[ Page 1849 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

An Act to Amend the Cultus Lake Park Act (Bill PR403). Mr. Ritchie.

Introduction and first reading –– 1849

Credit Union Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 12). Hon. Mr. Nielsen.

Introduction and first reading –– 1849

Oral questions.

Nanaimo-Vancouver ferry service. Mr. Stupich 1849

B.C. Tel service. Mr. Lauk –– 1849

Report on containment and remand facilities. Ms. Brown –– 1850

B.C. Place. Mr. Lauk –– 1850

Water pollution. MR. Hanson –– 1851

Committee of Supply; Premier's Office estimates.

On vote 9.

Mr. Macdonald –– 1851

Mr. Levi –– 1852

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1856

Mr. Barber –– 1858

Mr. Barrett –– 1862

Division on the motion that the committee rise –– 1862

Mr. Lea –– 1862

Division on the motion that the chairman leave the chair –– 1863

Mr. Lea –– 1863

Mr. Davis –– 1867

Mr. Howard –– 1870

Mr. Barrett –– 1873

Motion to set the time of next sitting.

Mr. Howard –– 1874

Mr. Nicolson –– 1875

Mr. King –– 1876

Mr. Barrett –– 1877

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1877

Mr. Barber –– 1878

Mr. Leggatt –– 1879

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 1880

Division on the motion –– 1880

TUESDAY, APRIL 8, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to welcome three guests from the province of Saskatchewan in the gallery today. Visiting Victoria and the Island this Easter week are Mrs. Marion Riley and her daughter Maureen, of Moose Jaw, and Mrs. Mary Riley, of Saskatoon.

MR. BARRETT: I had occasion to phone the Chilliwack hospital this morning, and I've received a report that the Speaker is in stable condition and would welcome messages from the House. I would like to verbally record that in Hansard. I'm sure all of us will be in touch with the Speaker for rulings and wishes of good health, and we hope he returns shortly.

HON. MR. GARDOM: We indeed join, Mr. Speaker, in the good wishes articulated by the Leader of the Opposition. This morning I spoke with Mrs. Schroeder, and she informed me that Harv was resting comfortably. I also had occasion last week to drop down to the IC unit at St. Paul's. He wasn't there; he was downstairs taking a stress test. I would ask why he needed to take a stress test, having survived question period.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, the Walter Lippmann of Canada is visiting the press gallery today. He has deigned to visit this little fishing village on the Pacific Rim — Mr. Allan Fotheringham.

HON. MR. CURTIS: In the gallery today and participating in a tour of the legislative precinct is a group of students from Stelly's Secondary School in Saanich and the Islands constituency. Would the House make them welcome.

Introduction of Bills

AN ACT TO AMEND
THE CULTUS LAKE PARK ACT

On a motion by Mr. Ritchie, Bill PR403, An Act to Amend the Cultus Lake Park Act, introduced, read a first time and referred to the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills.

CREDIT UNION AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

On a motion by Hon. Mr. Nielsen, Bill 12, Credit Union Amendment Act, 1980, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

NANAIMO-VANCOUVER FERRY SERVICE

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Transportation and Highways responsible for B.C. Ferries. I'm wondering whether the minister has had any reports about the hopeless inadequacy of the service on route 2 between Departure Bay and Horseshoe Bay today.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, to the member for Nanaimo, yes, we've heard about the problem. We were running 12 sailings a day, and we cut back to eight following the long weekend, and there has been quite a build-up of traffic on route 2. So we've authorized the Queen of Burnaby to get in there and clean it up. It's running extra sailings today.

MR. KING: I have a query to the minister. I just wonder if the minister heard about the fistfight that occurred in the ferry lineup on the weekend, and I would ask him to check to see whether the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) was in attendance in that line-up.

MR. STUPICH: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister of Transportation and Highways tell me what sailing the Queen of Burnaby will be starting today?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, to the member, it is my understanding that it started today, and it will continue until it catches up. This is caused by the lack of service of CP Marine, which, as you well know, is not operating.

B.C. TEL SERVICE

MR. LAUK: I have a question to the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications. As the deadline for filing a notice for intervention to oppose B.C. Telephone's application for a rate increase is rapidly approaching, has the government decided to file such an intervention?

HON. MR. McGEER: No decision, Mr. Speaker, on that point.

MR. LAUK: Could the minister inform the House if a policy decision has been made as to whether or not an intervention will be made before the deadline?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question reflects on policy, hon. member, and as such is not in order.

MR. LAUK: Decision on policy, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. McGEER: The policy will be announced in due course, Mr. Speaker.

MR. SKELLY: I have a supplementary question to the same minister. The minister is probably aware of the fact that some proposed technological changes in the Cranbrook exchange between this year and 1983 will result in a loss of between 60 and 90 jobs and remove about $3.7 million from the economy of that area. With no improvement in service, will the minister insist that the CRTC hold hearings in Cranbrook prior to elimination of these jobs through equipment changes?

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I'll be pleased to take that question as notice and verify the statements that the member has made.

[ Page 1850 ]

MR. SKELLY: I have another question, Mr. Speaker, and some further facts for the minister to verify. Ultimately, B.C. Tel plans to eliminate all operator services in British Columbia, except in Kelowna and Vancouver, which will cause job losses in centres such as Victoria, Nanaimo, Campbell River, Kamloops, Prince George, etc. Has the ministry examined the economic consequences of these changes and demanded hearings by the CRTC in these centres as well, prior to any technological changes which substitute machines for human labour with no improvement in service?

HON. MR. McGEER: I take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker.

REPORT ON CONTAINMENT
AND REMAND FACILITIES

MS. BROWN: I have a question for the Attorney-General. Your ministry completed a study on containment and remand facilities in B.C. at the end of last year. Can you tell us why that report has not been tabled in the House?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the report to which the member refers is an internal report and is presently being considered by the corrections branch for its plans.

MS. BROWN: Can the minister confirm that the report reveals that containment facilities, especially with respect to juveniles, are being improperly utilized?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No, I can't confirm that.

MS. BROWN: Since this report reveals that a large number of the juveniles involved are in the care of the Ministry of Human Resources, can the minister tell me whether he has shared it with the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) ?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: A copy of the report has gone to that ministry for its proper purposes.

B.C. PLACE

MR. LAUK: I have a question for the Minister of Environment, who is responsible for B.C. Place. Pursuant to the agreement of July 1974 between the city of Vancouver and Marathon Realty concerning lands now to be used for B.C. Place, can the minister assure the House that the city's interests as outlined in this agreement are being incorporated in negotiations presently in progress between Marathon and the government?

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

MR. LAUK: A supplementary to the minister. The agreement in question concerns the interests of the community in the downtown core with respect to housing and park utilization. By the minister's answer, can he clarify to the House that none of those provisions, as outlined in the agreement between the city and Marathon, are being put forward as an interest to the government of British Columbia?

HON. MR. ROGERS: The restrictions that were placed on the property when it was owned by Marathon — as it is still owned by Marathon — were put on by the city of Vancouver specifically with Marathon being the property owner. However, those restrictions do not pass on to B.C. Place.

MR. LAUK: Could the minister confirm, therefore, that the government has no interest in preserving those interests of the city of Vancouver in the eventual establishment of B.C. Place?

HON. MR. ROGERS: We'll take those matters into consideration, but we are not bound by the restrictions.

MR. LAUK: The sketchy outline given by the Premier with respect to B.C. Place does not indicate how the project will cope with either changes or increases in traffic in the downtown core. Can the minister assure the House that complete traffic flow studies have been completed or are underway?

HON. MR. ROGERS: His Worship the mayor of the city of Vancouver is a member of the board which is responsible for B.C. Place, so at that point I would suspect that the city's interests are being represented by their chief officer.

MR. LAUK: Perhaps the minister did not understand my question. Even with the Premier's sketchy outline of B.C. Place, it is clear to most traffic engineers in the city that massive increases of traffic in particular areas of the city will occur. Have complete traffic flow studies been started or underway?

HON. MR. ROGERS: No.

MR. LAUK: To the same minister, Mr. Speaker. The B.C. Place development will attract a greater traffic flow to the downtown core, and the facilities presently there, we are told, cannot possibly cope. Can the minister assure the House that an improved transit system will be in place and operational at the same time as the project is completed?

HON. MR. ROGERS: It's a multiphase project, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LAUK: I'm not sure who's fazed by it. Will the minister assure the House and the people of Vancouver that an improved transit system will be in place and operational at the same time as the project is completed? Will the two phases be completed at the same time?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Perhaps the member didn't hear me. The answer to the question is: we have no timetable on when the project will be completed. It will be completed phase by phase. What particular phase are you concerned about? If you're concerned about one particular phase and, perhaps, if you have information from the engineering department of the city of Vancouver, as it corresponds with this thing, and you are prepared to table it, then I will answer.

MR. LAUK: The engineers and the people of Vancouver are concerned about whether there will be a transit system in place to cope with the increased traffic flow which will be caused by B.C. Place, without a time lapse.

[ Page 1851 ]

HON. MR. ROGERS: Once again, the Urban Transit Authority is in place. There are improvements being made all the time to the transit system in Vancouver. What particular phase and what particular segment of the rapid transit system are you referring to? It's going to be a development which progresses as phase one, and then some more transit, and then the next thing comes along.... You pick the day, you pick the time and you speak to the specific thing, and I'll tell you what will be happening at that time.

MR. LAUK: That's what I call planning, Mr. Speaker. The member for Vancouver Centre can pick the phase and the time. That's what I was afraid of.

Can the minister assure the House that B.C. Place includes plans for large mixed-income housing development and that such housing will have priority over exhibition space?

HON. MR. ROGERS: No, I cannot give the House that assurance at this time.

MR. LAUK: Is it being actively considered by his ministry to include large mixed-income housing development as part of the project?

HON. MR. ROGERS: My ministry isn't responsible for B.C. Place. I'm the minister to whom the board reports, but it's not being considered by members of my ministry.

MR. LAUK: Has the minister decided to hold public hearings in the city so that a close examination of the effects this project will have — which we've been talking about — on downtown communities will be completely understood?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Within the next few weeks the development of British Columbia Place, including the expanded role of the board, will be forthcoming. I wonder if these questions might not be better saved for my estimates.

WATER POLLUTION

MR. HANSON: My question is to the Minister of Environment as the minister responsible for water quality in southern Vancouver Island. In view of the recently announced policy on mariculture and fish farming, and in view of the fact that some of the best areas for this type of activity are in southern Vancouver Island, is the minister aware that the Finnerty Cove sewage outfall has been pumping one and one-half million gallons of raw sewage daily without a pollution control permit since December 31, 1978, and that the McMicking Point outfall has been discharging two million gallons per day at the shoreline in Oak Bay without a pollution control permit?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, I'll take that question as notice.

MR. HANSON: A new question. Would the minister be prepared to table with the House the status of the various PCB permits from Macaulay Point around to Sidney?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Put that on the order paper.

MR. HANSON: A new question. Is it true, Mr. Minister, that your ministry is transferring the majority of the waste management personnel from Victoria — where we have a densely populated area with a serious pollution problem — to Nanaimo?

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

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: PREMIER'S OFFICE
(continued)

On vote 9: Premier's office, $551,612 — continued.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I really thought that after five days of the Premier's estimates that the Premier was finally going to yak, yak, yak and answer a single question that's been asked by the opposition. But we're disappointed. I would yield to you, Mr. Premier, if I thought for one minute that you were going to answer any of these questions. You're setting an all-time record and you've won the unstinted admiration of your backbenchers and your cabinet ministers for the way you've stonewalled your estimates. It's marvellous — not a single answer to a question asked by the opposition in five days. That's something of a record to be proud of. Gordon Liddy would be proud of you, Mr. Premier. You've kind of intimidated the opposition because we've asked very simple questions.

The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) came along with a very simple question and asked — he's asked you six times, Mr. Premier; I've counted them; you didn't make a note of it: "Were you informed by the federal government of the impending resignation of the chief justice of British Columbia, and when were you so informed?" No answer was given at all, and we're seeing it set sort of a record that will go down, I think, in the annals of the history of the British Commonwealth of Nations — a Premier who refuses to answer questions to the elected members of this Legislature on his own estimates.

Because the Premier didn't make some notes, I'm going to ask him again about some of the questions we asked. We asked you first, Mr. Premier, about the seminar at the Bayshore Inn, the mailing out of the tapes and the advocacy of writing forged letters. And we asked the Premier this question — without rehashing the whole thing, because it upsets the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland): "When did you know about it, Mr. Premier? Did you know about it at the time of the seminar? When did you find out that your party" — the party of which you're the head — "was engaged in an organized forged letter writing campaign?" When did you find out? That's what we're asking you.

You know, your little guys have disappeared down the drain. Dan Campbell's gone, and Grieg went without any explanation, right out of your own office. And we asked you: "When did you know and how could you help but know yourself?" It's a simple question. But you've never answered that question, have you, Mr. Premier? You've never told us why Ron Grieg, who was assistant to Dave Brown in your office — and your own employee — resigned.

[ Page 1852 ]

You never told this Legislature about the trust funds, which I presume exist today, under Ian Adam, Austin Taylor Jr. and Tony Tozer, who are all in your office, nor who the co-signer was. Were you at any time a co-signer of one of those three trust funds, Mr. Premier?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, shall we address the Chair?

MR. MACDONALD: Through the Chair, Mr. Chairman, I'm asking the Premier whether he was a co-signer of any of those trust funds.

Interjections.

MR. MACDONALD: I'm asking the Premier again, in spite of the interruptions over there. Seriously, were you a co-signer, Mr. Premier? I'm asking you, and on this one I have to admit you can take the fifth amendment, because I'm asking you whether the Election Act was not breached in your office by your employees during the last election, in the collection and disbursement of campaign funds which did not come through either your official agent or your party and which, of course, were not reported for the very reasons I have given: that they were not officially and properly received and disbursed. What did you know about that, Mr. Premier? That too is a simple question.

I also asked you whether you had instructed the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), who is sitting there as if he's bored by the whole thing, as caucus chairman to discharge the caucus research staff. They were suddenly discharged one day to the surprise of everybody, including, of course, the staff, who were most surprised of all.

These are simple questions, and I recognize, Mr. Chairman, that the Premier of the province of B.C. doesn't have to answer them. He can stonewall. He can be the first Premier, as I said, in the history of the British Commonwealth of Nations not to answer any questions on his estimates. He can threaten the people of the province of British Columbia as he has this Legislature with the 30-minute, rubber-chicken circuit speech, which he makes when we ask him a simple question. And I suppose that might happen to a citizen of the province too; you ask the Premier's name and you get this 30-minute speech repeated.

So, Mr. Premier, I'll sit down if you will answer. Answer one of the questions asked by the opposition on your estimates. You gave one very strange reply. What were the words?

AN HON. MEMBER: Any answer he gave was "appropriate at the time."

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, that's the best we've got out of the Premier's estimates, Mr. Chairman. In the course of one his 30-minute speeches he said: "Well, any answer I gave was appropriate at the time." Shades of Watergate, Mr. Premier.

AN HON. MEMBER: Make that "subject to change without notice."

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, like the weather. You're the Premier, and you don't have to be; but if you are, you have to answer to the people. And the time of accountability is during your estimates. The questions are simple, and I ask you to, as all Premiers in this province have done from time immemorial, including W.A.C. Bennett, make notes of the questions — that's point one in learning how to be Premier — and then answer them. Don't answer them five days too late. But answer them even now — better late than never, Mr. Premier. The questions are simple and the people have a right to answers.

MS. SANFORD: Isn't he going to answer?

MR. LEVI: No, he's making notes, so it may be some time over the next few days when he answers.

Mr. Chairman, I want to just pursue another topic with the Premier, and then we can get back to some of the other topics which he hasn't bothered to get up and answer. I want to ask him about the Crown corporations reporting committee. I'm asking him because he was the minister who introduced the bill into this House. At that time he said that this would be — and it turned out to be — a unique committee with respect to its role of investigating and monitoring what was going on with the Crown corporations. What concerns me is that it was only a week ago that the committee met again after some 17 months of not holding any public hearings. The last public hearing was, if I remember rightly, in the fall of 1978. We had a number of committee meetings but we had no meetings in respect to the work of the committee. We did issue a report....

HON. MR. GARDOM: You are out of order.

MR. LEVI: The former Attorney-General is giving a lawyer's opinion — I'm sure that's what it is — that I'm out of order. Well, let's ask the Chairman of the committee.

The Premier introduced a bill in this House called the Crown Corporation Reporting Act. Surely, Mr. Chairman, that's the minister to whom I have to speak; I can speak under his estimates with respect to this. He had a lot to say about it two years ago when he brought it in. What I want to know from the Premier is: was there interference from his office which prevented that committee from meeting for almost a year?

We know that after we met as a subcommittee, and not in public meetings, Actin respect to B.C. Hydro, we were to pursue B.C. Ferries and BCR. We then had, Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, at this point I must advise that it is very difficult, by any stretch of the imagination, to see how a detailed examination of the Crown Corporation Reporting Act would fall within the estimates of the Premier.

MR. LEVI: Well, Mr. Chairman, with respect, he introduced the bill.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, by that extension we could debate virtually every ministry of the Crown under the Premier's estimates.

MR. LEVI: No, wait — only the ones that he introduced, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: While passing reference is always in

[ Page 1853 ]

order to some degree, a detailed examination in this particular case, hon. member, would be very difficult to justify under the circumstances.

MR. LEVI: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm not intending to make a detailed examination. What I'm trying to elicit from the Premier is — he's the head of the government — was there interference by the government with respect to that committee being called? The election finished....

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Now we've got the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) speaking for the Premier. Which one is the monkey and which one is the organ grinder? Let's just get that straight. I go back to the Premier.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: You're okay, kid. You just keep quiet; you're sitting behind him.

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: No, no, no, we know where it is. We did that once before, long before you were here. You used to do it when you were in council up in Prince George. That member has made some very interesting speeches.

Getting back to the Premier, Mr. Chairman. The Premier obviously had a compelling interest in the role of the Crown corporations. It was his idea. He introduced it. He spoke laudably about the possibilities that this committee would have. Okay, that was fine; it was good. It was a worthwhile effort, but for a whole year nothing happened. Now I'm asking the Premier: why didn't the committee meet? Was there interference from his office that that committee should not meet, should not deal with the two reports that were put before it in August and October of 1979 dealing with the export of power — a very important issue that the Premier has talked about. We never met; we never had an opportunity to discuss it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, I would call your attention to vote 2 under "legislation," which is the Crown corporation reporting committee vote. Therefore I must advise that further in-depth discussion under vote 9 is out of order.

