty-four hours ago he promised to bring the statement in. Have you brought the statement in yet, Mr. Premier?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: What's that? I read Hansard. The Premier said that he was going to bring in a well-known statement made by Mr. Martens. He was going to bring it into the House, rush in; he could hardly wait. He had all afternoon and, he didn't bring it in. Have you brought it in tonight, Mr. Premier?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Tedious.

MR. BARRETT: Tedious! That's enough to get you out of the cabinet.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Repetitious.

MR. BARRETT: Repetitious? That's enough to keep you out. I'm only quoting the Premier of this province when he said last night: "I intend to bring this statement into the House. The quote of Mr. Martens is public knowledge." He hasn't produced the quote yet. He fudged all afternoon. He made it up and then when he was confronted with a testimony that was given at the committee, he tried to twist off the hook on another angle and then found that even Mr. Williston contradicted his position. Yes, Mr. Williston is right there in the record. Are you going to fire Mr. Williston for having contradicted you? You know, Mr. Chairman, perhaps you will give Mr. Williston a chance to clear his name.

Mr. Chairman, we have been confronted again with the deliberate pattern of the Premier of this province who runs away from issues, who won't meet the public, who won't answer questions out in the public, who is arrogant, re moved and is even the matter of criticism in such a pro-right-wing newsletter as Beale's Newsletter. It criticizes the Premier; the cabinet is not available; he won't answer questions. Well, I suppose the best defence is to say that the Premier is thinking about all of these answers and writing them all down.

MR. LEA: That's charitable.

MR. BARRETT: The Premier knew when he attacked the Westcoast deal that the seller paid the commission. The Premier has not told us what the commission was on the lease-back sale of the ferries and who got it. Perhaps I'll just stick to that one question. It was the taxpayers' money. Three ferries that were almost totally paid for were sold by the Social Credit government for $46 million. We're going to have to pay twice that amount to get them back.

MR. LAUK: He didn't undervalue those.

MR. BARRETT: No, it didn't undervalue those at all, for a different reason, I suppose. We are going to have to pay twice to buy our own ferries back that we already paid for once. All I'm asking the Premier to do is to tell the people of this province how much w are paying for that privilege of buying our own ferries back at twice the cost of what they were originally. Who got the commission? Could the Premier tell us that, please?

That's fine. Bill wants everybody to know what's going on.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Chairman, the question is: Can he indicate to the committee what the commissions were with respect to the lease-back of the ferries? Is the Premier prepared to answer those questions?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, the subject has been very well canvassed. As you know, in committee we can ask questions. We cannot insist on answers. I must ask you to move to a new area in the estimates.

MR. LAUK: With respect, Mr. Chairman, the committee of supply is to canvass the estimates of each individual minister. Particularly when the First Minister's estimates are before the committee, it is expected that the Premier will either answer the question or state on what grounds he refuses to answer the question.

Under the circumstances, Mr. Chairman ' I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived on the following division:

[ Page 1020 ]

Hon. Mr. Gardom requests that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

MR. LEVI: You're being deserted again, Mr. Premier. Mr. Chairman, they're all leaving. My God, they're all leaving, and Bill's leaving too.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, we've got to be very careful with that Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) . There are all sorts of meetings going on all over this building. Leadership, leadership - that's all you hear from these groups. Leadership - that's it.

Well, Mr. Chairman, it looks like we've exhausted the Premier's mind. He hasn't been able to answer anything, so what we're going to do now is go to a fresh topic. We'll try and test him on his ability as the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications.

Now in this one you have some options to acknowledge that you got the letter. You can even tell us whether you commented when you got the letter.

The other day there were a number of people from the Pacific Stage Lines who came here. They were concerned about the sale of the Pacific Stage Lines and the other line. They had access to some letters that were written by the former Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications (Mr. Davis) to the Premier. After they had been around the buildings pretty well all day, a statement came out from the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) . In the statement in the paper he was quoted as saying: "Don't worry. Everything's frozen; nothing's happening."

MR. KAHL: They were talking about you.

MR. LEVI: Oh, my God! There's your MA again, Mr. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) . Keep that man in order.

So they were given the impression by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing that nothing was going to happen. And then today there was a meeting. Some of those drivers' representatives met with some officials from the Municipal Affairs and Housing ministry and they've been told it's on again. Regardless of what the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing said, it's on again. The schedule is on. There'll be a second phase as of July I and they're moving towards disposing of the lines.

Now I just want to ask the Premier: on January 25,1978, there %us a letter from the former Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications. It said: "Re future of government-owned inter-city bus companies." It goes on to say:

"Over the past year and a half I have received numerous submissions from privately owned companies on the manner and extent to which government-owned operators are subsidized in British Columbia. Pacific Stage Lines Ltd., wholly owned by B.C. Hydro, and Vancouver Island Stage Lines, wholly owned by B.C. Hydro, reporting through the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, together cost the B.C. taxpayer more than $10 million a it year."

Now this is the kind of thing that presumably the minister ums trying to impart to the Premier. They pay high wages, use equipment, much of which is donated to these Crown corporations by government, and yet they are charging fares comparable to those needed by the private operators to stay in business.

He's quite a character, this former minister. I mean, he's a bit loose with his language. He says:

"What is most galling to the private sector operators is that Pacific Stage Lines and Vancouver Island Coach Lines are actually expanding their operations. Not only have they engaged in local sightseeing tours, but they also provide charter buses on long distance routes, which take them to Jasper and Banff in Alberta, and as far south as Las Vegas in the United States."

Now here's a minister who's against tourism, absolutely against it. They do these terrible things. They take people across the country when they're on holiday. You know, British Columbia extends as far as the borders of British Columbia, and if you go the other side of that, it's very unpatriotic. It's not free enterprise.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would you please relate for the Chair how this would relate to the Premier's...?

MR. LEVI: I certainly will relate it. This is a letter from the former Minister of Transport and Communications to the Premier. Now the Premier is in the fortunate position

[ Page 1021 ]

of having both hats. You know, it's almost like he's writing to himself. Are we okay there, Mr. Chairman? I mean, we've got relevancy established, right? Thank you very much.

He goes on to say:

"What is most galling to the private sector operators is that the Pacific Stage Lines and Vancouver Island Coach Lines are actually expanding their operations. Not only have they engaged in local sightseeing..."

I'm sure that the minister of tourism (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) is very happy about that; I'm sure that the business people are very happy about that.

'I ... they're also providing charter buses on long-distance trips."

I ask you, Mr. Chairman, how often can people drive around Victoria or Vancouver? They've got to have an opportunity to get out and see the countryside.

Then he says:

"Why should these operations be subsidized by the B.C. taxpayer when private enterprise could do the same job at a prof it? I know that we have to be concerned about rates, especially those charged on buses operating between downtown Vancouver and downtown Victoria, but companies like Trailways or Greyhound could do the same job without increasing the prices unduly."

Now there are two real smashing free enterprise operations there - Trailways and Greyhound, two multinational corporations that have an absolute monopoly of the bus transportation systems in the United States and most of Canada. It's fantastic. And this is what he's doing. He's now arguing the point for them.

...but companies like Trailways and Greyhound could do the same job without increasing their prices unduly. How? They would turn their buses around at the ferry terminal and they would employ drivers on a seasonal, rather than a year-round, guaranteed-income basis."

That's addressing a letter to a Premier who, from time to time, made some mumblings about guaranteed income.

"Overheads would certainly be reduced." They sure would. So would the jobs.

"Salaries and wages, a component of these bus operations, would relate much more closely to the number of passengers requiring inter-city bus service on a month-to-month basis around the year. We pay the highest bus driver rates in North America. B.C. Hydro does, Vancouver Island Coach Lines does, and the private sector bus operators are following in lockstep close behind. If the government was to get out of the inter-city bus system, then settlements made by the government-owned companies in this industry would be less damaging to our competitive position here in British Columbia."

