[ Page 1909 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Holiday Shopping Act (Bill 8). Hon. Mr. Williams.

Introduction and first reading –– 1909

Oral Questions.

Pacific North Coast Native Cooperative. Mr. Lea –– 1909

Kemano 11 project. Mr. Howard 1910

Cablevision merger. Mr. Mitchell –– 1910

Ferries. Mr. Lockstead –– 1911

Committee of Supply; Premier's Office estimates.

On vote 9.

Mr. Barrett –– 1912

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1912

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 1918

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1921

Mr. Barrett –– 1922

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1924

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I was very happy today to have a visit from Mr. Arthur Ash and his wife, Marie. Mr. Ash was the member for Saanich from 1948 to 1952. With him are Mr. Gordon Root and Mrs. Root. Mr. Root was a reporter with the Vancouver Province from 1943 to 1951. As a matter of fact, he was telling me that in 1943 the total budget for the government was $47 million. I would ask the House to bid them welcome.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, we have two other ex-members in the House today. We have Cyril Shelford and George Kerster visiting us. George, of course, represented Coquitlam; Cyril represented Omineca and then Skeena. I would like to ask the House to join with me in welcoming these two ex-members to the House. Somehow or other they heard about Ed's money.

MR. KEMPF: I too would like to add my congratulations to the member in the House with us today who served Coquitlam very well for three and a half years. With George is a gentleman who is a very, very good friend of the Social Credit Party, Mr. Gordon Dale. I would like the House to make both of them welcome.

MR. RITCHIE: I have the distinct pleasure today of introducing a few fair ladies to our gallery. We have Vicky Hyndman, Mrs. Beverley Strachan, my wife, Mrs. Maud Ritchie, and her friend, Mrs. George Mirus. Would you please make these ladies welcome.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Speaker, would the House welcome the mayor of the municipality of Mission, Mr. John Agnew, and his chief industrial officer, Mr. Gary Stewart.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Today in the gallery we have Mr. Ted Semmons, who served our government very well for some years and is now retired and has time to be in the House today. He was with the ministry of the Provincial Secretary and during that time when he served our government and the previous government in a dedicated way, he was responsible for more than one royal visit and had an opportunity to welcome many people who came to visit the government. I would like to ask the House to welcome him today.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I would like you to join me and the rest of the House in welcoming 28 members of the Katimavik. This group is from all over Canada. They are on a nine-month course and their last three months will be in the Esquimalt Naden. They are under the auspices of Master Wren Palumbo.

Introduction of Bills

HOLIDAY SHOPPING ACT

Hon. Mr. Williams presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Holiday Shopping Act.

Bill 8 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

PACIFIC NORTH COAST NATIVE COOPERATIVE

MR. LEA: I have a question for the Attorney-General. In 1976 an agreement was signed between the government and the Pacific North Coast Native Cooperative at Port Simpson. The agreement established a management committee for the cooperative's fishing and canning operations, and the management committee's members were appointed by the government. Is the management committee still in operation?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LEA: Is the Pacific North Coast Native Cooperative still under the auspices of the Cooperative Associations Act, and under the superintendent of credit unions, cooperatives and trust companies?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the agreement entered into in 1976 did not affect the status of the cooperative. It still is a cooperative, and it still is responsible for all of its obligations as a cooperative.

MR. LEA: Could the Attorney-General then tell me whether the members of the cooperative have had yearly meetings, and submitted yearly reports as required under that act?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, that's a question that should be directed to the directors of the cooperative. I don't have any knowledge as to whether or not they've complied with their responsibilities in that regard.

MR. LEA: It is my understanding that the act that governs that is under the Attorney-General; and it is a requirement of law that has to be followed by members of the cooperative. I would like to ascertain whether it is a requirement of law, under the jurisdiction of the Attorney-General, that such actions take place — that a meeting be held yearly, and a report made yearly to the superintendent of credit unions, cooperatives and trust companies.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Does the member seek a legal opinion?

MR. LEA: No, I don't.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I don't think it's my position to give legal advice to the member, but I would say to him that the legislation does not come under my ministry. It falls under the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Hon. Mr. Nielsen).