MR. LEVI: Vote 2?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Vote 2 covers this.

MR. LEVI: With respect, Mr. Chairman, do you mean to tell me that we can get no response from the Premier at all about the Crown corporations committee — that having introduced the bill, having said all the horrible things that he said, now we can't even ask him a question about that? We've got to have an opportunity to ask somebody. Somebody over there has to answer. We can't ask the Chairman, so we're asking the Premier as the head of the government. How do you ask somebody under vote 2?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I must advise again that under vote 9 the discussion on the Crown corporation reporting committee is out of order.

MR. LEVI: Well, who do we ask, Mr. Chairman? Who am I going to get from that government to tell me about why the Crown corporations committee didn't meet?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, it's not up to the Chair to advise members on what they should or should not be discussing; it is only to uphold the regulations which are before us now. We are presently on vote 9, which is not the Crown Corporation Reporting Act.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, you're a laudable guy. I think what you're doing is excellent, but you're only telling me who I can't ask. I want you to tell me who I can ask; that's all. I mean, if you're going to take the trouble to say "you can't ask this person," then perhaps you'd be good enough to tell me....

Interjection.

MR. LEVI: Why doesn't that chirping minister — that Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) — keep quiet!

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is quite obvious, hon. member, that you'll be able to discuss the matter under vote 2, when that vote is called.

MR. LEVI: And who am I going to...?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, we're presently on vote 9. We cannot discuss under vote 9 what is under vote 2.

MR. LEVI: Why not?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Because I said so.

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, under votes you normally have an opportunity to ask a question of somebody who is responsible for that vote. Now who am I going to ask, under vote 9 or vote 2, a question about the Crown corporations committee? Who am I going to direct it to? I can't direct it to you.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, under vote 2 you may discuss Crown corporations. We are on vote 9; you may not discuss them.

MR. LEVI: No, no, Mr. Chairman. The object of estimates is not simply to have a debate. It's also....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, are you arguing with the Chair at this time?

MR. LEVI: No, I wouldn't argue with you, sir. I'm just saying....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Then could I please ask you to move on to vote 9? I believe the matter has been resolved at this point.

MR. LEVI: No. With respect, it has not been resolved.

[ Page 1854 ]

MR. LEA: A point of order, Mr. Chairman. It might be that was brought in as a form of legislation. I wonder if maybe a quiet question to the Premier asking if that act needs to be amended — is he the minister who would bring those amendments in?

MR. CHAIRMAN: With all due respect, that is not a point of order, hon. member.

MR. LEA: It is a point of order, because we are trying to figure out the procedure in the House. If the Premier isn't responsible for the legislation he brought in, who is?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. May I just, for one moment, quote from the sixteenth edition of Sir Erskine May: "The administrative action of a department is open to debate, but the necessity for legislation and matters involving legislation cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply...." Hon. members, all I can do is uphold the rules that we are bound to observe in this House. I ask all members for their cooperation in this endeavour.

MR. LEVI: You're quite right, Mr. Chairman. You'll get my cooperation. Because of your instructions, I am not prepared to canvass the details of the Crown corporations committee, but I can ask one question and then move on to something else. The question is to the Premier. Has his office interfered with the operation of the Crown corporations committee? That's my question to him. That's about the twenty-third question that I've asked him, and so far I haven't got an answer.

Now I'd like to go back to some other questions to which I'm still trying to get answers. I've been having exactly the same trouble as my colleague the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald); we can't get any answers.

MR. MACDONALD: You're having that trouble too?

MR. LEVI: Yes, and I think that the member and I should do a duet. We would like to have some questions answered.

I want to go back now to the question I asked the Premier last Tuesday: did he have a phone call from the Prime Minister of Canada regarding the resignation of the chief justice of the appeal court? We canvassed this last week; we think that this is a sufficiently important issue, because of that Premier's interest in the matters of justice. If any topic in this province is being discussed today, it is the whole question of justice — the justice system, and what amount of equity there is in that whole system. It is being discussed by the public today. It is in all forms of media. People are having some second thoughts and thinking about what people have said: that there is one law for the rich and one for the poor. The Premier injected himself into this debate. Since then he hasn't said another word. He impulsively got up after a statement made by the Attorney-General and made some statements about the justice system; he sat down and has not said a word since.

The public of British Columbia and this opposition would like to know whether he had any discussion with the Prime Minister of Canada, or the Minister of Justice of Canada, at the time the chief justice resigned; whether, in fact, after those discussions he had discussions with the then Attorney-General, who is now the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom), on this very important issue.

We've waited almost two years for an answer, and we still don't have any information. Nobody wants to talk about it. Did the Premier receive a phone call from the Prime Minister of Canada? Did he tell him that because of certain information they had the matter had been referred to the federal Judicial Council, and that the chief justice of the appeal court had resigned and it was necessary to appoint a new person?

The province is responsible for the administration of justice. The Justice minister under the late Conservative government, Mr. Flynn, was asked by a member of the House of Commons about the reasons for the ending of the investigation by the federal Judicial Council. Mr. Flynn replied that the administration of justice is a matter for the province, and he directed the questioner to the Attorney-General and the government of British Columbia. Now I'm directing the question to the Premier. As a result of the stopping of an investigation.... Because we're told by the then Minister of Justice, Marc Lalonde, of the Liberal government that an investigation was being done of that council but that it had ceased being done because the judge was no longer a judge and, therefore, it was not necessary to carry on the investigation. So that is where that ended. No facts, no public information — it ended there. We have from his successor a statement that if you want to know about what took place or if you have some concern about the administration of justice, go talk to the province; they are the people responsible for administering justice.

This is a very important question, a question which goes far beyond the kind of discussions we have been having in this House for four or five weeks in respect to issues of dirty tricks and in respect of involvement of certain public servants in terms of allegations of interference and non-interference. We are talking now about the total administration of justice, particularly by the judicial system. We know that in this province the government has no involvement in the appointment of judges, other than the provincial court judges. This is done by the federal government; it is of a political nature.

Interjections.

MR. LEVI: It's okay, Jim, you can keep the Ministry of Agriculture but you can't go back to Energy; there's no way they are going to put you back in Energy.

Just to go back, that's a fundamental issue which has got to be debated in this province. The first part of the debate has to be initiated by the Premier answering the question I put to him on a number of occasions: describe to us the circumstances in respect to his conversations, if there were any conversations. It's very easy for him to answer the question. If he didn't speak to the Prime Minister of Canada, fine, then say so. But he must have spoken to his then Attorney-General. There must have been some discussions about the serious nature of the allegations and the circumstances surrounding that particular resignation.

It has been suggested, Mr. Chairman, and the Premier may have knowledge of this.... Does he have knowledge of a coverup and where in fact the investigation was stifled? Yet there was information in the hands of the police, in the hands of law enforcement agencies, that, in fact, the chief justice of the appeal court was involved in a very serious situation, connecting him with a bawdy house, which subsequently went to court and an individual received a $1,500 fine and some community work as a punishment. Subsequent to that, the alleged partner in the operation has now been charged with conspiracy to traffic in narcotics.

[ Page 1855 ]

Those are the ingredients and that is the nature of the case we are talking about. We're not talking about some little thing that happens in a town and don't always affect everybody in the province. We're talking about something where we have the ingredients, on the one hand, of the chief of the judicial system in the province and, on the other hand, elements of organized crime and the criminal world. Somehow they've come together. They came together in two particular cases as a result of a wiretap.

Sooner or later somebody over there is going to have to talk about it, but that Premier is the one who talked about his concern for the justice system. Well, there is a lack of equity in that justice system, and he should have some concern about that. Last week we heard a statement from the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) — his opinion of the system of justice in this province and what kind of protection he could seek from the Attorney-General's ministry. I'm not touching on the judgment, Mr. Chairman. I'll stay away from that. I appreciate the delicacy with which we have to deal with this problem. Nevertheless, we are talking about the equity in the justice system.

We had a statement last week which severely put a test to that system — what that individual said. I hope we have an opportunity to hear your judgment, sir, or the Speaker's judgment, so that we can get into this debate. But that is the nature of the debate we have to have. No more of this folderol, no more of this frippery, as we used to get from the former Attorney-General, who didn't really know what was going on in his ministry anyway. We need some leadership from that Premier. After all, he has some opinions about the justice system.

AN HON. MEMBER: Shame!

MR. LEVI: My gosh, when is he going on a conference? We'll give you a one-way ticket to anywhere you want to go.

I want to go from the judges affair now, and I'd like to ask the Premier one more question. He was the one who made the statement.... I know, Mr. Chairman, this might be a little difficult for you. I would just dissociate yourself from what I'm saying because I'm going to talk about the Annacis Island bridge. I know it's tough because you've got to sit there and I'm going to be saying something about it.

I wonder if the Premier, when he decided to make this report.... After all, remember that the background to this statement was a public statement by the member for Delta (Mr. Davidson) almost a year ago, in which he said if he didn't get his bridge he was going to resign. Now, mind you, when he said that I don't think he realized that the difference in the seating arrangement in this House would be so tight. Nobody did. Suddenly the election is finished, and the government finds that it has 31 seats and the opposition has 26 — a practical majority of four, sometimes three.

Then we have the member — who was doing a job for his riding, and he should be credited with that, Mr. Chairman — saying to the Premier: "If I don't get my bridge, I'm going to resign within six months." Well, he's going to take his marbles, presumably, and go somewhere else to play with them.

There was a time in this House when the Minister of Highways in the previous government wanted to erect a set of traffic lights because so many people were crossing the floor. Well, we may have to put those traffic lights up now. Now we know that the secret for the backbenchers to get at the Premier — and that's the kind of situation no Premier wants to find himself in — is to say: "If I don't get a road going through Fort Nelson, I'm going to resign." Well, you don't have to resign; you just have to walk across the way. But don't come over here; there are a couple of spare seats down at the bottom there. That's the way you get action out of that Premier. He can count: 31 minus 26 is 5; minus 1 for a Speaker, and you're down to 4; and if you happen to be in committee, you are down to 3. And if the Premier wants to go to a western conference, you may be down to minus 2 and you're out of business.

There used to be a time, Mr. Chairman, when that group over there had some mavericks who would take on the Premier. The member for Delta evidently turned out to be a maverick, because he said: "If I don't get my bridge, I'm going to resign." And he got his bridge. Actually, I think he sold himself short. He should have asked for a bridge, a rapid transit line, an airfield. He could have got all those things. He should have gone to the Premier with a shopping list.

That's the lesson some of those people over there should learn. After all, the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) — and where is he? He's not in the House. He must be down in the Crown corporations committee office. Yes, that's what he's doing: preparing questions. Now there's a man who has a job to do. He could ask the Premier: "Look, if I don't get a tunnel from Omineca to Vancouver, I'm going to resign." Tunnels are all the vogue today. But that's the way that Premier is showing leadership in this province. He gets pressure, and there he goes.

Maybe the Premier has never seen this report. He gets a lot of reports. This report is one of three prepared by the Greater Vancouver Regional District rapid transit project. In that area they have spent some $20 million preparing reports. This is the definitive report of what should take place in terms of how to deal with traffic problems, how to move people around the GVRD.

That Premier makes a public statement announcing a bridge. He tells us it is going to cost 130 million dollars, but those are 130 million 1931 dollars, because when it was looked at five years ago the cost of that bridge was pretty close to $200 million. Now what is the bridge going to cost? He's certainly not going to build it for $130 million.

I would hope he doesn't build it in the location they've talked about. I would suggest that he go talk with the GVRD transit people, to all those politicians who.... That group over there talks about freedom and autonomy of local representation, and then we have a Premier coming out overruling everybody, injecting a bridge that has no congruity in terms of what goes on in this plan they've made. So much for that kind of forward thinking.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) — now there's a man who knows something about Surrey and rapid transit. He contributed to much of the work of the GVRD. He hasn't said anything about it.

MR. BARRETT: He wants to be number one.

MR. LEVI: Yes. Well, he's one and a half right now.

Who did the Premier consult? Did he phone the chairman of the GVRD and say: "Tomorrow I'm going to make a statement about Annacis Island. I'm sorry it messes up your long, detailed plan, but I've got some trouble with my member for Delta. If I don't give him his bridge he's going to walk the floor"?

[ Page 1856 ]

Let me ask the Premier: prior to the statement that he made on the announcement of the Annacis Island bridge, did he have discussions with anybody? Did he talk to anybody at all? Did he talk to his secretary? Did he pick up the phone and talk to Alan Emmott, the chairman of the GVRD? Did he talk to the Minister of Municipal Affairs? Who did he talk to? He comes out with pat statements. One of them is: "Window on the Pacific. " He says it is "appropriate at the time" when he says something. Then there was a time, years ago, when he said: "Not a dime without debate." He's sat there for five days and hasn't answered one question in respect to issues that have been raised by the opposition. He hasn't answered any questions on the justice system. He injected himself into the justice system, and he also injected himself into the whole rapid transit system in Vancouver.

My colleagues will deal with the whole question of B.C. Place. But this particular issue is one that I raise because of the riding I represent, Maillardville-Coquitlam. It has serious implications for all municipalities around. Whom did he consult? He didn't consult with anybody. I suggest that what happened was that we got a knee-jerk reaction from that Premier. He was caught in a box and he had to get out of it, and that's what he came out with. He threw it in the faces of all those people who work on the transportation committee for the GVRD. All that money was completely wasted because of the impetuous decision made by that Premier. Now if he wants to justify it, then let him tell us on what basis he decided what to do. What reference did he use? On what engineering data does he back up his decision in respect to this bridge? It's certainly not backed up by anything in the report, or by what the members of the GVRD and some of the councillors in the lower mainland area have said. All he has to do is to stand up and do what he did with the Seaboard thing — that is, come in and say: "I was wrong. I'm responsible."

Be responsible. Stand up and answer some questions. Right now you're coming across as somebody who is a little scared, a little paranoid. You don't want to talk to anybody. That's the way it is. You can't lead a province that way. You can't hide back there by simply going into your bunker when the House isn't sitting, and when the House is sitting you come in here and sit and say nothing and make light conversation with your ministers. Just answer some questions. It's very simple. Then we'll get on with some other business. But the issues we've raised are the essential part of some of the questions regarding your leadership in this province.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member for Maillardville Coquitlam apparently threatens the government by saying that we will have to stay here forever and ever if we won't answer questions which may or may not be under the estimates for the Premier's office. As a government and as members of this Legislative Assembly, we're quite prepared to stay here and deal with the people's business.

Let me start off with number one. This isn't just my opinion, or the opinion shared by my colleagues or those in the gallery and the press who are appalled by the opposition's lack of concern about the major issues of this province and this country, appalled by their lack of research, appalled that they only deal with old newspaper reports, those they find convenient to use. The people of British Columbia....

Over the past weekend I've had a chance to discuss with a number of people what they thought of the Legislature and the style, the questions and the concerns exhibited by some members of the opposition in the Legislature. They said quite frankly that they had never seen such a negative, foolish performance in their lives.

In dealing with number one, I'm not going to take questions to do with the justice system which should more appropriately be asked of and presented to the Attorney-General under his estimates. That is where those questions should be asked; that is where answers may be given.

Having no questions to ask, it may be that members of the opposition would wish to spin out the Premier's estimates so that they can say they went out and held the Premier on the griddle, that it was terrible and they held him on the griddle for so many days. Really, the only persons they've got on the griddle are themselves. Because they're looking foolish. Yes, the Attorney-General can deal with his estimates.

Let me deal as well with the Crown corporations committee, because if they don't know it, that is a committee which is responsible to the Legislature. The legislation does not in fact allow for representation by any member of the cabinet or executive council. Remember, it was a committee which was voted against by the New Democratic Party, which did not want the committee to be set up in legislation. Apparently they didn't wish the committee to function at that time. After their opposition to the setting up of that committee and their voting against it — the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) voted against that committee — I find it very funny that they are trying to make it an issue here. It's a committee that belongs, as a committee, to the Legislature. Again, Mr. Chairman, I will not make comment.

MR. LEVI: You stopped it from meeting; you did.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member for Coquitlam-Moody, who showed....

AN HON. MEMBER: No, you got it wrong again.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Maillardville-Coquitlam. Well, you move constituencies so often. Once you were in Vancouver South, then you were in Vancouver somewhere else. You've been all over.

AN HON. MEMBER: Who moved him?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, I can remember that he was defeated in Vancouver South, just like your leader was defeated in Coquitlam when it was all together.

If I heard correctly, Mr. Chairman, the member called from his seat that I had interfered with that committee. I'd like you to ask him to withdraw that statement.

AN HON. MEMBER: Come on — don't be silly.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Would the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam withdraw the statement, as asked by the Premier?

MR. LEVI: Mr. Chairman, could I have your guidance? I asked the Premier a question when I was up before. I asked him if he had interfered with the calling of the committee. He hasn't answered that. All he has to do is to answer that. I said across the floor to him: "You interfered with the committee." Am I upsetting him that much that I have to withdraw?

[ Page 1857 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, were you alleging any improper conduct on the part of the Premier?

MR. LEVI: The Premier?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Were you alleging any improper conduct?

MR. LEVI: I think that I'll have to say yes. I was, and I'll have to withdraw it. I was alleging improper conduct, but I withdraw it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. The Premier continues.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, just as a point of procedure, is it required that members take their place while the Chairman is speaking or are we allowed to hold long discussions with you standing in our place?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The answer is no.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, Mr. Chairman, it's very difficult for those of us who wish the Legislature to function correctly to see encouraged or allowed the type of conduct in here that gives those who view these proceedings an improper impression of the Legislature.

If I can continue over the loud catcalls from the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), I would just like to deal again with a couple of other areas that aren't in the responsibility but will give the members opposite every opportunity to deal with it. They appear to be caught up in some numbers. The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) seems to have learned to add since he was Minister of Human Resources and had his $100 million overrun, and was giving us a lesson in mathematics. He's worried about people crossing the floor. The only person that's crossed the floor since I've been in this chamber is the member for Atlin, who left that party when it was government because he was ashamed of it. I remember that since I've been here. He didn't respect its leadership or its policies and he left. That again, Mr. Chairman, is not a matter for my estimates but is the type of debate that has filled the last five days.

I'm prepared to sit here and listen to questions which don't involve the responsibility of the Premier's office, but I'm not going to answer silly, foolish questions or those that are what I call political questions. These make up the type of tactic that the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) giggles about so often in this Legislature. He's a good politician. I like him, and I like to listen to him. I also like the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald).