It's really quite an analysis this former minister did. He goes on to say:

"We could make a start by insisting that the government-owned corporations stop providing services in such non-essential transportation areas such as sightseeing and long-distance charters."

See what he says? "We could start by insisting that government-owned corporations stop providing...." Insisting! Talking to the Premier who says, "All of this is at am's length. We don't tell these people what to do." And there you have the former minister, who also was on the B.C. Ferries board and the B.C. Hydro board, suggesting that's the way you deal with Crown corporations.

"We could start by insisting that the government-owned corporations stop providing services in such non-essential transportation areas such as sightseeing and long-distance charters. Their management, of course, will respond by saying that these are the more profitable operations and that to trim then away will increase their deficit on scheduled runs across the Strait of Georgia and up the island to Nanaimo."

He goes on to say:

"The fact is that they (a) have too many employees and (b) run empty part of the time.

"As you know, the private sector operators are subject to regulations by our Motor Carrier Commission while B.C. Hydro and Vancouver Island Coach Lines are not. One has to meet higher standards than the other. Rates also have to be compensatory on the private sector side. Often, they are less than 50 per cent user-pay on the public side. Entry is limited in the case of privately owned bus companies. Any amount of equipment, often gifted by government, is employed...."

Gifted by government - what's the matter with this former minister? Doesn't he know that governments don't have any money of their own? "Gifted by the government, " he says.

"Competition suggests that all intercity bus companies, be they privately owned or publicly owned, should be subject to the same rules and regulations. They should have to meet the same safety

[ Page 1022 ]

requirements. Also, they should be subsidized to the same extent.

"By selling off the Pacific Stage Lines, Vancouver Island Coach Lines, et cetera, to private sector operators, perhaps on a phased-in basis" - you know, we'll have gradual unemployment - "we could bring this about. Not only would we save the B.G. taxpayers something in excess of $10 million a year but the traveling public would also be better served in the long run. "

It doesn't say how.

"I don't think that we should await the resolution of our overall intra-city bus transit problem before we spin off the government-owned inter-city bus companies.

"Hydro has done its homework in this connection and I suggest that cabinet consider the spinning off of Pacific Stage Lines as a first step. Also I think there's something we should do this spring. Could I please have your advice in this connection?"

Ironically enough, Mr. Chairman, a couple of weeks before that letter was sent out, there was also a letter related to the same problem, which was actually sent to B.G. Hydro. But I'm sure that the Minister of Transport and Communications, as he was then, had a copy of it. This was a letter from Trailways. It was a letter from Mr. Tom MacDonald, dated January 4. It's addressed to Robert Bonner, the chairman of B.C. Hydro.

"Dear Mr. Bonner:

"Re: January 6,1978, meeting with yourself and Trailways Northwest to discuss the Pacific Stage Lines. Thank you in advance for your time on January 6. We appreciate your consideration of our problem regarding Pacific Stage Lines."

It's Trailways' problem. They've got their own company but Pacific Stage Line represents a problem, Mr. Chairman.

"We will outline at length our frustrations and concerns in this matter in a more detailed report. However, for your convenience we have summarized them below:

"Pacific Stage Lines, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Crown corporation B.C. Hydro, operates the following bus services: regularly scheduled bus routes charging individual fares; and freight services connecting various points in Vancouver, Victoria, Vancouver Island and the Lower Fraser Valley."

It talks about sightseeing and bus charters. It goes on to say:

"Pacific Stage Lines Limited, according to published financial reports, has a large deficit each year. This operating deficit is subsidized by the taxpayer. In addition over the past four years Pacific Stage Lines has received over $3 million in outright grants by way of gifted equipment."

The reason I'm reading this is because we have phrases like "outright grant" and "gifted equipment." This is written by the representative of Trailways. Then the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications, in writing to the Premier, decides to adopt this phraseology. You almost get the impression when you compare this letter with the first letter I read that it might just as well have been written by Mr. Macdonald, who represents Trailways.

Mr. Macdonald goes on to say:

"These are the objections of Trailways: as employers and as individual taxpayers in British Columbia we strongly object to the fact that this taxpayer-subsidized corporation tries to provide services in non-essential transportation areas which should be of no concern to the government in direct and brutal competition with our company and other private enterprise firms."

"Brutal competition" - can you imagine anybody being brutal with a firm the size of Trailways or Greyhound?

"We object to the fact that the top management in PSL has the stated objective to increase its competitive stance against the private sector and to actively pursue new areas of bus business to the detriment of the privately owned, non-subsidized bus companies.

"We object to the fact that this Crown corporation bus company operates its business outside the laws which govern all other bus companies.

"Recommendations - Pacific Stage Lines should immediately divest itself of all bus services other than those in the public transit sphere. This would have the following effect. By selling all excess equipment the corporation could raise funds for subsidy of transit services." Kind of a one-shot deal. "The reduction in staff and overhead would mean a smaller and much more manageable operation whose deficit would be smaller than at present. Pacific Stage Lines could then ally with private enterprise companies to provide necessary transit services more economically.

"I hope you will consider these suggestions. We have carefully followed the correct procedures with our problems by

[ Page 1023 ]

approaching those elected and appointed officials responsible for this situation. We hope that you by your words and actions will restore our faith in the values of these correct procedures."

"Yours truly, "Tom Macdonald."

That was in January. The then Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications (Mr. Davis) wrote to the Premier endorsing what Mr. Macdonald had said and asked for his recommendations. Then, later on in March, the Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications sent a second letter to the Premier saying: "At last week's meeting of the board of directors, B.C. Hydro decided to dispose of Pacific Stage Lines' sightseeing and charter operations by the year end."

What -amazes me about this is that I recall that, as a member of the Crown Corporations Committee we met with the transit people in February, 1978. We were dealing with transit, but we weren't told about this. We didn't know this was going on.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. We cannot reflect on things that happen in committee. I haven't got the exact reference, but I know you are aware of it. Please judge yourself accordingly.

MR. LEVI: Let me put it this way, Mr. Chairman. Certain negotiations and discussions have been going on between B. ' C. Hydro and the minister, and presumably with representatives of Trailways, about the future of PSL.

We saw last week in the Legislature a large number of people who were employed by those two companies, who simply do not know what is happening. They were told that there was a task force, which had its first meeting on April 19 and was to bring in a report on May 1. Well, we are into May 2.

Last Thursday or Friday the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) , who was responsible for the setting up of the committee, said: "You've got nothing to worry about. Everything is frozen." Today they met with the officials of that ministry and everything is going on its way.

One of the things that the government and the Premier, as the head of the government, have an obligation to do is to level with people about what is going on. This is not a great state secret. We are not dealing with a profit and loss situation with respect to whatever is going to happen to this thing, other than that people should know frankly what is going to happen.

It's my opinion that what is going to happen is that they are going to be out in the cold. The government has already set its course, regardless of what the minister said, and they are going to get rid of it. We don't know who they are going to hand it over to, but these people are completely in the dark and they have a right to know.

All we've heard from this minister is that they are an open government, that they've got all sorts of information retrieval systems which allow them to know what's going on every minute of the day. There are 350 employees of these companies who want to know what's going on now, and in the future. And if it's the decision of the government - which personally I think it is - to unload these companies, put them into another form of Crown corporation, and start divesting themselves of the special services, then it's going to create unemployment.

Not only that, but it's again going to hit on the tourist industry in this city and on the whole of the Island. It has a direct effect on that, and what we can expect to look forward to in a smaller way is a similar kind of damaging impact that the doubling of the ferry rates had. This affects 350 people's lives; they want to know where they stand. The Premier is the Minister of Transport and Communications; presumably he's apprised himself of what's going on - presumably.