MR. LEA: Can the minister tell the House whether or not he instructed the superintendent of co-ops to tell members of the co-op that they no longer fell under the Cooperative Associations Act?

[ Page 1910 ]

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: No such instructions were given.

MR. LEA: Would the Attorney-General take the question as notice and check to see whether or not the superintendent of co-ops has told the members of that co-op that that, indeed, is the case?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, if the member wants that kind of information I think he should address it to the superintendent, who is not an official of my ministry.

MR. LEA: Can I establish then whether the Attorney-General is the minister responsible for the agreement between the government and the Pacific North Coast Native Cooperative?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Yes.

MR. LEA: Then we're right back where we started, aren't we?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I thought I made it clear to the member that the legislation he refers to is not in my ministry. It falls under the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. If he wishes information with respect to the activities of any official of that ministry, he should either direct his questions to those officials or to the appropriate minister.

MR. LEA: It's my understanding, and maybe the minister could clarify this, that part of that 1976 agreement was that there would be a yearly review of the management and a report made back to the members of the co-op. Is that true?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, it's some time since I considered the details of the agreement. I'll take that question as notice.

KEMANO II PROJECT

MR. HOWARD: I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Environment. The question is with respect to the proposed Kemano completion project of the Aluminum Company of Canada. I want to ask the minister whether he or officials in his department have made any decisions with respect to the procedures which Alcan should follow in pursuit of its ideas of completing that project.

HON. MR. ROGERS: The answer to that is no, Mr. Speaker. But while I'm on my feet, I might take the opportunity to reply to a question that the member asked me earlier about sturgeon.

If you recall, some time ago the member asked about whether federal Fisheries had an agreement with Alcan on sturgeon. It's an informal agreement at this time, that they won't dump water on a mass basis but do it gradually so as not to upset the sturgeon in the river. In cooperation with the universities they are radio-tagging some of the sturgeon to try to get a better idea of their migration patterns in that river.

MR. HOWARD: I thank the minister for that answer, but I would advise, through you, Mr. Speaker, that I was talking about salmon, not sturgeon. Perhaps the minister could take that secondary supplementary question as notice and come back with the proper answer sometime.

With respect to the Kemano completion project of Alcan, has the minister or anyone in his ministry given the Aluminum Company of Canada any commitment, tacit or otherwise, in support of the project?

HON. MR. ROGERS: On the sturgeon question, I'm referring to the Blues. That's where we've got the reference from, and if it was salmon, it was a misunderstanding by someone in Hansard. But I'll certainly get the answer for you.

I haven't made any agreement with, or said anything to, Kemano, but I can't answer for the 1,600 people who work in the ministry. I'll take your question as notice and find out if there is any official correspondence. I think that the answer is no, but I can't give you that for sure.

MR. HOWARD: I'm not talking about correspondence, Mr. Speaker, but verbal commitments as well, if they exist, because sometimes commitments are made not in writing. Would the minister examine verbal commitments that might have been made too?

I wonder if I could ask the minister whether he or officials in his ministry have engaged in or decided to participate with any other ministries with respect to the procedures which Alcan might be required to follow in pursuit of its project?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Mr. Speaker, I think the appropriate minister is my colleague the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland). If we're asked to assist him and the ministry we'll certainly be doing so, and we expect to participate; but we're not the lead ministry in this particular instance.

MR. HOWARD: A supplementary question. Am I in error then in assuming that the minister is not the Minister of Environment and environmental matters are not of concern in this particular project?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

CABLEVISION MERGER

MR. MITCHELL: My question is to the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications. Canadian Cablesystems of Toronto, a massive cablevision company, has applied to the CRTC to purchase shares of Premier Cablevision, operating in B.C. This would create a virtual monopoly of cablevision, with negative cultural and economic effects in B.C. Has the minister intervened, declined or decided to intervene with the CRTC to oppose this application?

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

MR. MITCHELL: I have a supplementary question. Under the Combines Investigation Act, has the government requested an investigation of this merger?

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

MR. MITCHELL: Has the government requested an investigation of this merger by the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission?