Again, Mr. Chairman, areas to do with justice can be dealt with under the Attorney-General's estimates. Questions to do with transportation or a particular bridge which is part of a bill funding before the Legislature and part of the transportation system of this province.... Let me just assure you that this government is committed to transportation, transit, highways and bridges. All of our decisions are made as a government. It may not have happened when that group was in. In fact, I'm quite sure they didn't talk to each other when they made decisions. But, Mr. Chairman, the Highways ministry and the Transportation ministry do all of their research, as they should do and do do in every province.They may not have done in the past when that party in opposition was government, but they do now.

The Annacis Island crossing was recommended to cabinet by the minister, and the government dealt with it. The government dealt with it, and it was a government announcement. Yes, as the Premier I will deal with government announcements. I want to say that I have full confidence in my ministers and my cabinet. It's a good government; it's a government that's provided the soundest government in Canada today. I say that because the people like to see results, and they're getting results in British Columbia. They have had their experience with those who are clever and skilled with words, long on promise and short on the right type of action, good action. They saw what happened when they had no action, bad action. But the people of this province should be proud. I'm proud of this government and every minister and every member of this assembly, and the policies and the programs this government is putting out. Yes, I'll defend a minister and the policies of the government during estimates. Yes, I'm willing to talk about the policies of this government as they affect the province and our country, which I've tried to outline earlier. But those things which the present Leader of the Opposition finds humorous and distasteful, and where he wants to talk about old newspapers, and dirty tricks, or silly tricks, or politics, in which he is skilled.... He's proven that. He made a most remarkable comeback and entry into this House in 1976, a story that has yet to be told in its entirety, Mr. Chairman. It's one that will be told in due course. A figure of $80,000 has been reported in the press; that story will unfold in its entirety at some time. But he's a great politician to be able to accomplish that.

But we're talking today about government. We are talking about the policies that this government has taken, as part of Canada. We've talked about our policies in trying to build the economy of this province as a province and a government with a philosophy. I'm proud of those policies. It used to be you'd see that little group over there pick a statistic every year to giggle about. Last year it was bankruptcies. This year you don't hear anything about bankruptcies because you read the paper and you find out that British Columbia had a decline in the number of those who fail in business, the only province to do so. So this year you don't hear that. What you hear is silliness, the type of silliness the public is not going to accept from them and shouldn't have to from those who would attempt to represent them.

I'm quite willing to sit here and let them continue to show that to the people of this province. But in those areas where those questions are already answered, where there is public knowledge or opportunity in this Legislature to respond to them under the appropriate ministry, I'm not going to dignify them by being a part of their charade.

MR. BARRETT: Blab, blah, blah.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The Leader of the Opposition clearly said: "Blah, blah, blah.'' That is one of his cleverer statements. "Blah, blah, blah," he said, and we all heard the Leader of the Opposition.

Now if I had to respond to the member for MaillardvilleCoquitlam (Mr. Levi), who talks about a bridge.... I heard him clearly. He said "calculated in 1931 dollars." Mr. Chairman, it is so preposterous for him to make that statement. That's the same sort of person who, given a chance to

[ Page 1858 ]

be a part of government, would have had a $100 million overrun.

As far as the Crown corporations committee, that's a responsibility of the Legislature. As far as the justice system, it's certainly the responsibility and a very important area of the Attorney-General of this province. My concern for the justice system.... Yes, I express it. I express it in the confidence I had in the past Attorney-General and the present Attorney-General, and I continue to express it, because I feel they are the greatest safeguard to our justice system.

I'm waiting for major areas to be discussed, and I will be prepared to discuss them, but the silliness — no.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, the opposition is entirely prepared to debate the present and the future policy goals of this government; however, we will only do so when we are satisfied with your past performance. In order to be so satisfied we ask questions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, if we address the Chair, we have a tendency to keep some sort of order in the House.

MR. BARBER: Thank you. And furthermore, Walter...! [Laughter.]

We are absolutely convinced that until the Premier is prepared to answer questions through you, put by us to him through you also, we're going to ask a few more questions. He stood up at the beginning of his remarks and he would have had us believe that he was going to answer questions at that time. He answered not a single question the official opposition raised. None. Not one. Zero. Zip. As usual. The comparison with Gordon Liddy, I suppose, is more than a bit apt. We all know about him. We know why he stonewalled; we know why he found it in his best interest to take the famous fifth amendment whenever he could.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

I think it's an important matter that the people of British Columbia know whether or not their Premier was involved in the disposition of funds that were improperly raised and improperly spent.

MR. LEA: He says it's silliness.

MR. BARBER: He may think it's silliness; he may actually wish that people believed it was a silly issue, but it isn't; and that's why your government is in so much trouble today, through you, Mr. Chairman. You don't seem to realize — even yet into the tenth month where people are concerned about dirty tricks, your handling of them and your responsibility for them — that you have failed so far to be honest, candid and entirely open about your involvement, such as it may have been, with them.

The Premier stood up a few minutes ago and said he was prepared to answer questions, and then sat down a few minutes later, having answered none. What kind of behaviour does that represent, Mr. Chairman? Is that what you would consider to be leadership? It's very peculiar behaviour. He knows it's a public issue; he knows it's a sufficiently grave public issue that if an election were called tomorrow, he would lose.

I hear no dispute; they all know they would lose. That is the current stature of their party in the eyes of the people of British Columbia. Everyone understands that people in your office were implicated; everyone understands that Dan Campbell had something to do with this. Who did he work for? He worked for the Premier. Everyone understands that Ron Grieg resigned under mysterious circumstances. Who did he work for? He worked for the Premier. And everyone understands as well why the Premier is stonewalling today.

Of course he would like to dismiss it as a joke; of course he would like people to be persuaded that it's all just silliness, that it's all just politics as usual. Well, in a small way, he may be correct. It is, in part, politics as usual, Social Credit style, because we've seen it before. We saw it for a period of 707 days when they stonewalled on another famous case involving another Socred minister in years gone by. They're familiar with stonewalling, and so are we. The problem for the Premier is that the public no longer puts up with it; the problem for the Premier is that no person in British Columbia believes that he is entirely unaware, entirely innocent and entirely uninvolved in the whole matter.

We all know something about the Premier's style, Mr. Chairman. He is fundamentally temperamentally autocratic in his relations with cabinet. He's fundamentally a strong-willed, self-willed, self-made guy who brooks opposition from no one except the Deputy Premier (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy); from her he will put up with anything. Apart from that one particular political and personal relationship, the leadership style of this Premier is to control, is to dominate, is to be in charge.

Once again, we hear nothing but silence opposite. There is no dispute. Everyone knows that's how the caucus runs; everyone knows that's how their cabinet runs. It's a matter of public record that for almost five years that's the way this province has been run. That record not being in dispute, how can the Premier turn around and pretend he didn't know what Dan Cambell was doing? Who, after all, gave Dan Campbell his orders every day of the week? How can the same Premier who runs the whole show himself turn around and have us believe that he didn't know what Ron Grieg was doing? The Premier can't have it both ways. Either he is the self-made, dominating, self-willed and somewhat heavy-handed leader of that administration that we all know him to be and that his colleagues know he is, or he's not running anything at all, and Dan Campbell and Ron Grieg were going their merry way, spending money, handing out thousand-dollar bills and forging letters. He can't have it both ways.

The Premier has tried for five years to build up an image as a strong, tough, powerful leader. In the last year that image has begun falling apart, most spectacularly since September when the first of the dirty tricks began to surface. Now the Premier wants to change the image. Now he would have us believe that Dan Campbell worked autonomously; that Ron Grieg was never supervised; that Glen Mitchell was never instructed; that no member of the caucus staff ever did anything except all by themselves, at their own whim, at their own wish. The Premier can't have it both ways. He can't pose as the strong and dominating leader for five years and then tell us that, unfortunately, one aspect of his administration simply slipped him altogether. He never knew what Dick Lillico was doing in the Alexis Building with all those letters, eh? The Premier never knew about that? We have more questions about Mr. Lillico's peculiar — shall we say — involvement in what's generally called "dirty tricks."

AN HON. MEMBER: Where is he now?

[ Page 1859 ]

MR. BARBER: We know where he is now. We know why he was sent there.

The Premier owes it not just to the opposition but also to the people of British Columbia to be entirely candid. The fact that he refuses to answer these questions makes it clear that he is probably going to be more embarrassed by truthful answers than he is now being embarrassed by stonewalling. So he will make the sacrifice he has to and be publicly criticized for refusing to answer opposition questions. We've a lot more questions, as well, about the involvement of his office, of his staff, and of himself, in the whole sleazy and sordid affair, which in the last election caused the government party to almost lose it — to almost go down to a defeat they so richly deserved.

The Premier, as the head of cabinet, is a well-known meddler. He makes decisions all by himself and then imposes them on his colleagues. Let me illustrate. When the Premier made an announcement about the $200 million fund for housing — in fact, it's only about $40 million that will actually be spent; the rest will come back — the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) was in Australia; he wasn't involved at all. Presumably he found out about it by a long-distance call placed by the Premier's secretary. The Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing had imposed on him by this Premier a decision to subsidize mortgages for a very limited period for a good purpose, but with an inadequate result. It is the style of this Premier to make announcements himself because he makes the decisions himself.

Why then would he have us believe that he never knew what Dan Campbell was doing for four years? Why then would he have us believe that he never knew what letters Ron Grieg was signing? Why then would he have us believe that he never gave Dave Brown an envelope of letters published in British Columbia by Gordon Townsend, and told him to do something about it? I wonder if there is a connection between that and the fact that shortly thereafter a forged signature appeared on a letter published in the Cowichan Leader and the Victoria Daily Colonist, allegedly under the name of Gordon Townsend. I wonder if there is a connection between the Premier's instruction to Dave Brown and Dave Brown's instruction to Glen Mitchell to set up letter-writing committees. Perhaps the Premier will answer that after he has finished pretending to consult with the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich).

These are important questions. The people of British Columbia cannot have confidence in this Premier's abilities if they suspect those abilities have been compromised by the involvement of his office in the dirty tricks affair. The Premier, no doubt, will wish that we would shut up about it, that the press pay no attention and that the public grow bored. It's possible the boredom will set in; it's possible that inattentiveness of the press will be the result of our debate along these lines. That's fine; that's what happens. We are not here just for the press, and we are not here just to deal with the boredom of the public. We're here to do, as we best can judge it, the people's business, which includes examining not just the present and future policy aims of the government, but the past performance of the man who leads it. It is impossible to be satisfied that it has been led properly when the Premier continues to refuse to answer legitimate questions about the role of his office in all those areas outlined by my colleague the former Attorney-General (Mr. Macdonald).

Why did Ron Grieg resign? The Premier tells us he asked him. The Premier would have us believe that Ron Grieg never answered. I myself find that hard to credit. I confess I'm a bit skeptical.

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: I'm all of 30 years old; I'm still the youngest member of the House after two elections. I'm probably not as skeptical as some other members of the House might be, having dealt here longer and having lived longer. But I find it impossible to believe the Premier when he says that he doesn't know why Ron Grieg resigned. It is just not credible.

To the extent that the Premier continues to stonewall, he becomes less and less credible and his government less and less well regarded by the people of British Columbia. So it's not just that the Premier here, in the face of the opposition, refuses to answer; it is also that, in the face of the obvious concern of the people of British Columbia, he refuses to answer. We feel obliged to continue to ask. When he answers we will move on to the other topics.

I want to talk about the Annacis Island crossing. I did so on Thursday last; I will do so again. I want to talk about energy policy. I want to talk about the Premier's responsibility for developing a conservation ethic in this province. I want to talk about the total failure of the Premier's marine transportation policies, because they are, after all, his and not simply his ministers'. I want to talk about the relationship of this administration to other provincial administrations in Canada, and about new constitutional forms and features. I want to discuss all of those things; and we will in time, if the Premier, in quick time, answers the questions that we are putting to him. But until the Premier clears up the tremendous grey cloud that hangs over his administration and his own office, he can expect that no other debate will be led. After all, Mr. Chairman, first things first.

We want to know what you did, Mr. Premier, with the money we gave you last time before we give you any more this time. Can I put it any more plainly? You're asking us to vote for more staff. Well, how many more Ron Griegs are you going to hire and what will they do? Before you ask us for money to hire more Ron Griegs, tell us what you did with the last one you hired. You want more money for your office? Why do you want so much more money for your office, moving in one year from a staff of 9 to one of 17? Do you want a larger letter-writing committee? Are we going to see more forgeries in the newspapers? Are we going to hear about more secret trust funds? Are we going to see more resignations by the Dan Campbells in your political life? Before you ask this Legislature for money to run your office next year, we want to know what you did with the money last year. We can't put it any more bluntly or simply, Mr. Chairman.

Of course the Premier wants to slough off the questions, because he knows the answers — and we suspect we know the answers too. His office was involved and the forgeries did emanate from that office. If they did not, then stand up and answer the questions. What did Ron Grieg do and under whose instruction, under whose advice, under whose direction, and when did he do it?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, I quote from the

[ Page 1860 ]

seventeenth addition of Sir Erskine May, and it has been quoted many times in the last week and a half:

"Good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language. The right to claim courteous treatment in debate is due alike between all members, and abusive language and imputations of falsehood uttered by members of the House against members of the House are usually met with by immediate intervention of the Chair."

These are words of advice to all hon. members. I will ask the first member for Victoria to continue on vote 9.

MR. BARBER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's good advice, well taken.

If Ron Grieg had nothing to do with forgeries, then let the Premier tell us so and we'll stop that line of questions. If he resigned for some other reason than his involvement in dirty tricks while an employee of the Premier's office, let him stand up and say so. Don't simply call across the aisle, Mr. Premier: "Hey, that's not fair. Don't ask that. That's wrong. That's not right." That's no answer — across the aisle. What kind of leadership is that? Stand up — through you, Mr. Chairman — and answer, Mr. Premier. Tell us what he did. Did you know about it? When did you know about it? How did you find out and what did you do when you found out? Did you put a stop to it right away, or did you pat him on the back and say: "Well done"? Or did you do nothing?

Of course they're not comfortable, Mr. Chairman. I know you are, because you're a neutral, impartial Chairman and the fate of the Social Credit Party is of no interest whatever to you. You're interested in this debate also, and I thank you for your temperance. But we're interested, and so are the people. So it isn't good enough and it isn't mature for the Premier simply to hoot something or other across the aisle, like "I wasn't involved," and expect anyone to believe it. If the Premier wants us to believe that he had nothing to do with it, had no knowledge and was innocent in every way, let him stand up here today for the first time and, as a matter of public record, record it for all time in Hansard: deny that he knew anything about it; deny that he knew anything about secret trust funds; deny that anyone over whom he has authority had, himself or herself, signing authority for those trust funds; and claim that he was totally unaware that the Social Credit Party had failed to disclose, as required by law, some quarter of a million dollars in campaign expenditures. Let him say all of those things truthfully today and that will be the end of those questions and we'll go on to some more. But if the Premier does not answer those specific questions with equally specific answers, then we and the people of British Columbia will continue to presume — as you will, Mr. Chairman; you're a fair-minded man — that the reason he doesn't answer is because honest answers would be more damaging to his government than is his current silence. Rationally, there is no other explanation. Or has some political cat got his tongue? Not likely.

I've a few more questions regarding the Premier's involvement in the jetfoil thing here in Victoria. He had a meeting at 4:30 p.m., March 13, in his office. A subterfuge then ensued. The Premier would have the people of Victoria believe that he was simply responding to the spontaneous desire of our business community to bring jetfoils into Victoria from Seattle two or three times a day in the summer. The Premier has been involved, as has his administration, in creating a mess of unprecedented proportions in the entire marine transportation field in this province. I don't, myself, blame the current Minister of Transportation (Hon. Mr. Fraser) personally. It's not fair; he had predecessors.

But one of the most powerful underlying reasons why this government is in such bad favour with the people of British Columbia is that its marine transportation policies have failed in every respect but one: we got eight New Democrats elected on Vancouver Island last time. Next time, we'll get nine elected when we win Saanich and the Islands. Vancouver Island is probably, together with Mackenzie, the political focal point of more discontent with that Premier's and his government's marine transport policies than any other region of the province. It may or may not have something to do with the fact that they were so foolish as to double ferry rates in 1976 and then reduce them by 20 percent a year later. It may or may not have something to do with the fact that the Premier and his ministers would have us believe that the Marguerite is unfit for babies and tourists and that it's an unsafe and floating coffin.

His mother was on the Princess Marguerite in October of last year. She went on a special cruise. His mother evidently liked it quite well. Why didn't the Premier tell his mother that it was unsafe for tourists and babies last October? Well, the reason he didn't tell his mother and the reason they didn't tell anyone is because the story never was true. As long as the ship is properly maintained it won't be true. Unsafe for babies and tourists. What a ridiculous claim. What an irresponsible claim. How could this Premier allow one of his ministers to make such a claim? If it were unsafe the Coast Guard would never have certified it as being safe. If it were unsafe Lloyd's of London would never have insured it, because they don't insure unsafe vessels. If it were never safe the Edwardson report would have never said what it did on page 4 in the penultimate paragraph. It said that "nothing in this report should be construed as suggesting that the vessel is unfit for present service."

One of the reasons this Premier is not respected is because he has allowed members of his government — and has done so himself on several occasions — to make public claims about that vessel that are simply untrue. I know I won't be asked to withdraw that, because then they would have to ask the Coast Guard to withdraw its certification. They would have to ask the American Coast Guard why it allowed an unsafe vessel to enter Seattle harbour. They would have to ask Lloyd's of London why they insured an unsafe vessel. They would have to ask the Edwardson company report why they said the vessel was perfectly safe. They may even have to ask the former Minister of Transport, who two weeks ago on the Jack Webster show, to his credit, said: "There's no problem with the safety of the vessel. The problem is with the obsolescence of its power plant." Am I right, Mr. Member? That's what you said. We have the transcript. I know that's what you said.

Well, if minister number one responsible for the Princess Marguerite.... And there have been five during the time of this government, plus number six, the effective current minister, the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) who made the announcement about the Prince Rupert. If that minister, who is an honourable man, says as recently as two weeks ago that the vessel is perfectly safe, why should we believe the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), who would have us believe that it's unfit for babies and tourists?

[ Page 1861 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Member, all members are honourable members.

MR. BARBER: That's right. Some with especial honour attributed to them.

AN HON. MEMBER: It's a matter of opinion.

MR. BARBER: It's a matter of our opinion anyway. We think they are. I think the former Minister of Transport is. He has no reason to fib about the safety of the Marguerite. None at all. But the Premier has some reason to be concerned about his role. The Premier has some reason to feel responsible for his meddling in this mess. May I say it again? One of the most powerful underlying reasons why his government is in such trouble is that the people, by and large, recognize that their marine transport policies are a flop. The Premier is responsible for the failure of those policies, just as he's responsible for the total failure of his compulsory heroin treatment plan. The plan was and is a joke. It's like flushing money down the toilet. You wasted it. It didn't do a single good thing for anyone. We told you so in advance. We tell you so now, and every expert except one, Mr. Hoskin....