We don't know. If he's apprised himself as well as he's done as Premier, he probably doesn't know a thing that's going on. But we have to take a chance, and we have to ask him, and he has to be frank with us.

Can he tell us what is going to happen to these bus lines? What is the position of the government? Because at the moment we have conflicting stories, particularly from the minister in charge of the task force. Those people who work for the bus company have a right to know; the people who make a living in the tourist industry have a right to know. You can make things easier for everybody if you tell us exactly what the correct position. Is the Minister of Housing's (Hon. Mr. Curtis') statement correct that everything is frozen? Or are we to believe these officials who met this afternoon, the representatives who said: "Everything is not frozen. We are going ahead with our schedule and phase 2 will be completed in July."? These people want to know what is going to happen.

Because here is another instance of the possibility of disposing of another Crown asset. Are we going to go through the same thing again about who's going to evaluate what that asset is worth, and then who is going to get it, and who's going to be doing the

[ Page 1024 ]

negotiations? We seem to be getting into a pattern of these things. So, Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the Premier, as Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications.... There is continuity in the department, presumably. These letters were written by the former minister, one as recently as March 22, some two weeks before he vacated his office. So where are we at in terms of this? I ask the Premier to advise that just what is happening in respect of this project.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, in response to questions, I dealt with the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation before dinner and quite clearly tried to explain the status of that corporation as a public company that will operate in the private sector. The fact that the interim directors are in the process of preparing a public issue, meeting the requirements of the Securities Exchange Commission on the completion and issuance of that issue to the public of British Columbia as a voluntary investment within a stated period of time.... The shareholders will have an opportunity to elect the new board of directors which will operate from year to year, and must be ratified or re-elected at annual general meetings where they are responsible and accountable to the shareholders. The interim directors as such have done one hiring. Such information as to salary and directors' fees will be available, I'm sure, in the prospectus, and available to the shareholders.

As you know, the government in the first instance will be a continuing shareholder, although a minority in the corporation, and as such will guarantee its distance from government because it will not be a Crown corporation. It will be a private-sector company. As such, that information could be available from that company now. The interim directors are available as soon as they have completed the preparation for the underwriting. Valuation was done under the financial managers - four reputable companies that were the financial managers. They are companies chosen by the last government to represent the province of B.C. -Ames; McLeod, Young and Weir; Richardson; and Pemberton. They are British Columbia companies of size and note, capable of handling with their large amounts of staff - skilled professionals, advice to governments on finance issues as to Hydro, as they did for the last government and have done for this government. Each of those organizations both province-wide and their reputations within the country.... More than individuals, they sell the expertise and the integrity of a company. To attempt to make anything more is reaching politically farther than that opposition usually does in attempting to stir up and confuse the issue.

I think there is no doubt to members of this House that all of those firms and the people and professionals in them have a reputation of honesty and integrity. As such I am concerned at the attempt that has been to attack those companies and their reputations.

Also the professional staff of the Finance ministry and the Ministry of Mines have carried out negotiations with the interim directors as such, using such advice that they got. The Minister of Finance has already responded in this House to a request to deal with financial transactions surrounding B.C. Ferries and as such I'm sure that minister will meet that commitment to the House.

I also want to deal with the remarks of the second member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Levi) , who is concerned about transit. We've all been made aware that transit in British Columbia, both this year and last year or the year before, when the minister responsible for transit, which is not the Minister of Transport and Communications, but the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) who has been responsible for transit to this House through the last two sessions and now in this third session.... I'm sure the member must remember that. He's responsible for transit, and he has already outlined to this House the nightmare that was created in transit, with a large part of it traditionally operated by B.C. Hydro for no other reason than that it was there when the B.C. Electric became part of the public power corporation. B.C. Hydro had impacted upon it transit systems or vehicles or costs that were not of their own choosing but were from the last government, and transit purchases in the transit field that created a nightmare with no rationale. As such we have said we will rationalize in British Columbia.

Recent events have made us aware that transit in the lower mainland is subsidized by the Hydro consumers not only in those areas but in all parts of this province - Hydro users in Omineca, Prince Rupert, Fort St. John, South Peace River, North Peace River, the Cariboo, the Kootenays, Nelson-Creston, Rossland-Trail. Those people have been subsidizing, unknowingly perhaps, the cost of transit through their Hydro bills for a number of years. Those transit costs were accelerated by actions taken by the last government already outlined to this House by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. I don't have a copy from Hansard of his old speech. But rather than use it because I have nothing to say myself, as some members

[ Page 1025 ]

seem to be doing.... Their total speech is read from old speeches from Hansard. I'm sure members can find it in Hansard and recall the events that he told to this House of what was done in the name of transit in this province and the costs that were impacted upon Hydro that are now reflected in costs of $60 million a year.

The minister made a statement the other day and that statement still stands. I would say to this House, without going further on the future of transit in this province, that the throne speech suggests that we will be dealing with transit during this session. In trying to rationalize transit, that will be something that the House will have an opportunity to discuss. It won't be on supposition; it won't be on single representations of a ministry but on government policy. That will be subject for future debate in this Legislature and as such, of course, is not part of the discussions in estimates like anything that will become part of future legislative action. As it's already in the throne speech, I think that should allay the fears and let the members know that that opportunity to deal with transit will be forthcoming during this present session of the Legislature; of that you can be sure.

I also wanted to say that that will be part of an emerging transportation policy that will rationalize and put up front costs that in fact had been hidden and will relate to costs that had been publicly identified on a understandable formula, whether it's water trans port, road transport, or perhaps including rail transport in this province. So all members will have a chance during this year to be made aware of changes, but in this session there will be an opportunity to deal with transit.

MR. LEVI: Well, Mr. Chairman, , the Premier is a monument of no information, although he did say one thing and I just want to get it clear in my mind because it is the Premier speaking. He said that the minister's statement as of last week stands. As I understand it, that's what he said. Well, I can assure the Premier that that's not what those people who represented the bus lines were told today.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The minister hasn't changed his statement.

MR. LEVI: Oh, you know, that's very nice of you to say that, the minister hasn't changed his mind. These people met with senior staff of the Housing ministry this afternoon and were told something different. We'll let them speak tomorrow. Presumably they'll have something to say. But the Premier has said - as I understand it - that everything is frozen, because that %us the impact of the minister's statement last week.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Just in response, I've said the minister has not changed his statement and the minister's statement stands. The minister is responsible for policy representing the government, and he has not made any change or recommendation to government.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, we I re going to get into some kind of a problem here, so we better do it very slowly.

As I understand it, as a result of what took place last week around the buildings, the minister indicated to the press - he said it to the press - that everything is frozen. Nothing is going to happen. Today the senior staff informed the representatives of the employees that this was not the case, that they were still moving ahead. Now the Premier tells us that the minister is responsible for transit, and they're going to rationalize it. Then he throws in his favourite word these days, "impacted." That's a new word. My God, that's a distortion of the English language if I ever heard it - "impacted."

Now let me say this: the Premier indicated tonight, in the statement he made in the last couple of minutes, that they're going to look at a formula. Well, we've heard about this formula. We've seen it in operation. We saw it in operation two years ago when you doubled the ferry rates, on the basis that the user pays. You used the argument that the ferries are the extension of the road system. So you followed this theory of yours - this formula -and you practically ruined the economy of Vancouver Island.

Now we look like we're going to move into a similar kind of formula for the rest of the province. He's going to put everything up front. Well, everything is up front. People know about the deficit for transportation. They know about the promises that were made for 20 years about bus transportation in Richmond and in Maple Ridge that were never delivered. They were thinking of a transit system that was in the '50s, when we needed a transit system that could deliver service in terms of the '70s. And that's what the Premier's government did, because that's what the public wanted.