[ Page 1911 ]

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

MR. MITCHELL: Is the government investigating or reviewing this application to determine the effect on B.C. of this proposed merger? If not, why not?

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes, Mr. Speaker.

FERRIES

MR. LOCKSTEAD: My question is to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. The Boston Bar-North Bend aerial ferry provides the only link between these two communities. Since November 1979 this ferry has been out of commisssion more than 20 times. Yesterday it was out of service again. There is no reason to assume that this poor record will not continue. Today parents living in North Bend have pulled their children out of kindergarten because of the possibility of another breakdown over the middle of the river. Can the minister assure the House that the ferry is safe and meets all transportation standards?

HON. MR. FRASER: We've had lots of trouble with the North Bend ferry. Our engineers and staff have been working on that problem all winter. The first problem we ran into was when that ferry was installed. It was purchased somewhere across the other side of the world, and we found out we couldn't get any parts for it, so they've had to improvise electric systems, belt systems, and so on. I'm not sure whether it was in the last week or so, but we've had trouble with that ferry all winter. Our senior engineers are trying to resolve the problems, but I'm not surprised that they haven't gotten it completely resolved yet.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I have a new question to the same minister. I might point out to the minister that there was a meeting at Boston Bar last night attended by about 70 very angry residents. A senior official of your ministry, although he was in the area at the time, refused to attend that meeting.

I have a new question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister confirm that the total cost for the refit of the Queen of Surrey, due to double-shifting at Burrard drydock, will now be in the neighbourhood of $10.2 million?

HON. MR. FRASER: I'd be glad to answer that question that you are throwing out. I think it's time we got some facts, and I'll pick it up from where you threw out other figures — this is a new one. I'll take this opportunity to deal with the Queen of Surrey conversion.

You informed the House a while ago that you had been reliably informed that the vessel would not be ready for service until possibly later than June 8, and that our mid- and north-coast citizens will be without water transportation services for a nine-week period. Mr. Speaker, I don't know where this member gets his information, but the information I'm reporting here comes from the managers of the Burrard-Yarrows Corporation and the B.C. Ferry Corporation. It has been reported that the work required on the vessel to allow the Ferry Corporation to provide mid- and north-coast citizens with double the service provided for the last 12 years on the northern run is 75 percent complete as of last week. Barring unforeseen difficulties beyond the corporation's control, this route will experience an interruption of service for only two weeks longer this year than during the last 12 years. The project is right on schedule and very soon our mid- and north-coast citizens will have the capacity they have been requesting for some time, and also deserve.

While we're on the subject of the mid-coast, and statements this member has made that it would be without boat service, I would point out to this House that B.C. Ferries does supply a freight service to Ocean Falls and Bella Bella; they haven't in the past, at any time they operated; but the private sector does. And that should clear up that point.

Now, regarding costs, you made statements in this House about a month ago that it was going to cost $9.5 million. Today you said $10.2 million. I really don't know where this information is coming from, but it amazes me. I would just like to inform you, Mr. Speaker, and members of this House, that on the old figure of $9.5 million he's exactly $2 million out. We awarded a contract for the Queen of Surrey at $7.4 million, and I was advised a few days ago that it is going to come out of the shipyard at a cost of $7.5 million — completely ready to go to work.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I was wondering if the minister would be willing to stake his seat on these figures, because I have up-to-date information as of yesterday that this vessel will not be completed until at least June 1 — for starters.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I have a new question for the same minister, Mr. Speaker. I understand that the minister did speak about private enterprise serving Ocean Falls. I understand that Rivtow is pulling out and that in three days time, as of next Sunday, 114 people are going to be laid off in Ocean Falls. With the lack of water transportation at this time, how do you expect those people to get out of Ocean Falls with all their families and belongings? There is no water transportation at all at this time into Ocean Falls. Can the minister assure us that water transportation will be available to these 114 people who are being laid off after next Sunday because of government inaction in Ocean Falls?