The Premier has to acknowledge responsibility for the several spectacular failures of his government. The Princess Marguerite is a joke. You've lost tremendous support in the capital city because of it. Nobody believes you did the right thing, and nobody believes they're going to arrive in the Inner Harbour at eight o'clock in the morning and see the Marguerite rolled over on its side because it's sunk in the Inner Harbour overnight. It's not going to happen. They didn't believe you about Seaboard. They don't believe you about the Rupert. They know the Prince Rupert won't serve in its place. They knew doubling the ferry rates was wrong, and they're doubtful about the tunnel.

The people have some reason to be suspicious of your competence, Mr. Premier. You've made a lot of mistakes in four years, not just certain of your cabinet appointments but many of your policies which you yourself have announced. One of them is that a jetfoil will serve, and I have some questions about the jetfoil.

Did you, Mr. Premier, on the afternoon of March 13 make the following promise? Did you advise, explicitly or implicitly, that two years from now when the jetfoil service has worked because the Rupert has not, that service will be turned over to private enterprise in greater Victoria? Did you promise, implicitly or explicitly, on March 13 that if the jetfoil went as a government venture in the next two years they could have it as a private venture two years from now? It's an important question, because once again the people of Victoria are not satisfied with what you've done with an important part of our tourist industry and one of its vital transportation links. No one believes the government, Mr. Chairman, that the Princess Marguerite is unfit for babies and tourists, or that it is a floating coffin. No one believes them.

No one believes that the 387-passenger capacity Queen of Prince Rupert could possibly replace the 1,800-passenger capacity Princess Marguerite. Even if they increase it to 800 passengers, that's still grossly inadequate. One of the reasons it is inadequate is proven by the fact that the Premier has announced a jetfoil service, because once again the logical argument presents itself. If the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) knew what he was talking about on January 31, then there is no need for a jetfoil today, because if, as he told us on January 31, the Rupert was an adequate replacement, why would the Premier meet on March 13 to plan an extra adequate replacement? They can't have it both ways. Either the Premier is right, or the Minister of Finance is right. But neither of them can be right at the same time, because each has contradicted the other.

Of course the Rupert is hopelessly inadequate. It's a ridiculous replacement. It won't work.

MR. BRUMMET: How did you become an expert at such a young age?

MR. BARBER: Because I've lived in Victoria for my 30 years, and I know something about the tourist economy of the capital city, and because I talk with people in business who know the business particularly well. I certainly know better than to talk to members from North Peace who know nothing about the subject.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The first member for Victoria has the floor, and that member will address the Chair.

MR. BARBER: I certainly will.

The Princess Marguerite is an admirable vessel of great character and charm which, if you had maintained it properly for the last four years, would be serving this year. But because the Premier deliberately chose to wipe out one more piece of evidence of a New Democrat success — as they have deliberately wiped out as much as possible of the New Democrat record — they found it politically expedient to sack the vessel, even though their own people tell them it is perfectly safe in every aspect.

So now we have this mystery of the meeting in the Premier's office, a meeting that the businessmen did not ask for, but that the Premier called; a meeting which did not take place in the offices of the businessmen themselves, because, you see, it wasn't their plan, but rather took place in the office of the Premier, because it was his plan. I want to know if a specific promise was made, implicitly or explicitly, that if the government agreed to run the jetfoil for two years, to take all the risks, to spend all the money, to do all of the things that private enterprise allegedly does, two years later they would be prepared to turn that service over to private enterprise in Victoria.

I think that's what the Premier's strategy has been. The government will create the jetfoil market, obtain the jetfoil equipment, establish the jetfoil public concern, take the jetfoil risks and, two years from now, the service will be turned over to friends of the government who have done none of those things to make a tidy profit. That's not our view of the role of public enterprise in assisting private enterprise to serve all of the people. That apparently, though, is the Premier's view of how you use public enterprise to benefit a very few people through a jetfoil or some other service. So I want to know what his policy is on that.

If the Premier denies that he made any such promise, I want him explicitly to state that during his administration no jetfoil service between Victoria and Seattle will, in fact, be turned over to private enterprise a year, or two, or three or any from now. It's one thing for the Premier to deny that he made such a commitment implicitly or explicitly. He may find a way around it, although I doubt it. He may say, "Yes, I did make such a commitment," or "I offered it out as a

[ Page 1862 ]

theoretical possibility," or "I held it up as something that may happen." He may skate around it that way. If he does, then I'd like to hear a commitment from him that his government would not see that two years, or three, or any from now, the people having taken all of the risks, having done all of the work, the Crown having done all of the necessary preparation, the end result will be to turn over that service to a few favoured friends of his government.

If he makes such a commitment today I'll be satisfied with that, and I will remind him of it as well if ever that commitment should be broken, because it's an important distinction that we make, at least on this side of the House, between proper and improper roles for public enterprise in collaboration with private enterprise.

Let me conclude, if I may, by asking the Premier to answer those questions about what went on in his office — the questions put repeatedly by my colleague for Vancouver East — with Ron Grieg, Dan Campbell and the others. Let me conclude by restating again the questions put by my colleague for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi): did you receive a phone call from the Prime Minister or his agent advising you of the impending resignation of John Farris? Yes or no. Finally, what commitments have you made in regard to the future of the jetfoil, the profits that may be won from it, and who may obtain those profits in years to come, courtesy of your government, which so badly downgraded the service that a jetfoil becomes economically feasible, whereas it never was before?

MR. BARRETT: I think it is appropriate that the Premier indicate whether or not he intends to answer questions related to his office. If he intends to set up rules that are appropriate to him as to what kind of questions on his office he'll answer, perhaps he should send us in writing what he is and is not prepared to answer.

My colleagues have asked some specific questions related to the Premier's office. These are not personal questions; these are questions related to the person who sits in that office, for whatever period of time the voters select that person for — maybe short, maybe long.

Could you tell us and the public of this province what was discussed over the jetfoil, what deals were made, and what commitments exist that the taxpayers of this province have to meet? Perhaps if you write it down, think about it and refer to your notes it will be useful.

Could you tell us why Mr. Grieg left your office? Could you tell us, if you knew, who were the signers on the secret funds out of your office? Can you tell us when you knew about the letters that have been described by the present Attorney-General as "cowardly, reprehensible and irresponsible"?

These are not foolish questions. They are not silly questions. They are the responsibility of the leader of this government to answer, because they directly relate to his office and actions and decisions he took.

Mr. Chairman, as my colleague for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) has said, we've witnessed an incredible series of days of debate. A significant amount of the debate, so far, has been taken up by government members getting up to make lengthy speeches. We've seen the Premier get up. We've heard one speech about four or five times, but today was the weakest performance of all: fumbling, unsure, insecure and unaware of the importance of the questions being put to him.

As a matter of fact, it's beyond just the questions themselves. It's a question of the Premier's perception of his responsibilities. Does the Premier perceive that he is responsible for decisions made out of his office when he sits in that office? Does the Premier understand that when he has employees in his office he is responsible for their actions or explanations of their actions? Does he understand that?

I think it would be appropriate if the Premier had a little time to think about what he's doing or not doing — mumbling to himself and getting red in the cheeks, and every other response that's totally inappropriate for the nature of this debate. I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 21

NAYS — 29

Mr. Barrett requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

MR. LEA: We have rather an unusual session this year; the Premier is not answering any questions put to him. Every once in a while the Premier will stand up and make a 30-minute speech which has nothing to do with those areas being canvassed by the opposition. It's a strange pattern of behaviour; it's rather new for the Premier. I can remember those first heady days of Social Credit government under the now Premier. Things were quite different. I guess you could even say that it was a sort of honeymoon of the media and the people of B.C. with the Premier and the new Social Credit government. It went on for some time. I think it's worthwhile to examine when it started to fall apart and we could see the government and the people of B.C. heading for the divorce court. Now we have what I would call an illegal separation between the government and the people: that uneasy feeling that the relationship isn't working; that possibly one side of the relationship isn't being quite truthful with the other side. When did it all start to fall apart? When did the Premier start to make blunder after blunder?

I think we have to go back to the problems that arose

[ Page 1863 ]

when the previous Speaker, Mr. Smith, placed a friend in the auditor-general's department. The pressure started to build for the head of government to deal with the problem; there was silence from the Premier. Day after day and week after week there was silence from the Premier. In fact, the silence became deafening. That was when the Premier had to start answering. What did he do? He acted but, he felt, too late. He felt he had been criticized and justly criticized. It was the first time the present Premier had ever been under attack. It was the first time the people of this province had had an opportunity to see what the man was like under fire. He was reeling from that first attack to the second disaster facing the Bennett government: the Jack Davis affair.

It is kind of interesting to reflect on how that all came about. The opposition took its place in question period and started to ask various ministers of the Crown whether they had ever received any favours or any pay from different airlines — PWA, CP. We were onto something quite different. We had received information that PWA had carried information around the province for Social Credit at a much cheaper rate than they were charging the NDP.

Interjection.

MR. LEA: Tons of pamphlets. We were trying to find out exactly what had happened. Let's look back at that scene. The Premier was reeling from his first attack over the actions of the previous Speaker, Mr. Smith. It was the first time he'd ever been under attack from the media, and he didn't react that well. Then here is this second thing.

He already knew about the member for North Vancouver–Seymour when he was the minister. He already knew, because it had been reported to him, that that minister had been transferring first-class air passenger tickets into second-class and getting the money for the difference at home. So what was happening in the Premier's mind that day when in question period the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) started saying to this minister and that minister: "Did you receive anything for free from the airline?" What did the Premier do? He stood in his place before the next question could be asked, and out of hand — he even made an error in spelling when he wrote it out — fired that member for North Vancouver–Seymour from the cabinet.

MR. NICOLSON: Without leaving this House.

MR. LEA: That's right. He took his place in this House and said: "I really blew the Smith thing; I looked weak. Now I'm going to look strong, and I'm going to fire that minister just out of hand. In fact, he's going to be tried and found guilty by my words here in this Legislature this afternoon." And he was. For days neither the minister nor the members of this Legislature, the media or the people of this province knew why that minister had been fired — nobody knew. So in order to try and make up for his sloppiness over the Smith affair.... He tried to make up for it on the back of the member for North Vancouver–Seymour, to ascertain or to re-establish that he is a tough man in Kelowna. He doesn't care who gets hurt, as long as it's not himself. So on top of the Smith and Davis affairs....

Mr. Speaker, I move that the Chairman do now leave the chair.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Could I ask all hon. members to retain their places during divisions. This request has been made quite often, and I hope we don't have to make it each time there is a division.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 21

NAYS — 29

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

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I was going over the track record of the Premier over the years because, as the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) has pointed out, before we are going to vote on money for next year we'd like to find out what he did last year.

What has his record been, generally? So far, we've gone back to where it all started to fall apart for the Premier. That was when he couldn't be decisive and wouldn't make a decision surrounding former Speaker Smith and the placement of one of Smith's friends in the auditor-general's department. The Premier came under fire for the first time. The Premier felt the wrath of the people for the first time. The Premier had to show what he was made of for the first time, and he felt he'd failed.

Then came the second crisis in the Premier's political life. That was the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis). When the opposition, not knowing a darn thing about the member for North Vancouver–Seymour, when he was a minister, getting refunds on his tickets.... We didn't know anything about that. All we were doing was standing up asking whether any of the ministers had received favours from PWA and other airlines. The Premier, of course, did know about the member for North Vancouver–Seymour, and he panicked. He panicked that afternoon in this House, and he jumped to his feet and fired the minister on the spot, so hastily that he even misspelled the note that he wrote down.

That's when it all started to go bad. But then along came the election. We didn't know how badly it was going until after the election, when we found out there had been unreported slush funds, money that had been gathered by the Social Credit or by the Premier's office; money gathered by

[ Page 1864 ]

the Premier's office, as far as we can ascertain, illegally; money being spent out of the Premier's office, as far as we can ascertain, illegally, according to the Election Act.

Now if it's legal, Mr. Chairman, for one of the Premier's employees to take thousand-dollar bills, collected by Austin Taylor Jr. or collected by Mr. Adam....

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Provincial Secretary on a point of order.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, the member has very clearly inferred that certain transactions were handled illegally. I would ask him to withdraw the inference of illegality.

MR. CHAIRMAN: To the member for Prince Rupert, I would ask, if any allegations of impropriety were made on the personage of the Premier, that he would withdraw any such allegations of impropriety.

MR. LEA: No, I'm not saying that at all. We're trying to find out who in the Premier's office....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, would you withdraw any allegations of impropriety.

MR. LEA: Of course. I didn't make any. I'm saying that there was money collected illegally flowing into the Premier's office. There was money being spent out of the Premier's office illegally, according to the Election Act. Now that is a fact. That's public record. If the Provincial Secretary wants to stand up and tell us how it really happened, be our guest. We do know that there were bagmen for the Social Credit and the Premier's office in Toronto and Vancouver. We do know that they were collecting money that was not reported. We do know that there was money being spent and not reported.

MR. LAUK: That's illegal.

MR. LEA: Of course it's illegal. We do know that Dan Campbell was using thousand-dollar bills to pay for political work.

AN HON. MEMBER: Favours.

MR. LEA: Favours! Who knows? We know what was being spent, we know it was thousand-dollar bills, and we know that he worked directly for the Premier as the Premier and as the Leader of Opposition when he was the Leader of Opposition.

MRS. DAILLY: No receipts.

MR. LEA: No receipts; no questions asked. Spend the money. Collect it. Where did the money come from?

MR. KING: I wouldn't run a hardware store that way.

MR. LEA: If you ran a hardware store that way, you'd be broke.

Then, also starting way back when he was the Leader of the Opposition, we had the Premier instructing Social Credit members to write phony letters to the editor. We know that's a fact. The Premier says: "Don't be silly. Don't call me to task for those things I've done. Call me to task for those things I'm about to do."

HON. MR. BENNETT: On a point of order, the member for Prince Rupert has suggested that the Premier, while Leader of the Opposition, asked people to write phony letters to the editor. I would ask him to withdraw that.

MR. LEA: I've just asked one of my colleagues to go out and get the letters.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Premier has asked an hon. member to withdraw an allegation impugning through impropriety.

MR. LEA: Would the Chairman entertain an adjournment until I get the letters? They are coming in from the office right now.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I would ask you....

MR. LEA: Okay, I withdraw it, and I'll bring the letters in in a minute.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member.

AN HON. MEMBER: Phony letters!

MR. LEA: They're not phony. He says we are talking about phony letters.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Premier on a point of order.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member for Prince Rupert clearly said that I encouraged people to write phony letters. That is untrue, and I ask him to withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: My understanding was that the allegation was withdrawn. The member did withdraw the allegation. Did he, hon. member?

MR. LEA: Oh, yes, I did.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, did you withdraw the allegation?

MR. LEA: Yes, I did. Now what did happen....

Here's a letter written May 27, 1975 — that's before the provincial election we lost. "Personal and strictly confidential," it said on the letter, and it's signed "Yours sincerely, W.R. Bennett, Legislative Assembly" and written to "Dear Friends." We'll just let people decide whether or not it was suggested that phony letters be written.

"Dear Friends:

"From time to time over the past few years each constituency executive member has received copies of a sheet called 'Do You Know?’ These have been used by constituencies for newsletters and for providing information to those members of the executive who have written letters to the editor. My office is now proposing to initiate a new program. The new

[ Page 1865 ]

sheets are not intended to be replacements for the 'Do You Know?' material but are to be completely new mailings called 'Say It Isn't So.' "

Cole Porter would have loved the guy, wouldn't he?

"It's hoped that this new material will be useful to those in the constituency who are directly working in the field of communicating on hotline shows and in the preparation of material in the 'Letters to the Editor' column in newspapers circulating in your area. I would urge in particular that constituency members outside the greater Vancouver area make it a point to send material for 'Letters to the Editor' to the metropolitan newspapers in the Vancouver and Victoria area. The appropriate mailing address for each of these newspapers is as follows.

Then he's got a list.

Here's another letter that the Premier objected to. He objects to his own letters. I would too if they ever came to light, I'll tell you that. I'd say I didn't even write them. The question is: did the Premier sign these when he was Leader of the Opposition? Because, you know, that's not been cleared either. I remember in Prince Rupert during the same election a little thing appeared in the paper in the Prince Rupert Daily News. It said: "If we are elected, the pulp mill outside of Prince Rupert will not close." It was signed "W.R. Bennett." When I brought it to the attention of the candidate running against me it was denied by the Premier. He said he didn't sign it. The Premier said he didn't sign that telegram. Do you know who said he did? He said it was Dan Campbell. Dan Campbell signed the Premier's name in that case, so maybe Dan Campbell signed the Premier's name here. Who knows.

MR. KING: Who should we believe?

MR. LEA: All I know is the Premier hasn't denied writing them.

HON. MR. BENNETT: That's a straightforward letter.

MR. LEA: Okay, let's read the straightforward letter of May 28, 1975.

"Dear President and Regional Director:

"We hope that all constituencies will be gearing up a massive letter-writing campaign both in their own area and outside of it. Some material which can be used in communicating letters to the editor will go on 'Do You Know?' sheets and some will be going through to you on 'Say It Isn't So.' The first of the 'Say It Isn't So' has already been sent to you."

What was the Premier doing sending "Say It Isn't So" letters out?

MR. KING: Is that on government letterhead?

MR. LEA: No, it's not on government letterhead. He was in the official opposition at the time.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Nice try, Bill.

MR. KING: You acknowledge writing it then, do you?

MR. LEA: We want the Premier to answer some pretty straightforward questions. Did the RCMP or some other police force find the typewriter that had written the Gordon Townsend letters in the Premier's office? Was the typewriter that wrote the forged letters discovered in the Premier's office? There's one that the Premier shouldn't consider too silly. Was that typewriter the one that was used almost extensively by Mr. Grieg? Now is that a silly question? The Premier's going to write it down. I guess it isn't that silly.

Is the Premier the person who co-signs the slush fund of money that is gathered by Austin Taylor Jr. and Mr. Adams? Is the Premier the person who signed, other than Mr. Tozer? He says: "No." He shakes his head. In that case could the Premier tell us who it is, and is that person in the Premier's office? Is that person still in the Premier's office?

Another question that I'd like to ask concerns a car, I believe, a Chrysler that's owned by the government and is used by the Premier's office. I'd like to have the Premier's attention on this one. I'm talking about a brown Chrysler. Has the Premier ever personally driven that brown Chrysler? Not somebody else driving it but the Premier. I'd like to know that. Just a silly little question — so silly you don't mind answering, I'm sure.