The Premier shakes his head. He's got a new formula, and the formula is you're going to pay as you go. What are the options? You can double or triple the fares - that's what Hydro says. In order to have the thing pay for it

[ Page 1026 ]

self , you've got to triple the fares. Or you cut the service in half. Yes, you could do that. That's what the Hydro officials have said, and that's what they can look forward to in this fantastic plan that the Premier has for rationalizing transit. Rationalizing means what? It means pay as you go.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You're going to get a chance to debate it in the Legislature. Stop speculating.

MR. LEVI: Are you going to interrupt me, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the Premier has indicated that there will be a bill on transit, and the buses which you have been discussing will be on the bill. So please try to keep in order.

MR. LEVI: Well, with respect, we have enough problems in this House getting information out of the government without every one of them coming in here and dangling the idea in front of us that somehow there's some legislation coming in, and therefore we can't talk about it.

MR. LAUK: It's been promised for three years.

MR. LEVI: For three years. So why should we think it's any different from last year? Some legislation is coming in. It's incredible -another way of cutting off debate. Somebody says there's a possibility of some legislation. Well, that's not good enough. We know that it was in the throne speech. As I recall, it's been in the last three throne speeches. So we don't know any more, except that the Premier leaked a little bit tonight. He said they're going to rationalize it. He talks about a formula, and we can only relate it to the experience we've had previously.

But when he got up, he also said transit is under the Minister of Housing. We know that. We know he's made some remarkable speeches, and hasn't produced a thing in two and a half years.

I asked the Premier a series of questions about Pacific Stage Lines, and the letter the former minister wrote to the Premier. Now that's within his estimates. We'd like some answers on those. Right, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: You are quite right, hon. member. In fact, unless the bill has had first reading in the House, until such time as it has, we will be quite prepared to proceed on that.

MR. LEVI: Now, Mr. Chairman, let's get this straight. The next time one of those ministers comes in this House and dangles a little bit of bait in front of us and says, "There's the possibility of a bill coming in, " we can say to them: "Shove it! That's not the way it goes. You table it and then we won't discuss it."

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would think, hon. member, that parliamentary language would always be in order in this chamber.

MR. LEVI: Right. I beg your pardon. That's "Put it back to where it was."

AN HON. MEMBER: Shelve it.

MR. LEVI: Shelve it. I'm sorry. I have a terrible lisp and it came out as....

AN HON. MEMBER: Fuddle-duddle!

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, the Premier's remarks impacted on me and it came out as "shove" instead of "shelve." I'm sorry. But that's it. It's shelve.

But look, that thing has been tried twice today. Now I thank you, Mr. Chairman. You've done the House a great service because you've informed us. No more smokescreens. If you've got a bill to put in, bring it in, drop it, and we won't discuss it, in exactly the same way as you told me I cannot discuss what goes on in the committee. You are quite right.

MR. LAUK: You've got to learn to interface with the committee and have an impact.

MR. LEVI: Yes, into what? Interface, yes. Speak to the Chair.

I don't want to be tedious and repetitious, but I just want to get some answers from the Premier. It's not good enough to shift it over to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) . We can go back over a number of questions before I sit down. We asked him about the commissions that were paid on the ferries lease-back but he hasn't made any reference to that. He hasn't even acknowledged the receipt of the letters and what his opinions might be about them. He's just indicated to us that the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing makes policy, and the policy is exactly as the minister says. We don't know what the policy is because the minister hasn't said anything. I don't want to go through Hansard and read the Minis

[ Page 1027 ]

ter of Municipal Affairs and Housing's speeches about transit, because they're like the Minister of Economic Development's (Hon. Mr. Phillips) . They're about all the things he's going to do in the future about employment and, in the meanwhile, unemployment is getting worse in the province. That, to us, is not policy making; that's a lot of bafflegab.

So here are the questions, Mr. Chairman. Will the minister tell us ... ?

MR. LAUK: Are you getting a bit worried, Bill?

MR. LEVI: If he's not, he should be, Mr.

Chairman.

MR. BARRETT: Vander Zalm leaps ahead.

MR. LEVI: He sure does.

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

MR. LEVI: Can the Premier tell us, for the 15th time of asking, what was the commission? Was a commission paid on the ferry lease-back agreement? If so, how much and who received it and who paid it? It's very simple. After all, you're a government that does everything on the bottom line. You know where every penny is. Where is that $200,000 to $450,000?

What has he got to say with respect to the concern of 350 employees of the Pacific Stage Lines and the other company? That's a serious concern for these people, and I'm sure it's an equally serious concern to people who have businesses on this Island, because they do not want to see a repetition of what happened two years ago. Anyone would wonder that if they had any sense over there, if they were forced into doing something like this, they be frank with the public and say something. But no, not these people. Everything is a big, deep secret. They've got all sorts of brilliant ideas. They've got formulas, but we know how they work.

MR. BARRETT: They came out with a telephone book.

MR. LEVI: Oh, that's right. That was the result of the expansion of the Premier's office.

MR. BARRETT: That's right. Now we've got a telephone book.

MR. LEVI: Not only do we have a telephone book, but he also has initials attached to the names, and now we even know who we are looking for. And that's great progress.

MR. BARRETT: Book No. 1, book No. 2 and book No. 3.

MR. LEVI: Really great progress. That's all that has come out of that Premier's office except a lot of smoke. He's got four PR people running around down there, and they're churning out all sorts of propaganda.

You know, I just went to go back to something before I sit down. I just want to talk about what the Premier said last night. He said that they've had more open meetings of cabinet than any other government. Last night I took the trouble to find out what this public meeting was that he went to in Delta. An incredible meeting, and 100 people were there. Was it by invitation or was it public? A hundred people turned out to hear the Premier of British Columbia do a report - 100 people.

HON. MR. BENNETT: That's the one where your leader got caught telling an untruth. He said, "Tell me one." Davie got caught telling an untruth.

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, you're going to have to bring these two to order, or else I'm going to take them out in the corridor.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you are quite correct. Please proceed.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, two days after, the cabinet appeared in Terrace - a closed meeting, invitations arranged by the Social Credit constituency association. An open cabinet meeting. They were in town a hot eight hours and they left. Nobody was any the wiser. Nobody knew anything.

Now we've got the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) who is going to say that they have good, open cabinet meetings all over the province. They answer questions. Oh, one can laugh about that. That doesn't happen. It just doesn't happen. The Premier believes it does, Mr. Chairman, but it doesn't. I have to say to him that it simply doesn't happen. He's down in that office of his which is so full of smoke he can't see. It doesn't happen. They don't have public caucus meetings or public cabinet meetings.

HON. MR. MAIR: How about the one you had in Kamloops at the golf club?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

[ Page 1028 ]

MR. LEVI: In the election? I want to talk to him about that flight up to Kamloops. That's what I want to talk to him about, Mr. Chairman - the one I paid for myself. Yes, I paid for that trip myself.

HON. MR. MAIR: At Grand Forks?

MR. LEVI: I didn't talk about Grand Forks. I'm talking about Kamloops.

HON. MR. MAIR: Tell us about Grand Forks.

MR. LAUK: Have they got a gold club in Grand Forks?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Perhaps we can relate this debate to the minister's vote. We're on vote 5 at this time.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, you've got to accept that these kinds of diversions happen because we got somebody who's supposed to be answering questions who is struck dumb and blind. He hasn't been able to answer a question all day. So we're just going to have to fiddle around the edges until we can get some answers.

Now, Mr. Chairman, just once more, for the sixteenth time in asking, was a commission paid under ferry leaseback? If it was, how much was it? Who got it? Who paid for it? Never mind telling us that it's the Minister of Housing - the letters were written to your ministry. You are the head of the Ministry of Energy, Transport and Communications. What is your policy?