MR. LEA: On a point of order, I know it was rather unusal for the Premier to break his vow of silence, but when the Minister of Transportation and Highways was musing about where the member for Mackenzie gets his figures, the Premier said: "He makes them up." In my opinion that is impugning the motives of a member, and I ask the Premier to apologize to this House.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I would ask the hon. Premier, if he impugned any motive in this case, to withdraw.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, apparently humour is only allowed on one side of the House. Certainly I withdraw.

MR. MUSSALLEM: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I ask leave of the House to introduce a school group which I missed earlier in the sitting.

Leave granted.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to introduce a

[ Page 1912 ]

class of young ladies and gentlemen from Garibaldi Secondary School, a large number of which are in the gallery in shifts today. Their teacher is Mr. Misurelli. I ask the House to welcome them.

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. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I have some questions to ask the Premier, who is responsible for actions out of his office, decisions out of his office and meetings out of his office. I wish to ask the Premier if there was a meeting on March 13 at 4:30, either in his office or in the precincts of the Legislature, to deal with the proposal of a jetfoil service between Victoria and Seattle. I'd like to know who attended the meeting. I'd like to know what specific deal was made during the meeting as to the government role in the jetfoil service. I'd like to know how many taxpayers' dollars, through the British Columbia Development Corporation, were pledged to the project. After a deal was made between the Premier and the business persons from Victoria, was BCDC notified of its role by telephone or by letter? I'd like to know the exact duration of the contract and what the financial obligations of the taxpayers of British Columbia are, through BCDC, to finance this project. I'd be most appreciative if the Premier answered these questions.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, as I said yesterday, the British Columbia Development Corporation has a responsibility to the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips). If questions are posed about whether any society or any organization has been able to further its objectives in British Columbia through the British Columbia Development Corporation, I'm sure the minister would respond where he has that information available. That is his responsibility and should be dealt with in his estimates.

I've also said that transportation services are under the responsibility of the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) and, of course, appropriate questions could be placed to the minister at the time. I think this government is prepared — when we're involved in transportation actions that may involve the government or a ministry — to deal with those, whether the action was correct or not, defend it or have a philosophical argument about whether the government should be doing things or whether people are concerned about societies. That's where concern, if there is genuine concern over this, should properly be expressed.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I asked the Premier about a meeting he himself had. Perhaps he didn't hear me. I didn't ask about the minister responsible for BCDC. I asked the Premier about a meeting he himself had. It is his responsibility, as I understand it, to answer for meetings he has and arrangements he makes. Would the Premier inform this House whom he met with on March 13 at 4:30? I'd like the names of everybody he met with. Doesn't he remember whom he met with? If the Premier doesn't recall whom he met with, say so. But I'm talking about a meeting the Premier had. I'd like to know who was at the meeting. I'd like to know what commitment the Premier made at that meeting for the expenditure of taxpayers' dollars from the Britist Columbia Development Corporation.

If it was not the Premier at the meeting, then I would ask the minister who was at the meeting, but I'm talking about the Premier meeting with a group of business persons from Victoria. Again, I'd like to know whom he met with. What was the deal he made at that meeting? What was the commitment that the Premier made to those persons for funding from the British Columbia Development Corporation for the jetfoil service? How did he, the Premier, notify BCDC that such a deal had been made between him and this group of citizens to initiate the jetfoil service? How much is the total amount that the Premier committed BCDC and the government to in supporting that project?

As I interpret it — perhaps I'm wrong — the Premier is writing down the questions that are related to him, and I would appreciate the answers about the meetings he had over this project.

Mr. Chairman, we're back to where we've been for quite a while. We're in the Premier's estimates. We're dealing with actions of the Premier of the province of British Columbia. We're asking specific questions about meetings he's had — no other minister, no other department. I don't want to be out of order, so I'm sticking to the Premier's vote and his actions. Maybe we should go over them slowly so they're not confused. I'll just wait until I can command his full attention.

Did the Premier meet with a group of business persons from Victoria to set up a jetfoil service between Victoria and Seattle? Is that too hard for the Premier to understand? Did the Premier meet with a group of citizens from Victoria to make a deal to set up a jetfoil service?

Perhaps the Premier has forgotten the question. Did the Premier meet...? I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, someone else has now got his attention.