MR. LAUK: Certainly you can recall — can't you, Bill.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Incredible.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, the Chair is finding some difficulty in relating.... May I for all members.... Would the member for Prince Rupert please take his seat.

MR. LEA: Surely.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Under section 61(2) of our standing orders dealing with relevancy: "Speeches in Committee of the Whole House must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration." And again, going back to the sixteenth edition of Sir Erskine May: "The administrative action of a department is open to debate, but the necessity for legislation and matters involving legislation cannot be discussed in Committee of Supply."

Hon. members, try as hard as the Chair can, I really fail to see how some of the debate that we're engaged in under vote 9 really falls under or is relevant to vote 9. I would ask members again if they couldn't more closely relate the discussion to the vote presently before the House.

MR. LEA: Surely, Mr. Chairman. Talking about employees who worked directly for the Premier and therefore spent money out of the votes, what we'd like to do is to ascertain whether the money was spent well, whether it was used as the taxpayers would want it to be used. Mr. Campbell and Mr. Grieg, of course, both worked directly for the Premier and both now are gone.

Mr. Chairman, I don't think there is anybody in this Legislature so naive as to believe that it isn't the Premier who decides when we come in here for a session, when we leave from a session, when we come in for a sitting and when we leave from a sitting. I'd like to ask, through you, Mr. Chairman, to the Premier, is it because of laziness that we are not having night sittings? Is it because the government doesn't want to work here at night? Is it because the Premier figured that if he was going to sit in his estimates for two weeks that would be five hours a week he wouldn't have to sit here, and

[ Page 1866 ]

therefore all work has to stop because of the Premier's feelings? Has the Premier spoken to the Whip or the House Leader about night sittings? Is it the Premier's wish that no night sittings be held because the Premier doesn't like the griddle, or is he just a lazy-bones, Mr. Chairman?

Now here are a number of things that have been announced by the Premier in the last year, as he was getting paid by the taxpayers. All of these things surrounded the dirty tricks, because in a desperate bid, spending the taxpayers' money willy-nilly, he tried to retrieve his image; he tried to show that he was an able administrator of the people's money. You have the list. I probably left some of them off, but he announced the mortgage plan. What date was that when he announced the mortgage plan? It was some time around the middle of January. Do you know that it was January 12 before he even told the credit unions that he was going to have a plan? January 12 was the first they ever heard of it. Isn't that interesting?

It's like when Mr. Helliwell was on television talking to Mr. Fotheringham, and Mr. Fotheringham said: "Was it your idea to have the BCRIC plan?" "Oh," he said, "no, no, no." He said: "The Premier came to us and said he wanted to give the people something for nothing. Work out a plan." You know, that independent agency, BCRIC....

Mr. Helliwell said that on television, Mr. Chairman. We can, I guess, always get the record of that from the CRTC. So that's what Mr. Helliwell said, that the Premier came to him and said: "I want to give everybody something for nothing" — in other words, "I'm in political trouble, give them something for nothing and I'm going to call an election," and those kinds of things.

Mortgage plan — the first the Credit Union ever heard of it was on January 12. Annacis bridge — everybody knows that the Annacis bridge is going to cost about at least three times as much as the Premier announced. The Premier likes to announce these things and then, when we get to his estimates, he says: "Oh, ask the appropriate minister." He just wants to have the right to announce them; he doesn't want to answer for them, and I don't blame him. As things become more desperate, we see more desperate plans like the cabinet shuffle — pretty desperate. I've been looking at what he's got to work with, and with people being knocked off for one thing and another, it becomes more desperate all the time, doesn't it?

Then we've got B.C. Place. He held a big breakfast and announced B.C. Place. At the beginning of one week we had a tunnel going from the mainland to Vancouver Island; by the end of that week we had a floating bridge. I mean, my God, Mr. Chairman, you've got to be in a lot of trouble. But we do know one thing, Mr. Chairman. We know that the image of this Premier held by the people of this province has been going downhill, and it's been going downhill ever since Smith put his friend in the auditor-general's department and the Premier wouldn't deal with it. We know that that brought on the Davis affair, which he handled so immaturely. We know that it happened when the dirty tricks thing came along and he came back from Japan and, instead of answering, put on a headband and made funny faces and then started announcing mortgage plans, bridges, tunnels, B.C. Place and a cabinet shuffle. Then what comes along? It gets to the point where we find out that the old boys in the province are looking out for the old boys and we find the one thing we didn't suspect, that the new Premier, the new boy, was going to go along with helping to protect the old boys. But we find out that even that is a fallacy, that he'll do anything.

So there are a few simple questions that should be answered. Was the typewriter that wrote the Gordon Townsend letters discovered by the police in the Premier's office, and was it Grieg's typewriter or the one that Mr. Grieg used most of the time? Who is the other person who is the cosigner on the illegal slush funds — or persons? The Premier shakes his head and said it isn't him — which tells us that he knows who it is. If he doesn't know who it is, then we're in a real problem, aren't we, Mr. Chairman? Illegal funds are coming through the Premier's office and he doesn't even know who signs the damn things.

Then we find out that one of the Premier's friends from Central Fraser Valley, who is destined to go into the cabinet, doesn't go into the cabinet. Then we find out that that member says that, by gosh, if it weren't for the Ministry of the Attorney-General he wouldn't even be in public life today, because the RCMP and the Crown prosecutor would have had their way and he would have been charged. The question is: did the Premier talk to the Attorney-General's ministry during all of that? Did the member for Central Fraser Valley talk to the Premier about it and did the Premier talk to the Attorney-General? It would be a fair question for the Premier answer; I don't think it's too silly.

You know, Mr. Chairman, these are not silly questions. Is it a silly question for the people of this province to want to know whether a typewriter that was used for forging another person's name in political dirty letter-writing was in the Premier's office, and whether one of the Premier's staff was the one who used it? Why did Grieg resign? Why did Campbell resign for that matter? The Premier had already announced that Campbell was going down to Ottawa to be this province's representative in Ottawa, and that was after the dirty tricks. And then, bang, out of the air, Campbell resigns. Why? Why did Grieg and Campbell resign? They were both out of the Premier's office. Campbell was with the Premier all the time he was Leader of the Opposition. Campbell was there when Aurthur Weeks forged Levi's cheques.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Withdraw.

MR. LEA: Withdraw what, Mr. Premier? Withdraw the fact that he worked for you when the cheques were forged?

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

HON. MR. BENNETT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I don't know how far you're prepared to allow members of this Legislature to use such words as "forge" and attach them to people who are not here to defend themselves, when they're clearly not true. I would ask them to be withdrawn. But, Mr. Chairman, quite frankly, I would like to know how far we can go in debate, making allegations by innuendo, question, or directly, that cannot be true, against people who are not here to defend themselves. I have some experience with this — the court case for members of that New Democratic Party, in which the judge was quite harsh on them. I've been quite prepared to bring that up again in this Legislature.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. Premier; you have raised a point of order. Before recognizing the member, may I just say at this time that all hon. members in this chamber

[ Page 1867 ]

take full responsibility for what they say. The Chair can only step in when members of this chamber have been named. Other than that, members must take responsibility in full for their statements.

MR. LAUK: Thank you, Mr. Chairman; that was the point that I was going to bring to the Chair. I'm glad that you stated it so well. I also, as a member of the committee, resent even veiled admonitions to the Chair from either side of the House. To ask how far the Chair is going to go is an admonition that I think is disrespectful to the Chair, and I want the Chair to know that I don't appreciate that — nor should any hon. member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If all members on both sides of the House would show that same respect, the job of the Chair would be much easier.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I don't imagine the Premier likes the record drawn out. But look who has worked for him over the while, directly in his office: Campbell, Weeks and Grieg. Where are they today? Weeks resigned because he used private information that he gained while in government service to play the stock market. Arthur Weeks signed Levi's cheques before turning them over. He wrote things on the back of the cheques and tried to pass it off that it was on the cheques when he received them. He handed them to Marjorie Nichols and other people in the press and said: "This is the way we got them." We find out later that Weeks altered the cheques. He worked for the Premier.

We find Campbell dealt in thousand-dollar bills during the election campaign, probably gathered by Adams and Taylor. We find money that was going through the Premier's office was being signed by Tozer as one of the co-signers. Tozer worked for the Premier, signing the slush funds. Campbell used the money coming out of the slush funds. Grieg worked for the Premier. Weeks worked for the Premier before he worked for the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) after they formed the government. The Premier denied it, but we know it's a fact.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Did you learn that in law school?

MR. LEA: Never mind about law school, Mr. Premier. You may need to know more about that than you imagine.

I have a few simple questions. Does the Premier ever personally drive that Chrysler? If it's so silly, just answer it, yes or no, when you get up.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Did you drive a taxi?

MR. LEA: You're darned right I drove a taxi. I think you were one of my better customers, but I won't tell where you went in North Vancouver.

What I'd like to know is whether the Premier ever personally drives that Chrysler. He knows which one I mean. I'd like to know whether Grieg resigned over the dirty tricks affair. I'd like to know about the typewriter. Did the police find the typewriter in the Premier's office that wrote the Townsend letters, or some of them? It's my information that they did. Can the Premier clear that up? Can the Premier tell us why Campbell resigned after the Premier announced he would be going to Ottawa to represent this province? What happened that made Campbell resign? Did he do something that he didn't think was proper? Did the Premier ask him to resign?

We'd just like to know the answers to these questions. We don't think they're silly. We think they're questions to which the people of this province have a right to know the answers. Let them decide whether they're silly, after he answers them.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, the Premier made an important statement in the House last week. He said that natural gas was an important source of revenue to the province. He also said we will continue to export our surplus gas to the United States. We will make these sales not only to keep our treasury full but to make sure that exploration and development in northeastern British Columbia is continuing apace.

As the Premier says, our export sales have made a number of people programs possible in this province. The sale of drilling rights and the income from exports to the U.S.A. brought more than half a billion dollars into our provincial coffers last year. This industry, with the right kind of encouragement, can provide a billion dollars a year on the average for this provincial treasury during the 1980s. But we will have to pay higher prices to our producers, and we will have to recover our basic costs insofar as sales in the province are concerned.

With regard to exports, I like the way the government's recent Orange Paper on energy put it:

"While British Columbia produces and exports surplus quantities of some energy resources, it is vital, particularly for non-renewable resources, that the long-term future supply of British Columbians will be given first priority. Therefore the government will set up a special review process to assess in advance the proposed removal and sale of surplus energy from the province."

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

This involves forecasting our own medium- and long-term needs for gas. It involves keeping a reserve supply on hand for emergencies, And it involves making sure that our export sales are priced as high as possible. The National Energy Board, when it holds its hearings on exports to the United States, uses similar criteria. However, the province may wish to be more cautious even than the National Energy Board when it comes to the quantity and the price of gas we sell in the United States. We must build up at least a 30-year reserve of deliverable gas, and we must make sure that our export price is at least as high as the world oil price. That way our future requirements will be protected and we will get full value for all the gas we sell to our neighbours to the south.

As an exporter of natural gas British Columbia has moved into a happy position. Border prices can be increased at three-month intervals so we will be charging all that the market will bear for our surplus energy. Volumes, meanwhile, will go up or down, depending on the availability of alternative fuels in the United States. Off and on, residual oil is in surplus supply along the Pacific coast, so industrial usage of our gas in Washington state, Oregon and California will vary, but residential and commercial sales will remain firm. They also will generate most of the revenue we obtain by selling our surplus gas in the Pacific Northwest.

As for supply, I don't doubt that we have abundant

[ Page 1868 ]

reserves in the northeastern corner of this province. Given adequate markets in terms of both price and volume, we can find enough gas to look after our long-term needs, with plenty to spare. Revenues to the industry and the government will mount. If we manage things right, revenues alone can fund at least 10 percent, and perhaps as much as 20 percent, of the government's annual expenditures in the 1980s. This is possible, even probable, but we will have to make some important policy decisions meanwhile. We must allow the field price for natural gas to rise to a point where it is on a par with field prices in neighbouring Alberta. Also, we have to indicate what our export policy will be in the 1990s. The industry is well aware of the fact that our current export contracts run out in 1989, and if they are not renewed, the industry could suffer a volume drop in overall sales of as much as 40 percent ten years from now.

Two questions, therefore, plague B.C.'s petroleum industry at the present time. One is: will B.C.'s field prices catch up to those paid in Alberta? The other is: what about exports after 1989? Price and volume, volume and price. Anyone who is going to invest in exploration and development in this province will have to know the answers to these two questions, and soon; otherwise we are going to see a slacking-off of drilling activity at a time when the search for fresh energy resources is being increased elsewhere.

Specifically on the matter of price, it has been 30 months since our last field price increase in B.C. Today, old gas — that's gas flowing from wells in production prior to November 1973, roughly the time of the Suez crisis — sells for 30 cents per 1,000 cubic feet less than it does in Alberta. New gas — found and produced after November 1973 — fetches 60 cents per 1,000 cubic feet less in B.C. than it does in Alberta. So, as a rough generalization, the field price differential between British Columbia and Alberta is currently in the order of 25 percent.

Our field prices only move when the government says they shall move. The border price might go up, but this doesn't mean a comparable increase at the source. Our B.C. Petroleum Corporation buys all the gas produced in British Columbia, pays transportation charges and sells it to our utilities — B.C. Hydro, Inland Natural Gas, etc. — and to U.S. utilities at the international boundary line. The B.C. Petroleum Corporation is really a taxing agency. But it gets its orders from the government; they come from the cabinet at the present time. There is really no way of knowing when these prices will change, at least insofar as the producer and distributor of gas in B.C. is concerned. In other words, the government in this province makes the pricing decisions, not the marketplace, so it behooves government to spell out its future pricing formula. Will its field prices, in future, match those in Alberta, so as to attract the right number of drilling rigs, or will field prices be related to B.C. costs of finding, developing and producing new supplies, or what?

It would be helpful if hearings were also held from time to time. This used to happen annually under the B.C. Energy Commission, and our producers felt that they had some say in pricing, or at least some feel as to what the trend in future field prices would be.

From the government's point of view, the B.C. Petroleum Corporation approach is tidy. The industry gets enough revenue to keep it going, the B.C. consumers can be supplied at cost, and the windfall profits made on export sales will accrue largely, if not entirely, to the provincial treasury. The B.C. government knows exactly where it is going under those circumstances. It does, at least, from the short-term revenue-producing point of view. It can keep as much of the border price increases as it wants, but there can be drawbacks, at least, in the long run. The producer has to know what he's likely to get 5, 10 or 15 years hence if he's going to invest many tens of millions of dollars a year in finding new gas reserves.

This brings me back, Mr. Chairman, to the royalty-type arrangement Alberta has. Alberta doesn't have a provincial petroleum corporation buying and selling all its gas. It takes a share of the wellhead price instead, and the wellhead price is determined mainly by market forces. It's the price in the market, less transportation from the source, the net-back price at the wellhead. We should explore this alternative again, not only because it is the pricing mechanism in effect throughout most of North America, but also because it makes it possible for the private sector to forecast costs and revenues in a more confident way. Perhaps a special inquiry is needed in this connection. It could be a special commission looking at the two alternatives, that of following the B.C. Petroleum Corporation approach we use now, and royalty sharing in resource revenues as is used in Alberta and elsewhere, as I've described previously.

As an aside, Mr. Chairman, we're lucky in one respect. We're selling our B.C. surplus gas in the United States, not eastern Canada. In other words, our surplus is being sold outside of Canada; it's being sold at the competitive world oil price; it's not being sold to Ontario and Quebec at a protected internal Canadian price. Obviously that protected internal price is less than the world price. In other words, our gas is not being marketed at 85 percent of the internal Canadian oil price — as is much of Alberta's gas — which in turn, at least today, is less than half of the world's oil price. In other words, Alberta's surplus is basically being sold at less than half of our surplus; it's being sold principally in eastern Canada at a much lower price than the world competitive price for energy.

We're all aware of the confrontation going on between eastern Canadian consumers, who would like to get Alberta gas even more cheaply than they do at the present time, and Alberta, which is insisting that its wasting resources, oil and natural gas, be sold at something approaching their true commodity value in world markets. Fortunately we've avoided this conflict. We have our own two-price system: we have an in-B.C. price and we have an export price; the difference accrues entirely to British Columbians. Let us hope we can keep it that way.

Let us hope that the federal government doesn't choose to impose an export tax on B.C. gas — and, of course, Alberta gas — thereby stripping off much of the revenue which presently flows into our provincial treasury via the B.C. Petroleum Corporation. If the federal government took this step, it would be another blow to western Canada. Financially speaking, it would be regional discrimination. In my view, it would be discrimination with a vengeance. It would add to disunity in this country and make federal-provincial relations even more difficult than they are now.

Geographically speaking, we're protected from the big federal government grab insofar as our petroleum fuels are concerned. We're on the western flank of the nation's oil and natural gas producing territory. Let us hope, therefore, that more gas and more oil is found in Alberta, in the Northwest Territories and, hopefully, in the Atlantic region as well. Let us hope that those sources, not British Columbia sources, are

[ Page 1869 ]

used to supply central Canada. With the great revenue producing potential of these other gas resource areas, they can stand the income-draining effects of having to sell their surplus in the low-price markets in Ontario and Quebec. Meanwhile, we will use most of this non-renewable resource ourselves — that which we produce in this province; what little is left over we will sell at world commodity prices to our neighbours to the south.

The pricing for B.C. use has to be thought through carefully. I personally don't believe in subsidizing, even in this province, the consumption of an irreplaceable energy resource like natural gas. Be they residential, commercial or industrial, our gas users should at least pay the full cost of service; they should pay the field price plus the cost of long-distance transmission plus the cost of local distribution. I'm not talking about replacement cost; I'm simply talking about actual cost. I'm talking about a cost which our new public utilities commission can determine, really, down to the last penny. It's a cost which must be reflected in the rates we pay for the gas we consume as a source of heat energy in this province.

This delivered cost, this actual cost, this field price, plus a regulated price for transportation and distribution, will still be a bargain. Gas will still be cheap as compared to other fuels, especially oil. Today gas is less than half the price of oil; in future it will probably be less than 50 percent of the price of oil; it will also be much cheaper than electricity for space heating purposes. Government will have a big hand in making this cheap gas available to B.C. consumers. This low-cost gas should be made available to as many British Columbians as possible; it should be made available on Vancouver Island; it should be transported to all our cities and towns, wherever local distribution makes sense and where gas can displace oil, thereby making our energy future more secure in British Columbia.