Davis was the one who outlined the policy. I can just imagine what happened. Trailways can-, to him and said: "Look, we got a proposition for you." In his excitement he wrote to the Premier. He not only got excited; he actually used all sorts of the phraseology of the letters just to make the impact. He wrote to the Premier twice. One can only conclude that the Premier agreed with what the former minister was saying and now we're on our way to seeing the disposal of these lines, the giving in to these private enterprises, particularly the people who come from outside the country.

HON. MR. BAWLF: Tell us about how badly we need a double-decker bus.

MR. LEVI: The member from Abacus Cities must keep quiet, Mr. Chairman. He hasn't got the floor; I've got the floor. You know what he's done? He's become a minister of defence, just like Dan Campbell used to be the minister of defence in the other government. Now the Premieres got a minister of defence. The

Premier operates very much like the former Minister of Education. Do you remember the former Minister of Education, Donald Brothers?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, please relate this to vote 5.

MR. LEVI: Will the Premier answer the questions? That's all. It's very simple, Mr. Chairman. I know that we can't demand answers. We just have to rely on him in his position as Premier and minister of that ministry to tell us what is going to happen.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I just went through a number of those answers. I will answer the one area I didn't deal with, which was the letter from the former Minister of Energy, Transport and Communications (Mr. Davis) . Yes, he wrote a letter. Yes, I received it. Yes, it's in my files, if that's not the copy you've got there. Yes, it's still there and nothing ums done other than receive it. The minister responsible for transit is still undertaking to bring in transit legislation in this session, and that's the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Hon. Mr. Curtis) .

MR. CHAIRMAN: Just before I recognize the first member for Vancouver East, the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) questioned the judgment of the Chair on the statement that facts before the select standing committee were inadmissible. Perhaps someone can refer this to him on page 432 of the 19th edition of Sir Erskine May.

MR. BARRETT: Is that the 19th edition? That's the 18th.

MR. CHAIRMAN: This says 19th on the cover but perhaps it's been recovered. (Laughter.)

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman I admit I'm changing the subject a little it but I want to ask the Premier whether or not he's made statements around the province of B.C. that the NDP government during its term of office was unkind to the mining industry. There's one hon. member back there who bangs his desk. I'm glad you're listening to me because I just wanted to make this strictly between the Premier and me and I do not expect he's going to keep his back turned for too long.

MR. KEMPF: You better not turn yours. The real leader will get you.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I ask the

[ Page 1029 ]

Premier: have you told the people of British Columbia that the NDP government killed the mining industry in this province?

HON. MR. MAIR: True.

MR. MACDONALD: One of your ministers says "true." Of course, I can answer that question for the Premier. He's been going around the province, both before he was made Premier and after that time, saying that we- killed the mining industry in this province during our term in office. The Minister for Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) says that we did, the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) says that we did, and the Premier has been saying that we did.

I would like to just ask him about the figures now. It's kind of unfair to refer to the actual production figures, eh?

MR. BARRETT: What does the Minister of Mines (Hon. Mr. Chabot) say?

MR. MACDONALD: Well, here's what the Minister of Mines says. He gets out the annual report. I wouldn't like to suggest that the Premier has been misleading the people of the province but I would like to refer these figures to him. Sometimes a little grain of fact or truth about history and about what's happening in this province might be helpful.

Now I'm going to ask the Premier about these figures. We're looking at the annual report of the Ministry of Mines and Petroleum Resources, and the figures go back through this report to 1887. They don't want to hear about the mineral and mining production in 1887; it embarrasses them. But in that year, at the beginning of this province: the total value of mineral production.... There's one thing about this province: it's kept a pretty close track of the production of our mineral wealth.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: If we could export your hot air it would be great.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, I know it is mostly, but I'm going to give you a few facts. I just want you to listen to the fact part, because I wouldn't like to say that you've been misleading people. I don't think you're quite capable of that, but you've been trying. We have the total value of mineral production from 1836 up to 1976 in the annual report, and that includes metals, copper, molybdenum and things like that; industrial materials; structural materials, coal, petroleum and natural gas figures - the whole ball. Now we start with a production in 1887 of about $1 million, and it grows as the province grows. But let's look at the figures in 1972 when the NDP became government. This is the specific question I want to put to the Premier. In 1972 the total value of mineral production in the province of British Columbia was $636 million. In 1973.... Oh! I thought we killed the mining industry, but it grew.

MR. BARRETT: What are you quoting from, please?

MR. MACDONALD: It's the annual report of the Ministry of Mines and Petroleum Resources.

MR. BARRETT: Who is the minister?

MR. MACDONALD: It grew to $1,109, 000,000. In 1974 it was up again to $1,264, 000,000.

HON. MR. MAIR: Carry the bottom one - zero, zero, zero.

MR. MACDONALD: You're the one who said we killed the mining industry. Are you listening, Mr. Minister?

HON. MR. MAIR: Sure! You did!

MR. MACDONALD: Are you going to correct your statements?

HON. MR. MAIR: Of course not. (Laughter.)

MR. MACDONALD: All right, of course not. That's what we're troubled with in this province - a bunch of cynical opportunists who check their principles somewhere - I don't know where - and when they're asked to adjust their statements to the facts they say "of course not."

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Please address the Chair.

MR. MACDONALD: I'm going to remember that remark: "Of course not."

AN HON. MEMBER: Afton Copper.

MR. MACDONALD: Now we come to 1974, which was a better year than 1973. And, yes, we started Afton Copper.

HON. MR. MAIR: No government takeover; no secret deals.

MR. MACDONALD: There's no use talking to

[ Page 1030 ]

that minister. He's going out to balderdash the people and he says they're not going to change. No, the facts don't mean anything to that minister. I'll talk about Afton Copper some other time. I'm talking to the Premier, now, Mr. Chairman. I don't want that man to interrupt me, because he's made it perfectly plain that he's impervious to the kinds of facts that are contained in the government annual reports, and it's a report from the Minister of Mines and Petroleum Resources. I'm glad to see him here.

During the dark mining years of the NDP when you were marshalling on the lawns saying we were killing the mining industry, somehow it improved. From 1973 to 1974 we were up to $1,264, 000,000. Well, 1975 was not the easiest year in the world for the mining industry. Everybody knows that the price of copper had been up around 70 or 80 cents, which is one ingredient in these figures, and it was down to about 50 cents - 48 or 49 cents in 1975. In spite of that, Mr. Premier, through the Chair, in 1975 under an NDP socialist government the total value of mineral production in British Columbia increased again to $1,364, 000,000.

In that brief period I've been talking about, 1972 to 1975, under an NDP government, the total value of mineral production in the province of British Columbia more than doubled from $636 million to $1,364, 000,000. The question I've got for the Premier is: is there any other comparable period in the history of British Columbia when the total value of mineral production doubled under any other government of any other stripe - Liberal, Conservative, Social Credit, or call it what you will? What I'm saying is: the Premier ought to answer these questions seriously and deal with the figure.

I think it is time that the people began to look at the facts and figures instead of the kind of barrage of propaganda that's been pouring out from the other side. You can mislead people for a while, but not forever. So I'm going to ask my specific question to the Premier, and I don't want to raise my voice. Is there any other period in the history of the province of British Columbia when the total value of mineral production more than doubled in a space of four calendar years?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'm sure the member who just spoke is aware of the lead time taken to explore, develop and bring into production a mine. Mining does not just happen overnight. We need the confidence in the industry to go out and explore, so claim-staking figures reflect greatly the confidence the people have in the mining industry at any particular time.

Let's take a look at the confidence people had before the NDP became government: in 1972 - approximately 72,000 claims staked; 1975 -11,000.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yet in the same- period that claim-staking declined in British Columbia - this is all part of the debates in this Legislature while they were government -claim-staking increased in the Yukon. They used to call your Bill 33 the best mining legislation the Yukon ever had.