I don't know what they find so amusing, but I would ask the Premier, now that I have his undivided attention: did the Premier meet with a group of businessmen from Victoria to establish a jetfoil service? Yes or no.

Mr. Chairman, when a minister swears the oath of office.... I think we could get a lot of work done if the Premier would understand that it is the responsibility of the opposition to ask specific questions during the estimates about the expenditure of taxpayers' dollars and the actions of any minister, or the Premier, related to those dollars. If the Premier feels offended by these questions.... I can't perceive why he would, because, after all, if he's offended by his own actions, that's something he has to deal with.

Did you meet — through you, Mr. Chairman — with a group of citizens to set up a jetfoil service between Victoria and Seattle? If so, who were they, what was the deal that was made, how much money was committed, was there a written agreement or was it verbal, and how did you notify BCDC that a deal was made? Do you care for the floor?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, from time to time — in fact, every day — many people meet with the Premier in meetings that may lead up to other ministries or agencies — or anything else coming to a conclusion. I don't deal with every meeting as a matter of discussion on who said

[ Page 1913 ]

what. What this government does is deal with the record of accomplishment. We don't have secret meetings, but we do have and respect confidentiality — something that goes along with being government. Now, as I say, Mr. Chairman, to you or any member, any member can ask if the government has an agreement in any area. Or when the government makes a decision as a government in any area, they can question the decision. The first time I ever thought that the procedure or suggested procedure or discussions would be the major focal point.... Communities, individuals or anyone can make an appointment to have a discussion with the Premier of the province. It's very easy. All they have to do is make an appointment through my office. I don't think that when we hold those discussions — and they go on all day, every day, with numbers of groups — they feel in bringing a problem to government that the discussion of the problem would be a matter for the Legislature. Certainly this Legislature must have accountability to it for the decisions of government when agreements are made; and we will deal with those in the proper time — if agreements are made. The difficulty we have is in dealing with conjecture from the opposition, and we don't propose to deal with that.

The Leader of the Opposition may wish to take the time of the Legislature on a particular line of questioning, but I've suggested that any agreements this government may have achieved — if they're in the area of transportation or in any other area — can be questioned during the responsible minister's estimates. That should be very clear. During any of those periods, I would be pleased to stand up during their estimates and deal with the question of whether or not this government is united in support of a particular decision. And that's very clear.

I'd like to proceed with some of the suggestions posed by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, because he appeared to be making the suggestion that somehow secret deals are made in the Premier's office. I know of only one Premier who ever advocated that — one who was Premier and would like to be again. During the last election, the Leader of the Opposition, in response to questioning on whether they'd bring back the mineral royalty tax, said no, he didn't need it, he would deal with the mining companies individually, one at a time in his office. He advocated special deals, secret deals, and he advocated it publicly. He said that was the style and the way he would conduct the government. Obviously that is an acceptable form of government for him.

My response is that where you have legislation dealing with mining companies, it must be legislation that's on the books; it can't be who you are and when you called and what you happened to say. It must be legislation such as the fair mining taxes we have in this province now. But let all mining companies know what opportunities they have, what the rules and regulations are. We have rules and regulations for the mining industry, for the B.C. Development Corporation, Crown corporations and agencies, the forest industry and any business. That has been the accepted practice and that's what we'll do. Legislation is there and when legislation is there then anybody can conduct business under the authorities given under that legislation. That's how government, either directly or indirectly through its agencies, works.

Yesterday I was amused because we had been frightened by the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition during the election campaign that he was afraid to put into legislation, or didn't want to put into legislation, anything to do with mining companies and that he wouldn't do that. What he was going to do was deal with the mining companies one at a time in his office. That's what he said. Secret meetings in his office. Now we have confidential meetings; the confidentiality of government is well known and we observe that confidentiality in conducting the public business. But decisions, agreements that the government makes or policy decisions are announced. When policy decisions are announced, the government not only takes great pride in them, but if we're questioned by the opposition, naturally, Mr. Speaker, we'll be willing to say: "Yes, that's the decision and we agree with it; we made the decision." That is my response to the Leader of the Opposition.