In a recent speech here in Victoria to the Canadian Petroleum Association, the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) said that our natural gas service in British Columbia was currently being subsidized to the tune of $100 million a year. In other words, gas to consumers is being underpriced; it's being priced at less than cost. Those who are lucky enough to have access to B.C. gas are being subsidized, and that subsidy has been increasing of late.

It works this way: the B.C. Petroleum Corporation would be collecting another $100 million a year if it were charging B.C. Hydro and Inland Natural Gas the full cost of the gas they buy and transport in their distributing systems. As all hon. members know, the B.C. Petroleum Corporation is simply a money-gathering and money-spending arm of the government. In other words, it's a financial shell; it isn't an operating company, in the industrial sense, but it pays over vast sums of money to the B.C. treasury. The $100 million it doesn't get from B.C. Hydro and Inland Natural Gas is $100 million less on the income side of the B.C. budget. It's $100 million a year less for people programs in this province. I would rather see us sell our gas in B.C. at cost and have this kind of money available for other worthwhile activities here in the province.

Now to try and answer the hon. member's question, Vancouver Island's share of this annual $100 million subsidy could be of the order of $15 million or perhaps as much as $20 million a year. So I expect that our Vancouver Island MLAs will continue to push for a natural gas pipeline across the Strait of Georgia. They may not get the same price for gas on the Island as on the mainland, but there can be little doubt that a natural gas service would result in substantial savings over oil and electricity if natural gas were available in this area, especially if it were available over a period of years.

Where precisely the underwater gas pipeline should be built and how it is financed are open questions. Westcoast Transmission crossing over from Powell River could finance such a pipeline out of a 10 percent increase in its overall pipeline charges. Those are charges essentially to B.C. Hydro and Inland Gas. B.C. Hydro, in turn, crossing over from Tsawwassen could pay for a line connection to the Island out of a general rate increase in its present gas distribution area. That's essentially the lower mainland.

We can always hope for some capital assistance from the federal government. After all, we as B.C. taxpayers — taxpayers, that is, paying income tax and other taxes to the federal government — are helping to pay for major pipeline extensions eastward into Quebec and the Maritimes. But my main point is that natural gas is a relatively abundant fuel and, as a cheap source of heat energy, it should be made available to as many British Columbians as possible. Only after their long-term needs have been taken into account should surplus gas be sold to the United States.

One final question which I want to address is that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) told the Canadian Petroleum Association annual meeting last week, here in Victoria, that "processors of natural gas will have to go through a detailed licensing procedure." He also said that it was "extremely unlikely that the projects advanced by processors of natural gas for offshore markets would find that their projects, as presently envisaged, would meet the province's new criteria." I don't know what he meant and I doubt whether many of the industry people present did either, but he seems to be saying that manufacturing of petrochemicals and other products from natural gas is an industry unlike other industries. It will have to go through a government review process, like power projects and pipelines do. Also the gas those industries receive will be priced differently by government.

I personally don't think that gas-using enterprises should be regulated any more than power-using industries. The price of their raw materials should be the same price as gas sold for other industrial purposes. It is a price, as I said before, which should at least cover costs; it should cover field prices plus a regulated rate of return on the main transmission lines and on local distribution. But I don't think government should be setting gas prices otherwise. I think it should be essentially setting the prices through the public utilities commission; it shouldn't have special prices for certain industries. The public utilities commission will make sure they are not being subsidized by the taxpayers. But otherwise we should have a gas pricing system for industry in B.C. which brings industry to B.C. Like companies in the field, they want a predictable pricing system. They want a gas pricing policy, in other words, which will stand the test of time; they want a pricing system which they can also judge insofar future gas price trends are concerned.

I know most members on this side of the House are concerned about the growth of government in this province. It can grow in either of two ways. It can grow by increasing our bureaucracy, and it can grow, at least in relative terms, by hampering the growth of the private sector. As far as growth in government is concerned, I note with some

[ Page 1870 ]

apprehension that the government's Orange Paper on energy talks about a new B.C. Utilities Commission — and this would replace the existing Energy Commission — a new energy development agency, an office of coal research, and two new review processes, one relating to major energy projects and the other managing exports of energy commodities leaving the province.

The National Energy Board, in my opinion, does an adequate job regulating major transmission line projects and in dealing with exports, so we could have some duplication here. A public utilities commission, on the other hand, is needed to regulate the distribution of gas locally in the province — it is essential. This would include a review of B.C. Hydro's rates as well as those charged by Inland Natural Gas, Columbia Gas, etc., which have been in the past regulated by the Energy Commission.

Where I have difficulty is in respect to field prices, on the one hand, and the proposed regulation of the price of gas to petrochemical manufacturers on the other. These, in my opinion, are primarily private sector operations. They should not be regulated by government any more than they are, say, in Alberta or Ontario, for that matter.

New government agencies and a clearcut role for the private sector — these are big questions and ones to which the government is obviously addressing itself. But some answers are needed soon. We need a predictable field price scenario. We need a pricing policy insofar as wholesale and retail sales of natural gas are concerned, and we need a mechanism for financing a gas pipeline to Vancouver Island. With these policies in place we will know where we are going insofar as natural gas is concerned. Not only can it be a large source of revenue for B.C., perhaps in the order of $1 billion a year in the '80s, but it can also become, next to water power, our greatest energy resource in this province.

Mr. Chairman, the government and the Premier are to be congratulated on the issuance of the Orange Paper entitled "An Energy Secure British Columbia." It stresses first and foremost conservation and provides for new initiatives including the production of high energy gas from coal. The broad outline of an energy policy is there, but certain gaps have to be filled in. One is pricing and another is the completion of a province-wide network for gas. Important decisions will soon have to be made in these areas as well. Otherwise our proven supply of natural gas will tend to level off, and the province will not achieve the gains in employment and income which will flow from a comprehensive policy for the development of this vital resource in B.C.

MR. HOWARD: I'm always very interested in listening to remarks of the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) and, if not able to listen to them, as is the occasion from time to time, delight in reading them, because they are generally very well thought out, very well prepared and flow along with the ease of presentation which the member has developed over the years. They are therefore very, very worthwhile listening to and contain a very good analysis of the subject matter that he wants to present. I think it's regretful today, apropos the subject matter covered by the hon. member for North Vancouver–Seymour, that the Premier chose to be absent specifically at that time. Not that I look upon that or allude to that as being any slight on the member for North Vancouver–Seymour, but it would have been well for the Premier to have been here and heard the remarks of the member.

Apart from the content of them themselves, they indicate, as I think do other speeches of the hon. member from North Vancouver–Seymour, a sensitivity to matters developing outside of this chamber — a sensitivity, I think, on his part to some of the interests of Senator Perrault from this province, who is desperately intent to see the development and emergence of an active provincial section of the Liberal Party in the province. Primarily, of course, this is for federal purposes, but nonetheless we see the development of the Liberal Party here and hopefully the emergence within the provincial Liberal Party of a leader that will be able to attract an increased number of members to the Liberal Party. The member for North Vancouver–Seymour, I'm sure, paying careful attention to the structure and the construction of his speeches as of late, seems to have a foot in both camps — one here to keep in good graces with the Premier and the government itself, but the other to say, without actually using the words: "I'm available, Senator Perrault, either just as a soldier or as a general — whatever you, Senator Perrault, think I can be best suited for." I don't see anything wrong with that. I'm not decrying that or indicating that that's an inappropriate thing to do. It's just a returning home, really, to the Liberal Party from which he was basically evicted some years back, and a desire to get back within the comforting womb of that organization, having been basically evicted from the cabinet here — not for very valid reasons, I don't think, but nonetheless evicted. It's worth, I think, examining that and I'm sure Senator Perrault will be interested in reading those comments of the member for North Vancouver–Seymour and looking at them for the kernels and the ideas that the hon. member has and how they can fit into this new emerging and new-found Liberal Party.

A very interesting thing occurred earlier, Mr. Chairman. I believe it was the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) who made reference to a couple of items. One was whether or not the Premier was a co-signer of the slush fund cheques. The Premier immediately and quickly denied that he was, and said: "No. Never. I didn't do that." The other question was whether or not the Premier counselled others to write phony letters. The Premier rose on a point of order and denied doing that, saying that he never did any such thing. He was very quick to respond, but very reluctant to respond to other questions that the Premier appears to have been involved in.

He is very reluctant — in fact, he absolutely refuses — to respond to the simple question posed at the beginning of this debate on his estimates, as to whether or not the Premier in 1977 went to Europe and advocated the sale of uranium. Now his words, on the record of the House, blurted out, are simple and direct. He said no, he never did. All of the evidence, information and supporting documentation from his own government indicates that that would have been the appropriate thing for the Premier to do when he was in Europe — namely, to say: "Yes, I would like to sell uranium from the province of B.C." I notice that he is not so quick to stand up and deny his own blurted-out statement that he never did it. It leaves me with the distinct impression that either the Premier didn't think it through carefully when he blurted that out, or that he, in fact, knew what he was saying and consciously and deliberately told this House something which was not true. Now I find it very difficult to believe the Premier when he says he did not attempt to sell uranium in Europe.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, if that is an imputation of a falsehood by another hon. member, I will have to

[ Page 1871 ]

ask you to withdraw that. I hope the Chair has made that clear.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, I'm the most agreeable person in the world in that regard. If you think there was an imputation of falsehood, I withdraw it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If you intended it. Thank you very much, Mr. Member.

MR. HOWARD: I am entitled, I think, to ask the Premier whether he in fact did lie to the House when he said that he didn't attempt to sell uranium.

MR. CHAIRMAN: No....

MR. HOWARD: I can't ask that either?

MR. CHAIRMAN: No.

AN HON. MEMBER: Did he tell the truth?

MR. HOWARD: Did he tell the truth then? I'm simply trying to get, Mr. Premier — through you, Mr. Chairman — an uncomplicated truthful answer to an uncomplicated question. The Premier leapt to his feet to deny an imputation that he advocated signing phony letters to the editor. There was no hesitation there. He didn't leap to his feet, but he indicated, by shaking his head and saying no across the chamber here, that he was not a co-signer of this heretofore unknown slush fund that was run in and out of his office. He was very quick to deal with something of that nature, but he refuses to deal with a question of something much more fundamental, namely his own veracity. So long as he remains silent, it will be questioned by many, many people in this province.

Reference was made to a former member of this House, a former Minister of Municipal Affairs, Mr. Campbell, who worked for the Premier in various capacities. Mr. Campbell was the Minister of Municipal Affairs in 1969 and attended — so I'm advised — a Social Credit seminar here in the city of Victoria in 1969, in a hotel not far from here, the name of which, quite frankly, escapes me at the moment, but I know the hotel by location. The seminar dealt with political matters. One of the subject matters, which Mr. Campbell, who was the summer-up of the whole proceedings, dealt with was this. He says under point 12.... Mr. Chairman, I see you're pulling your microphone towards you. I intend to use this as a preliminary to relate to subsequent activities of Mr. Campbell, who was paid by the public of B.C. to work out of the Premier's office. It is necessary to have this slight foundation in order to examine the credibility of that person working in the Premier's office paid for by the people of B.C. and in order to examine that question. It will put us in a better position to determine whether or not we should vote any further money to that office.

MR. CHAIRMAN: This will discuss the administrative action of the Premier?

MR. HOWARD: This is the administrative action of the Premier's office. I wouldn't want to discuss the administrative action of the Premier himself, because that's suspect; but certainly it is the administrative aspect of his office in the vote before us.

Mr. Campbell says, in point 12: "Right now" — no hesitation — "Social Credit constituency associations should have a committee who do nothing else but monitor and contribute now to open-line programs and letters to the editor columns." That's the commencement point of a lot of this, 1969 — Dan Campbell, later the Premier's office, advocating Social Credit organizations get involved in open-line programs and letters to the editor columns. "That committee is something that every constituency association can do right now, and is an ongoing job," said Mr. Campbell.

Now here is something further to indicate the tendency and the propensity of that gentleman; his thoughts and his intentions with respect to political activity head in a certain direction — not a very savoury direction, Mr. Chairman. He asks the question in point 13: "Does your constituency association persuade or encourage Social Credit members right now to start spreading around British Columbia by the moccasin telegraph?" Here is the answer: "This is so important," says Dan Campbell, "the whisper, the letter to the friends, letters to the newspapers, emphasizing four things. What are those four things that are important in British Columbia right now? Admittedly this is a bit of history, but it is important to mention them. The first one is the absolute collapse of the Liberal Party, both inside and outside the House. "The Liberal Party in the House in the past four weeks, so that everybody understands it, has run for cover. The leader is gutless. He spent less than 10 percent of his time in the House," and so on. Now I don't know if he was talking about Dr. McGeer or Dave Anderson; it's immaterial. One Dr. McGeer was around that time as the leader of the Liberal Party. I don't know if he is the one who was called gutless by Dan Campbell. Maybe this came to the Premier's attention and that's one of the reasons Dan Campbell is now gone — objections by Pat about this sort of thing.

What I'm getting at is the direction in which Social Credit organizationally, internally, at the top, was headed: the approach of the whisper campaign; the approach of spreading the rumours, false or otherwise; the approach of involving a letters to the editor campaign; the approach of being involved in hotline programs to advance a particular interest, namely that of Social Credit.

We moved along, and the culmination of this was last fall with the disclosure that certain letters had been written by Social Credit or in Social Credit caucus research, in its structure — that there was a connection between that letter writing and the Premier's office and the Deputy Premier's (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy's) office, all resulting and flowing from the orientation of Social Credit at that time.

The Premier, who was approached about this last September, is reported to have said that he was disturbed that a caucus employee had "raised the spectre of encouraging our party to write letters to the editor that would not be a normal reflection of a person's thinking, but would be manipulative." And then he went on to say that he wouldn't encourage that; he didn't know anything about that; he never had anything to do with that. He washed his hands of it all; it was something above him, the Premier. Then later, as was read into the record, letters were disclosed which were written by the Premier in May 1975, in which he counselled and advocated exactly the same thing that he later denied doing.

How can one, I ask you in fairness, Mr. Chairman, appreciating what the rules say, appreciating that we are bound by them here...? If we transgress them we're required to withdraw, and sometimes that requirement for a

[ Page 1872 ]

withdrawal impinges pretty heavily on one's conscience when one feels truthfully what they are saying, and feels strongly about it. How can one, knowing what those rules are, see this accumulation of evidence within Social Credit about letters to the editor, preparation of letters involving letters out of the Premier's office when he was Leader of the Opposition advocating that they get involved in a letters-to-the-editor campaign, without coming to the conclusion that the Premier knew exactly what was happening in that letters-to-the-editor campaign? And while he might not — as he said in this House, and I take his word for that — counsel the writing of phony letters, I say to you that he knew they were being written. I draw a difference between those two: that knowing something was happening and taking place and doing nothing about it is just the same as counselling and giving advice to it.

We are, Mr. Speaker, so long as that persists.... The regretful part is that people that would have a concern about the operation of the Premier's office — the office itself and the high station it holds in our minds, without regard to the individual in it — the general public will persist in the suspicion that the Premier's office was involved in those things, those loosely defined dirty tricks, and that will demean the office itself. That's the regretful part. I say a man of greater stature than the Premier appears to be would properly stand in the House and say: "Yes, that happened. It was an error. It's gone and finished, and we are embarking upon a new era and a new course."

AN HON. MEMBER: Rather than blaming the little people.

MR. HOWARD: Rather than blaming those who were hired as staff members in his office and the office of the Minister of Human Resources (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy) and the caucus research staff, rather than laying it all on those people, be a man, be honourable. You said earlier, Mr. Chairman, that all members of this House are honourable, and that is quite correct. There are just some of them, particularly in government, who do dishonourable things. That doesn't detract from the fact that they are honourable, according to the rules.

I want to move to another question, if I might, Mr. Chairman — a very brief one. This relates to B.C. Ferries, a subject that the Premier has talked about himself. There is something rotten going on with B.C. Ferries and the B.C. Steamship operation, something unsavoury about that whole thing that is in a turmoil out there.

AN HON. MEMBER: The meeting in Bennett's office.

MR. HOWARD: The meeting in the Premier's office that was mentioned earlier by the member for Victoria probably is the proof of the pudding that something is improper in B.C. Ferries. The first thing that happened was that the Premier — the great saviour of Canadian unity, the protector of provincial rights, the man who holds himself up as being the only person competent and capable enough to represent our interests with Ottawa — sat down with the Ottawa people and got skinned, and signed away B.C.'s rights. He said to the federal government: "Yes sir, I'll put my signature on this piece of paper that forever denies the provincial government any right to say anything about coastal shipping in this province" — forever denies the provincial government and the people of B.C. the right to complain to the federal government — signed away by the Premier. That was in one of his more lucid moments of acting on behalf of the province of British Columbia in dealing with the federal government. That was the start; that was the commencement. He got skinned and the people of B.C. got taken in by his ineptitude and his incompetence in signing that particular agreement. He sold us out forever for a measly $8 million a year, which doesn't show up in additional service to the people of this province — certainly not on the north coast.

The next move, Mr. Chairman, was this cabinet — I don't know who in it. That's very difficult to find out from the question period. Everybody sloughs the responsibilities off onto somebody else. Everybody says: "Not me. I wasn't responsible at that time." And away it goes, so we don't know who. We have to lump it together then and lay it at the doorstep of the Premier. After all, he's the key guy. He's the first minister; he's the president of the executive council; he's the guy who picked all these clucks he's got in the cabinet who deny responsibility.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order! You'll have to withdraw that, Mr. Member. That is unkind treatment of a member of this House. I would ask you to withdraw that phrase.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will the member withdraw, please?

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, never would I say anything unkind, and if you say that that's an unkind word to use, I certainly will.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All members have the right to claim courteous treatment.

MR. HOWARD: Let's see what these honourable gentlemen in the cabinet did — now that they've been relieved of that responsibility of being identified the way I had earlier identified them. The first thing they did was say: "My gosh, we've got some tourists coming to Victoria in the summer. What are we going to do? First we've got to get rid of the Marguerite, because it's tainted by the fact that the NDP brought the thing into existence and we've got to get rid of everything that they had a hand in." Even the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis) was today hinting that they should get rid of B.C. Petroleum Corporation. That was part of his advocacy. He was talking to the petroleum industry when he said that. He was looking for the call to the Liberal Party out there. He said: "I've got to play up to the petroleum and natural gas industry, so I'll put forward an alternative."

They wanted to get rid of everything we had a hand in, so they said: "Get rid of the Marguerite." In the process of doing that they had to find another vessel. They cast their eyes around and discovered the Queen of Prince Rupert. They said: "Well, we'll simply pull that off the north coast run, and in its place we'll pull the Queen of Surrey out of mothballs" — or wherever it was — "and we'll refit it and it will go on the north coast run to Prince Rupert and way points."