In the same period, let's take a look at the number of metal mines that closed in British Columbia. In 1973, Vadera Joint Venture closed, 60 jobs in the last year; Canex Placer Limited, 83 permanent jobs; Giant Mascot Mines Limited, 198 jobs; Placid Oil Company, Bull River, 49 jobs; Reeves Macdonald Mines Limited, 119 jobs; 509 jobs lost in 1973, all those mines closed down.

In 1974, Anaconda closed down, 250 jobs; Consolidated Churchill Copper Corporation closed down, 116 jobs. These are the years you're bragging about. The member for Vancouver-East....

AN HON. MEMBER: What's the lead time on those?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, we know the lead time it takes, but you certainly showed us the stop time, and the stop time was the day you got elected. The lead-time is many years of hard work, of people exploring - that's the lead-time, and that takes many years. But the NDP showed us the stop time, and it %Ta s instantaneous with their election to government, instantaneous with their bringing in Bill 33. Here we had hundreds of jobs lost from mine closures in 1973, and they're trying to stop me from reading the list. But I'm going to read it: Colt Resources Limited, 116 jobs; Cominco Limited, Pinchi Lake, 59 jobs; Hallmark Limited, 7 jobs; Jordan Mines, 131 jobs....

Interjections.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Five hundred and nine jobs in 1973,589 jobs in 1974.

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member for Vancouver East introduced this subject, and you know what he's taking advantage of? The wild inflation that swept the world in those years when

[ Page 1031 ]

the dollar value increased. That's what he's talking about. He's taking credit for inflation.

The figures show that they stopped claim staking and they know that claim-staking went down in British Columbia - and the usual sick smile from the Leader of the Opposition when things aren't well. You know, psychologists could have a field-day with that expression we see so often in this Legislature. Claim staking went down steadily, from 72,000 in 1972, through '73 and '74, until finally it bottomed at 11,000 in 1975.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where did the prospectors go, Alex?

HON. MR. BENNETT: They went to the Yukon because there was opportunity there, claim staking for the little fellow, not for the mining companies. At the same time, claim staking increased in the Yukon, Mr. Chairman, very dramatically. The figures are so close together - one set going one way, one the other - but then they were used to those comparisons for that period when that group was government.

At the same time, the list of mine closures and permanent jobs that were lost is extensive. Hundreds of jobs, Mr. Chairman. So yes, I'm pleased to answer the member for Vancouver East. That's the same member that had all those great quotes on the amount of gas that was available in the Grizzly Valley, or wasn't available. He ums against it.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Oh, the terrible things that were going to happen. We had a royal commission that said that not only didn't they know anything, but they never showed up at the royal commission. The Leader of the Opposition sent a lawyer to represent him, to say he had nothing to say.

Oh, the rumours they've spread, and oh, the stories they've told. They said: "Oh, there'll be no gas. It will be terrible. That development i a hoax on the people." And yet today we've got hundreds of jobs up there with the construction of that pipeline and the scrubbing plant. The people of British Columbia who are working there now know what you said. They know that you would have prevented that. You didn't have the vision; you didn't have the courage. But, above all, you were willing to say anything at that time in trying to smokescreen and cloud the issue. Yet the reserves have proven greater than ever anticipated. The pipeline is a fact. The National Energy Board makes a mockery of the statements in approving that line.

Westcoast Transmission is building it. They had confidence in the reserves in that area. Yet he has the nerve at that time to stand in the Legislature and make some of the worst comments and the worst predictions. Flimflam. They were talking about all the things that were going to happen in the Grizzly Valley.

I've got pages of quotes here from the Member for Vancouver Centre and from the Member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) . There are lots of quotes from the member for Vancouver Centre about the gas reserves that were not going to be there in the Grizzly Valley. But now we know they are, and they were, and the line is being built today. We'll have to tell those hundreds of British Columbians who are working up there that if the NDP had had their way, they would be on the unemployment lines. There wouldn't be action taking place in the Peace River and in the northern part of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Why do not you hire back Arthur Weeks?

HON. MR. BENNETT: There's the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) , who was the only one from that side who had the courage to go to the royal commission. He want. I did not see them giving him any credits in their findings, but at least he showed up.

Mr. Chairman, they tried to circulate wild rumours and they were just rumours. They're great on rumour, great on innuendo - masters of it.

You're looking a little pinched.

AN HON. MEMBER: You never say it outside of the House, do you?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The Leader of the Opposition says to ask Jack. What do you say?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Perhaps if the Chairman was included in this debate....

HON. MR. BENNETT: The Leader of the Opposition keeps saying: "Ask Jack." What is it you're saying?

MR. BARRETT: What do you think?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Trying to run away from your little jibes across the floor. What are you saying? Oh, the poor, poor, pinched, white-faced Leader of the Opposition. There it is. Listen. Remember, we talked about the laugh when he gets in trouble, the nervous giggle.

Mr. Chairman, they come in here and they ask

[ Page 1032 ]

about mining. We've just given them the figures for claim-staking that went downhill when they were government, and of the mines that closed when they were government. It's embarrassing to have the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) further add to his declining reputation which started when he made those terrible mis-statements last year about the Grizzly reserves. That pipeline is building. And there are things happening in the north in British Columbia. There are jobs.

Perhaps that gloom-and-doom group over there didn't want it to happen. Perhaps they hoped that if they talked against it and peddled their rumours about insufficient gas reserves, it wouldn't happen. They're not out for British Columbia. They just want things to fail. Maybe they could come back into power. They are not looking for things to happen. But I'll tell you that things did happen. All their doom and gloom, and all their rumours and innuendos surrounding Grizzly Valley pipeline were zero. And today it is happening. Their figures were wrong. Their statements were incorrect.

The reserves are there and were there. That pipeline is being built today, approved by the National Energy Board, which means hundreds of jobs for British Columbia. More than that, the developments in exploration that have been taking place in the north in our petroleum industry has added significantly to our gas reserves and to our energy resources. Those proven energy resources are a priceless asset to the people of this province in the future. Confidence is what is being restored in this province.

I'm trying to look for some more things to tell you, but I'll wait for some more questions.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I'm sure that you noticed that while the Premier was on the question of Grizzly Valley, he was flipping through pages and quotations and saying this and that that I said in that debate. He didn't quote my words. Did you notice that? There's a lot of innuendo there and a lot of slithering off the issue.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You get them and read them, then.

MR. MACDONALD: Oh, come on. I challenge you, Mr. Premier. That's enough. It's time that you stopped this business of just shading the truth.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You've been reading Hansard all day. Read it to the House.

MR. MACDONALD: You told me I was against that Grizzly Valley pipeline, didn't you?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Read it to the House.

MR. MACDONALD: You've been slithering around the truth and misrepresenting people in this province long enough. Just a little shade, eh? Quote the Hansard. What do we have a record in this House for?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD: I'm tired of being misrepresented in this House by that Premier, and out in the country. Sooner or later there should be an hour of truth. I challenge the Premier with deliberately misrepresenting to the people of this province and to this House.

[Mr. Chairman rises.]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, it's quite possible that I could find some timely quotation from Sir Erskine May. However, since it's only 10: 30 and we have 30 minutes to go, perhaps if we had a little moderation in debate it would be in order. Perhaps the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) could address the Chair. Please continue.

[Mr. Chairman resumes his seat.]

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I'll say it very quietly but I'll say it to the Chair and to anyone else within hearing that the Premier will make these remarks about what was said by me, but he will ref use to quote my words. He knows very well that he's shading it - not very much, but he's shading it. You know, I think we've had enough of that in this province. I do.

Well, okay. The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Mair) looks at me quizzically. Is he going to quote my words or not, eh? What's your guess? It's all there in Hansard, everything that was said.

HON. MR. MAIR: You're a caricature of yourself. I've never seen anything like it.

MR. MACDONALD: That may be, but I'm just telling you this - your Premier will not quote the exact words. He will not quote my words. He'll just imply what he thinks I said and what he wants people to believe.