I know that a good political tactic in the past has been to ask the same question over and over in Committee of Supply, 86 times perhaps, and then get thrown out of the House and get a great headline, but I hope we're not involved in that tactic today. I have made my response and there is ample opportunity during this legislative sitting to deal with appropriate responsibilities of various ministers. I certainly don't want to deal with all of their areas in advance of them taking some pretty good credit for some positive programs that this government is conducting, major programs that have come out of decisions the government has made. Mr. Speaker, I will stand in my place at that time and deal with those programs.

HON. MR. SMITH: They don't like the jetfoil idea.

HON. MR. BENNETT: A number of questions have also been asked, and I dealt with some of these yesterday. I think the Leader of the Opposition had left the House. I'll just take my place and bring those up at a later opportunity, Mr. Speaker.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I listened very closely to the Premier and if I am violating the confidentiality of the meetings then I appreciate the Premier telling me exactly where I'm violating the confidentiality. If he does not wish to give the names of citizens he met with, that's fine. Did you have the meeting? You also stated that if an agreement has been made we will acknowledge it. Did you make an agreement? Did you have the meeting? If there is an agreement, how much money is it going to cost the taxpayers? How much taxpayers' money did you commit to the project of a jetfoil service between Victoria and Seattle? There was an interjection from the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith), who said, and I quote: "They don't like the jetfoil." Is there a deal for the jetfoil?

How do I know whether I like it or not unless I know how much money it's going to cost?

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the camaraderie of the colleagues around the Premier in trying to help him out, but the Minister of Education only makes it worse. Is there a deal for a jetfoil service between Victoria and Seattle? Is there? How do I know whether I like the deal or not unless I know there is a deal? Is there a deal? If there is, how much money is it going to cost?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I must point out to the hon. member that if that does exist, then it can be covered under another estimate directly responsible for that type of transportation

[ Page 1914 ]

facility, but not within the confines of vote 9. I think the hon. member will agree that great latitude has been allowed. I would now ask that we tighten up our debate, to a degree, on vote 9 relative to the administrative responsibilities of the Premier.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your advice, and I will tighten up the question. Did the Premier meet with a group of Victoria businessmen to discuss a jetfoil service between Victoria and Seattle? Yes or no. I can't get any tighter than that.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: I have no acquaintance with any other approach, which my good friend the member for Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Mair) is perhaps alluding to. I don't have the responsibility of the Alcohol and Drug Commission.

Did the Premier meet with a group of Victoria business persons to discuss the establishment of a jetfoil service between Victoria and Seattle? The question is strictly within the confines of the Premier's estimates.

My next question is strictly within the confines of the Premier's estimates. Did the Premier make a deal with a group of Victoria business persons to finance a jetfoil service between Seattle and Victoria with public funds from BCDC or any other government source?

The Premier said: "There is accountability at the proper time." Would the Chair advise me if this is the proper time for the accountability of the Premier's office?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If it weren't, then I would be out of order. Just a few moments ago the Premier said: "There is accountability at the proper time." We are now dealing with a once-a-year event: accountability of the Premier's office. Under the rules of this House, this is the proper time to ask the Premier to be accountable for decisions he has made or participated in. Am I incorrect, Mr. Chairman?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask the Premier these questions. If he wishes to give any other answer, I will sit through it and listen again, but I will come back to the same question: did you meet with a group of business persons in your office to discuss a Victoria-Vancouver jetfoil service? Did you make a deal in your office with those Victoria business persons to establish a Victoria-Seattle jetfoil service? Did you commit public funds for such a service? If you did....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, order, please. Again I must advise the hon. member that in regard to the funding he is now referring to, it must be covered under a subsequent vote dealing with the ministry.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I didn't ask the Premier if he's personally funding it. At that meeting did he commit public funds to the project? Did he himself commit public funds? He's anxious too answer. I gladly relinquish the floor.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Just to straighten out part of the argument from the Leader of the Opposition, who suggests that in the Premier's estimates we should deal with every decision the Premier participated in during the year....

MR. BARRETT: Just one.