AN HON. MEMBER: That was Curtis' idea.

[ Page 1873 ]

MR. HOWARD: Oh, was that the Minister of Finance's idea? Well, I can understand the Minister of Finance having that idea, because he's got to cater to the business community in Victoria. He wanted to tell them: "Look, man, I'm looking after your interests." That will come a little bit later.

Somebody on that side, Mr. Chairman, wasn't smart enough, or didn't care — and I'm inclined to the latter — about the north coast of this province, about the hundreds of people all along the north line, Highway 16, the CNR north line which runs through Skeena, Omineca and some other riding into Prince George. They didn't care about the people up there who, having made reservations months and months ago to travel on the Queen of Prince Rupert, suddenly found out that for at least six weeks, perhaps two months — and we're in that period right now — there would be no ferry service to Prince Rupert — hundreds upon hundreds of people disadvantaged.

There were no apologies, no references to it, no "Gee, I'm sorry, we goofed." That would be beneath the dignity of the Premier to express that kind of feeling towards people. Better to let them be disadvantaged than to admit that maybe an error was made — not a very creditable stance for a Premier of this province to take.

We now find that the Queen of Prince Rupert — and we knew it before — is not adequate to carry all these people back and forth between Seattle and Victoria. We've got to find another ship. Enter the hydrofoil, enter free enterprise, the thing that the Premier is married to in his conscience. "Free enterprise," he said, "that's what's going to do it. Risk capital, that's what we need for this hydrofoil." As I read what the newspapers say — and I'll be corrected if I'm wrong on this — it's going to be operated by a "non-profit organization" comprising business community people in Victoria.

One of the Crown corporations that we have is B.C. Development Corporation.

AN HON. MEMBER: They voted against it.

MR. HOWARD: Did the Socreds vote against that? Well, they've had a change of heart. They've seen it's a good thing. They've seen that it can serve the interests that they hold dear to them. They see that it can serve maybe friends, maybe enemies, but who cares, so long as it serves their philosophy. Now we find B.C. Development Corporation using public money, saying that it will put up $50,000 as the initial fee to Boeing in Seattle to lease the hydrofoil.

I am also told, by reading the press, reading the news accounts about this — because I wasn't in the Premier's office at that meeting and don't really know what they talked about — that B.C. Development Corporation has also said: "We'll pick up the tab at the end of the season if there's a deficit, in return for a participation in the profits — if there are profits."

Now that's the Premier's concept of free enterprise. You dig into the public's pocket; you take the taxpayer; you don't talk with him about it; you just do it — you've already got the taxpayers' money shunted aside into the B.C. Development Corporation — and you make a deal. You say: "We'll take the public funds away from the taxpayer; we'll put it up front here as risk capital. If there's any loss, we'll balance the books by putting up more money." If there's any profit I'll tell you what will happen: suddenly this non-profit organization that runs that hydrofoil will turn itself into a profit organization. The general public would have paid for it all; the whole process would have been a donation involuntarily by hundreds and hundreds of people in northern B.C. and on the coast of B.C. who are without a ferry service for a two-month period. They don't measure that in dollars and cents, and that's a contemptible way for this Premier to treat northern B.C. residents, apart from the fact that he refuses to answer legitimate questions and thus substantiates the view held in the minds of the general public out there that the Premier is not telling the truth to this Legislature.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, since it's getting close to the end of the day perhaps the Premier would like to read from his list of questions and answer them now. If so I certainly yield the floor.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Mr. Chairman, if the Premier feels that the selection of questions is political, then perhaps we'll leave aside those that he seems to consider political — that is, any questions about his responsibility for his staff or the directions of his staff or any staff leaving his office. Is that political, Mr. Chairman? If we're too much in the arena of asking questions about the taxpayers' money spent in the Premier's office, then, of course, I can understand his discomfort, but I always thought that went with the job. Perhaps the Premier would like some time to think over some of these questions and maybe read Hansard and go back over them and come back with some answers.

There is an area where I don't see how the Premier can walk away — or sit away — from answering. They are the very legitimate questions raised about the deal made in your office concerning the jetfoil. You're the one — through you, Mr. Chairman — who ran around this province saying: "Not a dime without debate." He's the one who goes around talking about accountability of the public's hard-earned dollars. He's the one who went around saying: "No free lunch." I think the people of this province have a right to know exactly what deal was struck in the Premier's office to instruct the British Columbia Development Corporation, a Crown corporation allegedly under the aegis of the Crown corporations committee, to take orders out of the Premier's office — a direct intervention in that Crown corporation — to finance the jetfoil. The Premier may find it highly amusing, or he may be just nervously uncomfortable; I don't know. You tell us in this House what authority you acted on to make the deal you made ordering BCDC to do the financing for the jetfoil.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to know when the Premier changed his philosophy that the Crown corporations act independently and without political interference. I'd like to know when the Premier announced to the public: "From now on the decisions around the British Columbia Development Corporation will be made out of my office." I’d like to know if the Premier made the deal on a handshake. Is there a written legal document?

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to ask the Premier: do you think these questions are improper? Does the Premier feel that he's really being asked questions that are naughty? Did he meet in his office with citizens representing the business community of Victoria to discuss the jetfoil operation between Seattle and Victoria? Yes or no.

Oh, don't ask that fellow for the answers. That's the last

[ Page 1874 ]

fellow you want to get advice from, Mr. Chairman. If you're going to lean over and talk to somebody, talk to the one at least holding his head. He knows what a conscience is. The question to the Premier of this province is very blunt and very plain. When did you decide to strike a deal with the representatives of the business community of Victoria involving the British Columbia Development Corporation and make a financing arrangement in your office with this citizens' group ordering BCDC to follow through? When did you decide that? Two, did you give your instructions to BCDC in writing or did you pick up the phone and tell them to make money available for this project? We're entitled to know how you spend taxpayers' dollars. "Not a dime without debate. No free lunch. The free marketplace will make its decisions. It's your estimates." I'm asking you bluntly. Through you, Mr. Chairman, look me right in the eye. Come on, Bill. That's it. Attaboy, I've got your attention. It's been difficult for you to focus all day. We've seen a strange pattern of behaviour developing over these last two weeks, and we find the Premier finding it difficult to face the fact that when you ask for that job you have a responsibility for accountability in terms of what you do in that job.

I've lost his attention again. Your attention span is very short, Mr. Premier. Psychologists did a fantastic study on the length of attention span and guilt — the association between guilt and attention spans. It was an interesting study on children and how adults revert to childlike behaviour when they're faced with uncomfortable situations in terms of blocking them out and limiting one's attention span to a series of questions.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Very funny. Yes, Mr. Chairman, you go back and justify your $14 million drug scheme that you've wasted the taxpayers' money on in this province.

Mr. Chairman, we've asked some questions that, perhaps, the opposition is not entitled to know the answers to. Is there anybody in British Columbia, first of all, who is entitled to know what went on in the Premier's office in making a deal with a group of citizens for financing the jetfoil? Is anybody entitled to know, in the Premier's opinion? If we're asking questions that he feels we have no right to know the answers to, why doesn't he say that? Does the Premier feel that we have no right to know what commitments were made in his office for taxpayers' dollars to finance the jetfoil scheme? If he feels in all good conscience that that is an improper question to ask him, he should say so. Just get up and say: "That's an improper question, I'm not going to answer that." But he hasn't said that, Mr. Chairman.

How did you tell the British Columbia Development Corporation what your decision was — to financially assist the citizens' group for the jetfoil? Was it by letter? Is that an improper question? Mr. Chairman, I ask you to rule on my question. Is it an improper question to ask the Premier who was in his office when he met with them? Was anybody from the British Columbia Development Corporation in his office when he made this deal on the jetfoil? That's a good question.

If we are going to witness this attitude that seems out of touch with reality from the Premier of the province, it should not go unnoticed. It should not go unnoticed that there is an air of unreality about the sequence of events that has taken place under the Premier's estimates. I don't think there's another cabinet minister who would sit this way when asked questions about his office or public funds he is responsible for, and assume he is doing his duty to the House — not the opposition. What are the duties of the Premier of the province of British Columbia? Don't they include a statement in this House that gives his version and his account of events that take place in the day-to-day functions of his job? I don't even call it arrogance. The Premier of this province has not displayed arrogance. There are other, far more serious symptoms that we are seeing these days, more serious than arrogance, more serious than trying to pretend to be above it all. I'll tell you what we're witnessing. We're witnessing a frightened leader, in my opinion, and the fright doesn't come from the opposition. We don't scare him one whit. It comes from within, Mr. Chairman, from within his own group, within his own doubts, within his own hesitations and his own guilt. We've watched very, very unusual behaviour because of simple questions, and I think it doesn't serve this House well or the people of this province well to have the Premier sit there refusing to answer questions that cannot be described as anything other than responsible questions. I ask through you, Mr. Chairman: does the Premier intend to answer these questions?

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

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

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I move that the House at its rising do stand adjourned until 2 o'clock tomorrow afternoon.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: On a point of order, the member for Skeena.

MR. HOWARD: It's not a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I just rise to make a few comments with respect to the motion.

Interjections.

MR. HOWARD: The motion is not debatable?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: It is a debatable motion, hon. members. It sets a time.

MR. HOWARD: It's debatable certainly and therefore, I would think, amendable. What I rise to put to the House is that we should not accept the motion, because the purpose of it, if it passes, is that the House will meet again tomorrow afternoon at 2 o'clock. I'm told that there's been almost a tradition in the Legislature of night sittings, varied sometimes for particular reasons; nonetheless, the tradition is of sitting two evenings a week — generally Tuesdays and Thursdays. During the throne speech there was an alteration to that. A couple of weeks ago, I'm told, there were some events scheduled on particular evenings, when otherwise night sittings might have been held, that required the attendance of hon. members, and therefore no night sittings were held. It now appears, though, two weeks having gone by with the government persisting in moving from the adjournment at 6 o'clock or thereabouts to the afternoon of the following

[ Page 1875 ]

day, that the government has now established as a practice — or wants to establish as a practice — that there be no night sittings at all, and I think that is most inappropriate. Our hours are normally from 2 to 6, and I'm not very adept at arithmetic, but it comes out to a twenty-hour week in the chamber.

Now, Mr. Speaker, you may think that's overly long at times, depending on some of the things that have to be dealt with, but it isn't a very long period of time to spend in the course of a week dealing with the general public's business. We're here, as everybody says, to conduct the public business — to work on behalf of the general public, to see that things are done on behalf of the people we represent.

To debate, to examine, to ask questions, to pass laws and to do those sorts of things — to express opinions by way of motions and the like that reflect what we think is in the public interest: we can't do that fully and effectively, I submit, if we're just going to spend a casual afternoon dealing with it and tossing aside the tradition that has existed of meeting in the evening as well. It's not a question, in my view, as to whether people like night sittings or whether they don't, and I know there are individual feelings about that.

Some years back I used to work in underground mines.

HON. MR. CHABOT: That was a long time ago.

MR. HOWARD: Yes, it was a long time ago, but I used to do it. I used to work graveyard shift, and I hated graveyard shift. I disliked the afternoon shift as well but I worked them because at that time I did what I thought I was being paid for, and that's what I want to do here. That's what all of us are here for — to do what it is we get paid for.

AN HON. MEMBER: Then start working.

MR. HOWARD: That quip from the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie), if that's who it was.... If it wasn't I got the wrong member — no reference to it at all. I just heard somebody say something and I thought that's who it was.

But the point is that that's the purpose we're here for: to work on behalf of the people of B.C. We can't do that if members opposite, particularly, want to goof off in the evenings. We can't carry out that obligation and that responsibility if we've got a bunch of lazy people in the cabinet, lazy in the sense that they just want to spend a casual few hours in the afternoon not answering questions, stonewalling proper questions that are put to them.

Here's an evening, Mr. Speaker, on which I think the Premier should just jump at the chance to be able to sit here, because it will give him that opportunity over the dinner hour — if we meet this evening — to examine what questions were posed to him today. I notice he made notes all day long, and all day the other day he made notes. He hasn't had time really to look at them, I guess, because he hasn't answered any of them. Here's an opportunity, Mr. Premier, to do the work that you're getting paid for instead of being identified as a lazy sot who won't answer questions, who won't tell the general public what it's entitled to know. Perhaps in an evening when the mood, I've often noticed, is a bit more relaxed than it is during the afternoon, members may feel in a more amenable and more friendly mood, and may desire to respond to the questions that are put to them, which they wouldn't otherwise do during the intensity of the afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, I submit that if government is going to persist in this process of not having night sittings, it is insulting the general public and it's taking money under false pretences. Get on with the job! I say to the government House Leader: quit fooling around; quit goofing off. Never mind looking at the clock with a smile and a smirk on his face, saying: "I move that when the House rises today it stand adjourned until.... "And he looks at the clock expecting someone, you know; there is an expectation there. Then he says: "...2 o'clock tomorrow afternoon." Why don't you say "8:30 this evening" this week? Why don't you do that? Of course, if you have better things to do in the evening that don't involve your responsibility to the general public, I'm sure that will be duly recognized. But quit fooling around, get down to business and stop being identified as both a group of stonewallers who won't answer legitimate questions, and now a group of lazy sorts who don't want to do a full day's work.

MR. NICOLSON: Mr. Speaker, I've watched this, I think, rather disturbing development. Sometimes government has felt that they should try to force the members to sit all night and every night, but I thought that, at least over the last three years, matters had come to some reasonable compromise where members had enough time during the week that the time could be spent productively and we had re-established the hours that are, after all, pretty well set out in standing orders — that there will be two distinct evening sittings on Tuesdays and Thursdays. So those are the normal rules of the House in standing orders, that we sit each day from 2 o'clock to 6 o'clock, and Tuesdays and Thursdays from 8 o'clock, although the government normally moves that it be till 8:30 on Tuesdays and Thursdays.

I'm not really reflecting upon a vote, but just merely pointing out that the government, as its very first order, has traditionally gotten up in the House and moved that the House would have two distinct sittings each day, that the House would sit from 2 o'clock till 6 o'clock each afternoon and from 8 o'clock until 11 o'clock each and every evening, Monday through Thursday. That was a motion that only a few weeks ago the government felt was so necessary that it had to be moved almost at the very first opportunity. It was allowed to pass without debate, because the members on this side are here to do a job. It appears that the members on the other side are here to, I suppose, socialize in the evenings. Some of the up-country members are here to try out their fancy shoes or something — go out with their alligator shoes, which they don't get an opportunity to do up in Fort St. John too often at this time of year.

In my opinion, it is patently obvious that this is a tack which has been taken to protect and to take the work burden off the Premier. Some of the back-bench members have been confiding that once they get past the Premier's estimates they're okay, that it's downhill sledding from there. This is the thing they were most worried about — the Premier and his performance. This is why we are faced with this extraordinary departure for a government that has always kind of promulgated the Protestant work ethic. For them to do this about-face and propose that we sit here for merely four hours of each afternoon, three hours on Friday morning, and away we go....

I really feel this question of the time at which this House sits should be debated and is a most appropriate debate. I'm surprised those members over there can't get up and speak to

[ Page 1876 ]

the motion. They choose, rather, to make inane comments across the floor, which seems to be all they are capable of doing. In fact, it is very obvious that the only time the Premier ever has anything to say is when one of his ministers is supposed to be up speaking; he turns around and tells him what to say. But when the Premier has a question he's supposed to answer, he doesn't get up.

While this is fresh in their minds and so they don't have a chance to forget it, I think they should consider this: that they should vote against this motion to adjourn until 2 o'clock tomorrow, so that a second motion could be put forward that we adjourn until 8:30 this evening. So perhaps then while things are fresh in their minds and while their attention has not been allowed to wander too far they can get up and start considering the possibility of putting straight answers to straight questions, in order that we can all do the job expeditiously and in the way people have sent us here to do it.

To refer to this as "bankers' hours" is really stretching it. I don't think bankers get away with working hours like these. I would hope that these members would....

Interjection.

MR. NICOLSON: There's a member, who wasn't even in the House, accusing me of not being in the House this afternoon. I've been in the House almost all afternoon.

It is most appropriate, I think, that members get up and treat this as a free vote — members who have been here for some time, members like the government Whip, who can recall when the business of the House was handled a little more expeditiously than it is today. If the role of government Whip is ever to return to any sort of credibility, we must start establishing some reasonable guidelines so that we will know what hours we are working and know when the Premier is going to adjourn the House in the future, in terms of giving a little bit of a break to his cabinet ministers — instead of announcing it at the very last minute, let the opposition in on it. Let's get down to some set and predictable patterns of behaviour instead of this irrational knee-jerk reaction which comes from the Premier's latest whim. It's really not the way to inspire confidence in the business community and everywhere else, if we continue to work in a very knee-jerk sort of way. It has been affecting the government's housing policy — they instantly announce a policy. Now it's even affecting the hours during which this House sits. For that reason, I think those of us who give any serious thought as to where the heck we're headed in this House will be voting against this motion.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I draw your attention to the clock, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. Having anticipated, I would refer hon. members to the 1973 Journals, page 171, where a similar situation arose. The debate may continue, in that we are setting the regular hours of the session to carry on the business of the House.

MR. KING: I thank you for your education of the government Whip and your words of edification to all members of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I am amazed that the government House Leader has suggested that we should adjourn until 2 p.m. tomorrow. We've just had a long weekend — four days off in which I think all members of this illustrious institution were well rested. Certainly the government ministers didn't accomplish anything over the weekend, or we'd have had spectacular press releases to announce it. They're well rested, and I believe that they should be prepared to come back, as is customary in this Legislature, to do the people's business at 8 or 8:30 tonight.

I'm somewhat concerned. I'm a rural member. I have a large interior riding; the government has seen to it that I have a very large and onerous riding, Mr. Speaker, and it's a major challenge to represent the interests of my constituents. I'm becoming greatly concerned that, facing an almost $6 billion budget, we face the stonewalling we have experienced today by the first minister. I suspect that we may be here until 1981 before we are able to pass the estimates of this government. This is a very large amount of money to debate, and when we find such bunker mentality as we have witnessed from the first minister, we as the official opposition have to be prepared to stay here and elicit answers on behalf of the taxpayers, no matter how long it takes.