[ Page 1033 ]

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: There was more stock manipulation. I don't want to debate Grizzly Valley, but let me tell you this.

HON. MR. MAIR: I guess not, eh?

MR. MACDONALD: There is the Minister of Economic Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) . There has never been in this province such a purveyor of misinformation as this government. Now if there is only one thing.... There is the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Gardom) . I don't know why he's after all these other people when he's got that gang of you sitting around him. I'm serious about this; I'm not just having a good time. We have never had such a purveying of misinformation to the people of this province as we've had from that gang opposite - never in this province.

MR. BARRETT: He's still looking for a quote.

MR. MACDONALD: Oh, he's looking for it. He's already made the charge that I said this, and I was against that, and so forth.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, but you're not going to quote the words. No way, because the words are the truth and you want to shade the truth. You want to shade it. You know, that's the message of this government, and that's the message that the people of this province are going to learn. They're going to learn that they can't trust that government. They can't trust their words.

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, but you won't quote my words either.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please address the Chair.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I've said enough on that here, but I must admit that I'm tired of this shading of the truth.

On the question of mining, the Premier says: "The figures I quoted represent inflation." Is that what he said? Well, inflation was bubbling along in those years about 7 per cent, 8 per cent, 9 per cent, but in four years we doubled. Now you can't say that's inflation, or can you? Can you say that? Now we're not talking about staking.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. MACDONALD: No, we're talking about production. The staking rules, as a matter of fact, were changed in that period. There gas a new Mineral Act, and the acreage staked and everything ums changed. We're not talking about that, we're talking about the asset things. We're talking about actual production in the province of British Columbia and actual value of wealth created, and never in any four-year period in the history of British Columbia did we have such expansion and increase in mineral wealth produced as we did under the NDP years. Those people who go through the province as they've been doing and say that we killed the mining industry are going to have something to answer for, because their credibility gap is widening. It was just a little bit like that, now it's getting wider and wider, and I think the hour of truth is coming. It takes a long time, but the hour of truth is coming. We doubled production.

MR. KING: I was very interested to listen to the Premier quoting firms that have closed down and mines that have closed down, because really what I %wanted to talk about in the Premier's estimates, Mr. Chairman, is the wreck that he has made in his stewardship of the economy of British Columbia - the absolute wreck of the business community, of employment opportunity and of any confidence for investment in this province under the tenure of that government.

Mr. Chairman, I've made a list too and it's just a partial one. I want those people over on that side to listen to it. It's factual. It can be checked out. It's well known to the public but it does well every once in a while to go back over history and recount and remind the people of the province, as well as that assortment of political malcontents over there that have come together...

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Don't get personal, now.

MR. KING: ... just what has happened in the three years that they have been in office now. On February 1,1976, the Maritime Museum in Vancouver closed down, two jobs gone. On February 2,1976, Western National Drug Services closed down, 75 jobs. On February 3,1976, B.C. Hydro laid off 300 workers. On March 4,1976, Granduc Mines, the mining industry that those people said that they were going to revitalize, closed down - 80 jobs lost. On April 5,1976, Rayonier Canada Ltd., silver chemical division - 30 jobs lost. On April 6,1976, Sigurdson Millwork Ltd., Vancouver - 35 jobs lost with the closure of that plant.

[ Page 1034 ]

This is not just mining, Mr. Chairman. This is the total economy of the province of British Columbia. On May 7,1976, the B.C. Emergency Health Services, under the tender social mercies of this government, laid off 11 people.

MR. BARRETT: They're not laughing now, are they?

MR. KING: Between April 8 and June, 1976, Westmill Carpets, Kelowna, in the Premier's riding, closed down with a loss of 55 jobs.

MR. BARRETT: They're strangely silent now, aren't they?

HON. MR. BENNETT: It was a pollution problem. Are you in favour of that?

MR. KING: Pollution problem? Oh, it wasn't an inflation problem, eh, Mr. Premier? Well, I can understand them having a pollution problem in Kelowna. Perhaps the pollution problem was more in proximity to your office than anything else.

On June 9,1976, the B.C. Ferry Corporation laid off 420 employees. Are you proud of that record, Mr. Premier? On June 10,1976, Victoria Plywood Limited closed - 175 workers went down the road with that plant. On July 11,1976, Can-Cel sulphite mill closed - 325 jobs down the tube. In October, 1971, Phoenix Mines closed down, with a loss of 25 jobs.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Openings - brand new mills. Ensure the jobs.

MR. KING: I want the Premier to listen. Perhaps he doesn't like hearing this. Don't be so testy. Try and control yourself. I know you're nervous. Rich boys never had to stand the heat before, you know. Rich boys don't like it. Rich kids can't sit still and relax and listen to the truth; it bothers them. But I would like you to try, Mr. Premier.

HON. MR. BENNETT: All right. You try and I'll try.

MR. KING. You're enough to embarrass anyone. No wonder I'm red in the face. Where was I?

Phoenix Mines - 25 jobs lost; in October, 1976, Northland Shipping - 150 jobs lost. That's all in 1976. That's a pretty good record of destruction for that gang of businessmen over there - the millionaire wrecking crew.

Let's start in 1977. This is not a complete list, my friend. This is just a partial list.

January, 1977 - the BCR Dease Lake extension closes down with 300 jobs down the tube. Are you proud of that? Is that industrial development? Ocean Foundries, Surrey, February, 1977 - 18 jobs lost; March, 1977, Shasta Beverages Ltd. - Vancouver, eight jobs lost. It was just a small plant, but a small private-enterprise plant that thought they might get some benefit from this kind of government. What did they get? They got an increase in sales tax and shrinkage of disposable income. Demand went down and they had to close their doors.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: If you had been in, the whole province would have closed down.

MR. KING: My leather-lunged friend, %by don't you rest for a while? Come and chin yourself on my finger and you'll play yourself out.

March, 1977, B.C. Hydro gas division - 29 jobs down the tube. Does that make you uncomfortable or are you proud of it?

MR. BARRETT: Let the record show that they laughed.

HON. MR. BENNETT: At you.

MR. KING: Railwest closed down after the Premier made his, vaunted promise to travel to Squamish to secure the jobs of the people. The kiss-of-death Premier, the runaway Premier. Closed down - 260 jobs lost. And do you know what's happening now, Mr. Chairman, under that shrewd business government? We lay off British Columbia workers who are constructing British Columbia railcars. Now that railway is renting rail traffic rolling stock from the USA. Are you proud of that? Is that what you have in mind with free trade? Is that what you have in mind, Mr. Premier?

The Human Resources ministry, that tender outfit under the delicate, humane supervision of the Minister of Human Resources... *

In October, 1977 - 27 workers laid off. November, 1977, MacMillan Bloedel head office - even the big boys weren't immune from the ravages of this government - laid of f 90 of their executives in November of 1977. In January, 19789 the B.C. Public Works ministry....

Interjections.

MR. KING: They sure don't like to hear it, do they? They remind me of that big, red Irish setter, you know. He loved to dish it out, but he sure couldn't take it. That's what this government's like. If you don't know the rest

[ Page 1035 ]

of the story, Mr. Premier, I'll tell it to you.

Mr. Chairman, starting out in January of 1978, B.C. Public Works ministry laid off 500 workers, some of them with 20 years' seniority with the provincial government. In January, 1978, Greater Victoria School District - 39 workers laid off. March, 1978, MacMillan Bloedel Vanply division - 215 workers laid off. Some of it was salvaged. In April of this year, 1978, Spetifore Frozen Foods Ltd. - 125 jobs down the drain. That was even a friend of the Socreds. They let him go down the tube with the loss of 125 jobs. In April, 1978, Zenith Steel closed its doors - 135 jobs down the tube.

MR. LEA: Work with Bill!

MR. KING: In May of 1978, McDonald's Bakery - 62 workers losing their jobs. In June, 1978, Granduc copper mine - 320 jobs. Let's hear it for all the things that you're doing for the mining industry.

In June of 1978, another firm is slated to close, Bonar & Bemis paper bag - a loss of another 50 jobs.

July 2 1978, Western Bridge division of Cameron Ltd. is slated to close in July, with the loss of 155 jobs. In early 1979 it's already been announced that Craigmont Mines will close their doors up in Merritt with the loss of 350 jobs. My friends, that's a total loss under the stewardship of this ragtag group in their short tenure in office of 5,155 jobs that we have enumerated just on a local basis. That's to say nothing of the East Kootenays and the West Kootenays and the north country. That's just a partial sampling of the destruction wrought by this gang.

Mr. Chairman, what's happened to immigration in this province?

MR. LAUK: Brian Smith.

MR. KING: Oh, Brian Smith. That's right. He lost a job but then so did the former Premieres choice, Mr. Carson. He never made it either, so they're both unemployed.

Mr. Chairman, let's have a look at what's happened to immigration patterns.

Interjections.

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

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, let's have a look at the immigration situation. As of last June, the net population loss due to migration in the previous 12 months was 1,466 people. In other words, there was a net out-migration from the province of British Columbia for the year of 1976. That fiscal year for these purposes runs from the end of May to June.

For the first time in post-war years there was a net outflow of migration from British Columbia. This is material from Statistics Canada. The Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Williams) has this information at his disposal.

The previous year, when people were still reeling from huge tax increases introduced by this government, the net outflow of people from the province of British Columbia was 4,419 people, for a total migration loss reported since the Socreds took power of 5,885 people. And remember, my friends, that this province, in all of the post-war years, enjoyed the fastest growth pace of immigration of any province in Canada, about twice the average of any other province - 3 per cent. You destroyed jobs, you destroyed hope in this province, and naturally the people fled the province to escape your harsh, punitive policies.

For these people to suggest, Mr. Chairman, that things were rosy under their administration is inhuman - truly inhuman. How can you ignore the unemployment statistics for the same period of time? Statistics Canada shows that when the Socreds ramp to government in 1975, B.C.'s actual unemployment stood at 82,000 in December, 1975, or 7.5 per cent of the workforce. And let me point, out again, the work force has actually shrunk since that time.

The latest figure, March, 1978, shows 108,000 people unemployed. That's 9.1 per cent of the workforce unemployed during a worldwide recovery year. 1975 was a downer all over the world. We are in much worse shape in terms of stabilized population. We're in much worse shape in terms of the unemployment statistics. We're certainly in much worse shape in terms of the solvency and the confidence of the business community than at any time in recent years. And I commend to the members of that side of the House, who go around making these irresponsible statements without fact or figure to support them, for goodness' sake, do some research. Read some documents that are available to you.

Mr. Chairman, it is fine for the government to go around making wild political statements about how bad things were under the NDP. But you are responsible for the administration of the affairs of this province now. You are responsible for current and future events, and you can't live in the past forever. I know it is the Premier's wont to run away from respon

[ Page 1036 ]

sibility. I know that that is his inclination and his tradition. I know he feels he can shirk his responsibilities in answering for today's mess by referring to the past. That only works for so long. Mr. Premier, you can't hide under your daddyos coat-tails, and you can't hide from the people of the province. You have got to be responsible for today's events.

HON. MR. BENNETT: How bitingly clever.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, love got some other figures I want to quote. This government has done some positive things, and I want to quote those positive things tomorrow. The positive thing they have done is to provide jobs for all of their friends. I suppose that is one approach to fighting unemployment.

Mr. Chairman, Iove given the list of the closures. I've given the list of the job loss in the private sector and in the public sector. Tomorrow I propose to give the list of the friends of the government and the relatives of the government and the political hacks and the lackeys that have been hired by each and every cabinet minister over there. I'm going to read out the list and the cost so that the taxpayers of this province can understand clearly and as a matter of record that this is the most grossly patronage-ridden government in the history of this province. While 109,000 of our fellow British Columbians lose hope through the lack of any employment opportunities, the cabinet ministers are competing with each other to see who can get deepest into the porkbarrel and hire more executive assistants and use devices to raise their salaries. I propose to reveal that tomorrow.

Pending tomorrow, and suppressing my wild anticipation for that task, I now move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the motion is out of order. This motion has already been made and has been defeated at an earlier time this evening.

MR. BARRETT: Intervening business, Mr. Chairman.

Interjections.

MR. KING: Okay. I'll start on it, Mr. Chairman. They are anxious to hear it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The only motion that I can entertain is the motion that the Chairman do now leave the chair.

MR. KING: Oh, never mind.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps just before I recognize you, hon. member, I could ask that all hon. members who have a copy of standing orders available to them on their desks would read on page 4, standing order 17, under the heading "Decorum in the House; Conduct of Members, " specifically 17 (2) which says:

"When a member is speaking, no member shall pass between him and the Chair nor interrupt him except to raise a point of order."

This evening we have had several displays of violation of subsection (2) of standing order 17. Perhaps the hon. members would give that some thought.

MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, I presume that the government is stung by the truth and now they are playing the picayune, petty business of denying an adjournment, you know, with three or four minutes to go. That's traditional. Therein lies the poor-boy syndrome, Mr. Chairman, but that's fine with me. I'll start on the list and we'll conclude tomorrow, because we've got all kinds of time under the Premier's estimates.

I'm just going to give a brief rundown on the Premieres office. He made a statement shortly after the election at a Social Credit Party convention. He said: "The first day in office we abolished the patronage system."

HON. MR. BENNETT: Get it correct. I said the NDP patronage system.

MR. KING: He said: "This is not a spoils system party. This is not a patronage party." - Premier Bill Bennett at the Social Credit convention in November 1977. Okay, let's look at his office. He appointed Tony Tozer, a relative, as his executive assistant.

AN HON. MEMBER: His brother-in-law.

HON. MR. BENNETT: He's not a brother-in-law; he's not a brother.

MR. KING: He's a brother-cousin. I know what he is.

HON. MR. BENNETT: He's not a half-brother; he's not a sister.

MR. KING: Well, it's too bad he wasn't a closer relative, my friend, because all he gets is a paltry $36,432 a year. No doubt it

[ Page 1037 ]

he'd been a closer relative he'd be better paid.

HON. MR. BENNETT: That's a terrible insult to my sister.

MR. KING: Next, he appointed Dan Campbell, Danny Campbell, former Socred cabinet minister. He appointed him director of intergovernmental relations. He gets a salary of $36,432 a year.

Then came Dave Brown, Mr. Chairman. He was a former personal public relations man to the now Premier. Brown was taken on at the initial fee of $150 per day to make a report on communications. Dave Brown was a very innovative guy. He made a report on communications; he recommended that a communications planning adviser be hired. He applied for the job, and guess who got it? He did. He did very well. He gets $36,432 a year too. That's three employees at $36,432 in the Premier's office already. That's how we abolish the patronage system in Social Credit. That's how we get rid of the patronage system. Talk about gall! You must be embarrassed.

Then camp John Arnett, former civil servant. He was next hired at $28,800 a year as the Premier's personal press secretary.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Eileen hired him.

MR. KING: She hired him as a public servant, not as a personal lackey.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Shame!

MR. KING: Yes, I should say shame - $28,800 a year. You sure don't like it, do you? I've got all kinds of time and the list is very long. It's very long, and I know you're going to be squeamish.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Arnett did a good job. He made Eileen good.

MR. KING: Well, I agree with the Premier on that one. John Arnett did make my colleague look good but God forbid he never has the power to make you look good, my friend. Not even he can make you look good. You need more of a cosmetic wizard than John Arnett is to make you look good.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:01 p.m.