Now what concerns me is how we are going to do this if we cut the hours of work in this institution as well. How then are we going to be able to travel back to our ridings and deal with the problems that exist there? How are we going to be able to explain to our constituents that we only do the people's business in this chamber of debate for four hours a day, with extra time off on weekends that capture the fancy of the government? Certainly some of them are traditional, but the government has had other occasions arise where they've taken an extra day off at their own whim as well. I think it is altogether inappropriate that we are now adjourning until 2 tomorrow afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, the Premier of the province has become known as "Bunker Bill," and his performance today and over the last couple of weeks in refusing to answer questions respecting his budget and his stewardship as the chief executive officer of the government can only be a signal to the other members of his cabinet, a signal that they too should be contemptuous of this chamber and should not feel obligated to answer legitimate questions put forward by the opposition. They should feel no obligation of accountability to the people of British Columbia for the expenditure of their budgetary allocation, and they should stonewall in the same fashion that the Premier has exemplified over the last couple of weeks. We have to assume that that will be the direction of all of the ministers. We have to assume that this is the mentality of this government under siege — to retrench into the bunker and stonewall. That being the case we undoubtedly will be here for many many months to come. [Applause.]

Mr. Speaker, the applause that I have just elicited from the government benches, I know, will make the Premier jealous because it's been a long, long time since he gained that kind of support from his own backbenchers. I don't mind staying here. I have nothing against staying in Victoria and making trips home on the weekend to service my riding. If it's necessary to provide accountability for the expenditure of the taxpayers' money, so be it. Fine. We were the government that said politicians should take their responsibilities on a full-time basis. But if we're going to stay here let's at least work a decent day. This is the government where many of the ministers have pointed their fingers at working people in this province and said: "Hey, you're asking for too much money. Your wage demands are inflationary." I remember the now Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom)

[ Page 1877 ]

making a long-winded speech about reverting to more realistic long-hour work days for the working people of British Columbia.

AN HON. MEMBER: Do you mean Dan Campbell's replacement?

MR. KING: Yes, Dan Campbell's replacement. The only thing he lacks is the thousand-dollar bills, Mr. Speaker. But he made that speech. He said he was concerned about the erosion of the eight-hour day. Now here is the very same minister getting up and proposing to this institution that we should only work four hours a day. I say shame on you. That's a double standard. At least be consistent. At least be prepared to live with what you advocate for working people in this province.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I understand that there are certainly some evenings where it is impossible for the House to work. There will be one night this week when the House will be at the call of His Honour. But there are nights when we can do the traditional amount of work that we have been accustomed to do over the years in this House. Tonight is Tuesday night; we should be working tonight. We haven't had a private members' day yet this session. Not one of the major committees has been assigned anything, other than public accounts and a committee on privileges. The member's appointments do take up their time during the mornings and, of course, there isn't a member here who isn't working all the time. We came to this House to do a normal amount of work. The government has decided, Mr. Speaker, without explanation not to have evening sittings, suspiciously during the Premier's estimates. For a government that alleges a commitment to workoholism, it suddenly discovered a cure: the cure to workoholism is to be forced to face the facts. We have been lectured to, we have been admonished, we have been criticized, we have been attacked, all because we say: let's do a full day's work for a full day's pay.

Throughout the province of British Columbia there are serious problems about the credibility of this government, committed to being concerned about the interests of the ordinary people and their tax dollars, while secret deals are being made in the Premier's office, benefiting people without an explanation. We're told we can't come back tonight and ask for those explanations. What happened to that slogan of "not a dime without debate"? What secret deals are being hidden, with the time-pressure attempted to be taken off the Premier in his estimates? Is there a waitress; is there a logger; is there a cleaning person; is there somebody out there who is trying to make their mortgage payment that gets half a day off simply at the whim of not having to face their responsibilities? Every single wage-earner in this province puts in a full day's work. Yes, Mr. Speaker, husband and wife work together to maintain a home in the face of increased costs, and we don't even know what expenditures are going on. We get an afternoon of silence and then an evening off work.

The coupon-clipper approach of the government — they turn the lights off on the lot and hope to sell off the old model. Mr. Speaker, the smugness, the arrogance, the disinterest now that they're in office is even more evident today after a disastrous afternoon, with the Premier not responding to questions and the opposition now wanting a night off, after four days of lazing around, doing nothing on a long holiday. The hard-working taxpayers of this province don't get a night off as easily as that government is now giving one to this House. The taxpayers of this province who are trying to make ends meet in tough times are going to be told that we don't sit here anymore at night. We sit at 2 o'clock, knock it off at 6 o'clock, have a good dinner and come back at 2 o'clock tomorrow.

Well, I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, it's not good enough for the government to decide to go back to 1880 hours with their 1880 philosophy. There is no reason why we shouldn't be coming back tonight and tomorrow night, two nights this week. I understand Thursday night, and I understand Friday night, but there is absolutely no excuse for this House not to sit tonight and tomorrow night.

What do they think, Mr. Speaker — that people out there get these kinds of hours? Do the people who are trying to keep home and house together and put bread on the table expect this House to knock off after three and a half hours in an afternoon, coast into their Union Club dinners and come back at 2 o'clock tomorrow to go through the same performance? You're not getting paid here by those hard-working people to slough off that way; you’re getting paid to be here and work. Workoholic, my eye! This outfit here has got every darned excuse there is in the book to avoid doing a fig of work. They spent all afternoon sitting over there not answering a question; all afternoon gibbling around there like a bunch of lost sheep. Sheep, yes, but they're lost without leadership. And now a night off with no work.

MS. BROWN: Lazy!

MR. BARRETT: Lazy? Lazy is a compliment in terms of their response to their attitudes and their obligations. You weren't elected here to take the night off and lap it up over there at the Union Club while other people can't even afford a roast.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Laugh all you want, you luxurious millionaire livers over there. Tough people are having a tough time in British Columbia today.

Mr. Speaker, the millionaire mentality of this government doesn't understand that they expect a full day's work for a full day's pay. The millionaire mentality doesn't understand that people are trying to keep house and home together. I tell you this, Mr. Speaker: the millionaire mentality doesn't understand a full day's work. We're prepared to go to work and get some results instead of sitting around all day. Come on!

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, this government has never been afraid of work, nor are we.... But I do take offence on behalf of those of us to whom Easter weekend is important and who do not consider its observance to be lazing around. It is important to many people in this House. Its observance is not lazing around. We don't consider that lazing around.

As all members of this House know, the role of an MLA and of a cabinet minister takes on many forms. It takes on meetings and assembly in the Legislature. It takes on cabinet meetings. It takes on committee meetings. It takes on constituency work. All of it is important. I'm surprised that some members suggest that when they are not in here they are not working, because I know the members on this side of the

[ Page 1878 ]

House, when they're not in here, are out working for their constituents. I also know that the members of this House, at least on this side, will be working not only this night but every night and mornings as well for their constituents, as they have. On this side of the House it's not just words that count, with us it's action.

Mr. Speaker, this government intends to keep working and we do not appreciate those suggestions that we were lazing around during the observance of Easter.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wondered whether or not the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett), after that impassioned speech he gave, checked with the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) about where he might be having supper.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, that is not a legitimate point of order. Order, please.

MR. BARBER: The Premier tells us that action is important and that action is one of the ways in which it should be understood that MLAs work and he's right. Of course we all work in our constituencies; that's how some of us get re-elected. We all work in our ridings, some of us a very great deal. We all do all of that and it's all important, but if the Premier thinks that action is the only measure of the role of a legislator, then he doesn't understand the democratic process in the very least. If action were the only thing that counted and the only measure of real work, then why do we bother with the Legislature? We may as well let cabinet make all the decisions. The point is, in the British system words well chosen and well spoken also count for something. If it was only action that constituted work we don't need this Legislature to debate verbally anything. We'd only need a cabinet to make all of the decisions and the people to ratify them once every four or five years. The Premier betrays a profound ignorance of the importance in parliament of the spoken word, of the debate of the whole tradition in English law that sees people using language and not violence to reach conclusions and meet public policy. The Premier tells us that action only counts, and he is only in part correct. Words chosen, spoken and determined in a sensible and interesting way also constitute a major part of the parliamentary process. So you can't fob it off like that, Mr. Premier, because you're wrong. Once again the Premier betrays a contempt for this Legislature.

Mr. Speaker, what would you call a government that won't work? Would you call it lazy? What would you call a Premier who won't work? Would you call him lazy? What would you call a government party which says one thing in opposition — "not a dime without debate, work with Bill, pull up by the boot straps and get the province working again" — and then once they're back in government they refuse to work the traditional hours the parliament works.

Personally I don't like working until 11 every night any more than anyone else does. None of us enjoy, personally, having to do any of those things. Right? We're all agreed. But some of us accept that as part of our special obligation being here — some of you and some of us. Not all of us and not all of you, I'm sure. But nonetheless, most people recognize that in our system you have to be prepared to put in sometimes pretty crazy hours. The Premier, apparently, is not prepared to do so. Why is that?

You have to look at why we're debating this motion. You have to examine the peculiar coincidence that saw for the first time since I came to this House a government determinately and, I think, kind of paranoiacally worried about what would happen if ever again a snap vote were called and they didn't have enough members present. That's what almost happened one night.

So, sure enough, when you look back at why we're debating this motion tonight, you discover that the government obviously began to worry that they couldn’t keep their members in place at 8:30 at night. Precisely because they almost lost a vote, they changed their tune. Now they're no longer interested in working nights; now they're interested only in working in the afternoons. Now they propose by this motion to work a total of 19 hours a week here in this place where, more profoundly than in any other, legislators are expected to do their work. So what do you call a Premier who won't work the hours that parliament has already worked and always worked? Would you call him lazy? Would you say that he's afraid to work? I know which way we're voting on this motion. Which way are you voting? Are you going to work?

There are some other reasons, as well, that the House might want to consider. The tradition of Social Credit has been to call a late session. This year I believe it was called February 28. So what happens when they call a late session? At least in theory, that might diminish the length of time spent in estimates. At least in theory, that might take some of the heat off the government. So what happens when two things are done by a lazy government which is afraid of meeting its responsibilities? What happens if, first of all, they delay and delay and delay the calling of the session, and then, secondly, they reduce the hours of work? What in combination results from that? Reasonably enough, it results in the conclusion that they're afraid of answering questions and afraid of being seen for what they are by the people in this chamber, which is a government that has become afraid, a government that knows full well it is in trouble with the electorate, and a government, as well, which in the Premier's estimates refuses and refuses again to answer the legitimate questions of the opposition. You can call them lazy or afraid, or you can call them on this simple question. What better do they have to do tonight? Have they got a cabinet meeting tonight?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

MR. BARBER: Have you got a committee meeting tonight?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

MR. BARBER: Are you meeting with a delegation at the Empress Hotel tonight?

AN HON. MEMBER: No.

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes.

AN HON. MEMBER: Maybe.

MR. BARBER: Which committee? Which delegation? Which meeting? Tell us.

[ Page 1879 ]

HON. MR. CHABOT: None of your business.

MR. BARBER: None of our business! That's the whole attitude of this government — a government whose Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) says, "I don't have to be candid with you if I don't want to," and now a Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) who says it's none of our business to inquire what you're doing on public business that takes you out of this place tonight. They don't seem to be able to make a distinction. If the minister as a man in private life has some private business of his own tonight, then that's right; it's none of our business. But if you're telling us you have public business to do tonight, you're wrong; it is our business and we want to know what it is. Otherwise, you have no plausible excuse for refusing to work tonight.

We, however, have conclusions. They are twofold. First of all, they refuse to work because they have become lazy and they won't work any more than 19 hours a week. Or, secondly and conjointly, they're so unhappy about the way in which they have to deal here with their incompetence in government that they want to delay the session and reduce the hours as much as possible to take the heat off themselves. It's a deliberate pattern, delay and delay and delay the session, reduce and reduce and reduce the hours. That seems to be the only way they can deal with the criticisms of the opposition and the antagonism of the general public. They won't work! They won't do the honest day's labour that they and we are paid for.

Continuing to debate the motion for a moment, Mr. Speaker, let's assume that we had a responsible government in this province, one that called sessions in January, that met perhaps twice a year, once in the spring to debate the budget, once in the fall to debate legislation — a sensible means of separating two elemental aspects of the people's business. Let's presume that we had a government that was mature, willing to meet early and willing in its estimates to answer questions. If we had such a government perhaps a legitimate case could be made that night sittings weren't required, because they met early and they answered questions often. Then maybe they would have a case and we'd listen to that case.

But what do we have instead? We have a government that conspires to shut down the Committee on Crown Corporations because they're afraid of losing votes in it, that conspires to shut down the committee when it.... You called meeting after meeting and you cancelled meeting after meeting because you were afraid of what would happen.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, again I must ask members to address the Chair. When we stop addressing the Chair we lose all control in the House. I would again ask particularly the member who is standing to address the Chair.

MR. BARBER: I accept your criticism, Mr. Speaker. Through you, what we see here is a pattern. What we would rather see is a very different pattern. If a government were mature enough to call sessions early and twice a year, if it were responsible enough to answer questions quickly in estimates, and if it were sensible enough to allow its committees to operate year-round, it might not require night sittings. If we had such a government we wouldn't need this debate. If they were prepared to work year-round, to have committees meet year-round, to call an early session and to meet twice a year, once for budget and once for legislation, there would probably be no need, except in emergent circumstances, for night sittings. But that's not the government we have. Rather, we have a government which deliberately denies the Committee on Crown Corporations an opportunity to work year-round. We have a government which deliberately arranges to delay and delay and delay the meeting of this House. And then we have a Premier who, in his estimates, refuses again and again and again to answer questions.

We're trying to be reasonable. We even offered to hear from them, if they've got it, a claim why on this particular evening there is some urgent press of cabinet business, which we may not know about, which legitimately requires you to be elsewhere. If there is, let them make that case for this evening and agree to meet tomorrow night and Thursday night as well and do the usual two nights' work this week. We'd have no problem with that. But I asked across the floor what public business you are doing tonight, and we were told in reply: "Well, it's none of your business." The government seems not to understand why they are losing the respect of the people of this province; one of the reasons is because they see through this ploy of not meeting in the evenings. They know why you're doing it. Mr. Speaker, they're doing it because they're afraid of losing a vote that may be called unexpectedly. They're afraid they can't show up with their reduced numbers. They're afraid they would be embarrassed if they lost a vote. They're afraid. That's why they won't meet, that's why they won't work and that's why the Premier won't answer questions.

If there is a specific reason tonight — not simply invented now by the Premier but in fact arranged some time ago — that the cabinet has an important meeting as a whole with an important delegation that would require that it not be here, let's have that specific reason. That's fair. But the Premier made no such case. The Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) refused to make any such case. We suspect that's because there's no case to be made. They've probably got nothing better to do tonight than go back to their offices, answer a few phone calls, write a few letters, go home and goof off.

What are they going to do tomorrow night? What excuse will they offer then? What reason for their laziness will they put forward on that occasion, and how many more times in the future, starting tonight, will the official opposition have to rise again and speak at considerable length — many of us — to ask why this government delays the session, restricts the committees, refuses to answer questions in estimates and then refuses to work at night as well? There's a pattern there which describes a government so plagued by scandals, incompetence and maladministration that more than anything else they are afraid to be responsible here hour after hour for their work.

The House should meet at 8:30 tonight. The motion should be defeated.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Speaker, normally I don't think.night sittings are a good idea. However, given this government's record of sitting 40 days last year, and given the record of every other legislature in Canada — every other provincial legislature; let's examine them. P.E.I. sat longer than this Legislature last year. Newfoundland, Ontario, Alberta and every other legislature in the country sat longer.

[ Page 1880 ]

The reason that this motion to sit tonight deserves support is that this government has less respect for the legislative process than any other legislature in Canada. There's no question about that. Just look at their record. When the New Democratic Party was in government we had two sessions. The government's business was done in public in an accountable session before a destructive opposition twice every year. That's the way that the government's business should be conducted.

Interjection.

MR. LEGGATT: Yes, that's right. And in fact, Mr. Speaker, if the Premier will get up out of his chair and offer a fall sitting for this particular Legislature, that would be the end of this debate right now. But he won't do it, will he? He'll sit in his chair and mumble what....

Interjection.

MR. LEGGATT: Well, I can tell you, I'll put the number of sitting days that the previous NDP government had against this government's any day of the week. You know it's longer, Mr. Premier. Don't give me this stuff: "Oh, it wasn't every year."

The fact of the matter, Mr. Speaker, is that it's a government that has never appreciated the legislative process, and it's never appreciated the accountability of government to the Leader of the Opposition and to members of the opposition. And the only way they'll learn is to understand that they've got to have night sittings until they have civilized times for the sessions — being a fall session and being a spring session every year, without any question or doubt.

Now we talked about the Crown corporations committee. How much did we spend on the Crown corporations committee last year? We spent $402,000 on the Crown corporations committee. And it sat how many days? I see the Speaker looking up at the sky again about that one. How many days did the Crown corporations committee sit? It should be sitting tonight; it should be doing some business. You know we have to give the Premier some credit; the Crown corporations committee is a desirable committee. But it's got to get to work, just like this government has got to get to work. And I think we should sit down and seriously think about putting in night sittings, until we civilize the process and have two sessions a year.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, we've heard a great deal from the little boys of ploy across the way. I'd like the hon. members to know that in rough count we've had about 33 sittings since this Legislature opened, and during that period of time the House was able to complete the throne speech and complete the budget address and was also able to deal with one bill. Apart from that, the House has dealt primarily with personal attack, personal vilification, personal criticism and personal abuse. And, quite frankly, I can only recall one effective policy alternative that was raised so far in this session, in 32-some sittings, and that's when the member for Victoria advocated the elimination of the SSMA tax on bicycles. Apart from that it was personal vilification throughout.

There is absolutely no question, Mr. Speaker, that the official opposition is living in a world, and I'd say a dream world, of ploys. I'd like to say to the former Premier of the province, now the leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition: any day, sir, we will match our Premier's work-load against yours. This ploy tonight was just a little simplistic ploy by a little fellow who was playing in a sandbox. He adjourned the debate early so we could carry on with this sham. Indeed it is a sham, because the opposition knows there's a cabinet meeting tonight which was to start at 6:05, as there was last Tuesday night.

Mr. Speaker, we will be carrying on with the people's business when the socialist lights are out, and they're going to be out a long time in the province of B.C.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The question is adjournment until tomorrow at 2 p.m. The member for Prince Rupert on a point of order.

MR. LEA: As I understand it, because there is a cabinet meeting tonight, we're not having a night sitting. Is that not what you said? Oh!

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, the question before us is: that the House at its rising do stand adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow.

Motion approved on the following division.

YEAS — 28

NAYS — 25

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, the Clerk made an error in the fact that the members on this side of the House voted aye, and were recorded as voting no.

[ Page 1881 ]

CLERK-ASSISTANT: Mr. Speaker, the vote was 28 yea and 25 nay.

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:41 p.m.