HON. MR. BENNETT: He wants to set a precedent; he yells "one." But his statement was: "every decision the Premier participates in." That means any item which is finally decided on by the cabinet, and covering every ministry. It may have been the style of the Leader of the Opposition when he was Premier — and he would like to be again — to make deals in his office and not deal through his cabinet. But I have to say that this government works as a team. These are the decisions of government, and the appropriate place to question these decisions is in the estimates of the minister responsible, either for the ministry or any agency if such an agency is responsible.

I personally would like to take credit for the great planning and for the things done by this government. The Leader of the Opposition seems to suggest that I could take the credit for a jetfoil service between Victoria and Seattle. I wish I could. I think it's an excellent suggestion, and I think it would be an excellent thing for government to respond to. I wish I could take the credit. Fortunately only some people I know want to take credit for everything. But, Mr. Chairman, I can't take the credit for all the great things that happen out there that government gets involved with...or may get involved with, or when people come to government.

Quite often people come to government, as the IWA did. They stated publicly why they were coming. They were concerned about shutdowns in the forest industry. They had a confidential meeting in my office. I said nothing about it until after they had decided to make it public and after the government had come up with a program. But I also say that that meeting involved a number of ministers and other people. It takes a long time for decisions to be made, and many such meetings are requested. Many meetings are held and we have many appointments. Many people can resolve their own problems. Many times it's just directing people to which ministry or agencies to go to...how the government can deal as a government.

I wish I could take the credit for all the great things that are happening. I wish I could take the credit for what may be a great service, should it develop. I wish the government could take some credit, if there is involvement by government. If government makes an agreement to help, or if any of the agencies of government make an agreement to help, I wish.... I'd stand up and take part of the credit, sure, Mr. Speaker, but I don't have any agency under my ministry. We do have a government in which I have very capable ministers, and I'm sure they will stand up and, if they've got something to take credit for, will take it. There are a lot of things happening right now in British Columbia. There is a lot of vision being shown. There are a lot of great programs and projects of government taking place. B.C. is a bright spot. If they want the government to take some credit, we'll take some credit for what's happening in B.C. in the private sector as well as the public sector. I think government can either stifle the private sector or it can allow it to grow and expand.

Mr. Chairman, in that way we take great credit for what's been happening in British Columbia. And it comes as satisfaction, because I think the general policy goals of this government need to be reiterated to show why British Columbia is now considered a bright spot in this country. These are the decisions that government makes as a government and that various ministries get involved in.

Just yesterday there was great publicity over major gas finds in northeastern British Columbia. The member for

[ Page 1915 ]

North Peace River (Mr. Brummet) pounds his desk, as well he should, because as a resident he lived through the quiet period. There was a drought of gas exploration in the great northeastern part of British Columbia because of the policies of the then Premier, now Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) and his sidekick on energy at that time, the then Attorney-General, now second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald). Of course, we didn't see the growth, not only in exploration but in natural gas reserves and energy reserves, that should have been taking place, because we had been put on notice as a province and a country by the OPEC nations of the world. That energy price and security of supply was no longer to be taken for granted. It was incumbent on governments — provincial governments and Canadian governments and other governments — then to try and ensure that they had their own secure supply of energy. But instead of doing that, we had an almost non-existent drilling program during that period.

HON. MR. CURTIS: A sense of hopelessness.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, a sense of hopelessness, and I guess it doesn't hurt to look back and reflect and think where we might be today if that government and those policies had continued. The extension of the Elmworth basin and the indications of great gas wouldn't be here. The opening up of new areas wouldn't have happened. The tremendous increase in our proven and indicated gas reserves would not be there. The industrial and energy decisions we can now make today for our people could not be taken.

Mr. Chairman, in those areas the decisions and the opportunities that provided for the private sector were taken by the government. I'm pleased to be the Premier, but the action was taken by a number of ministers who knew the problem and understood it. They didn't just deal with rhetoric about rip-offs and big companies, but got down to learn what energy development was all about. They didn't get caught up in living with their own rhetoric. They got down, Mr. Chairman, and they made the type of decisions that were fair to the people of British Columbia, fair to those who wanted to participate in the search. And they created great reserves, not by government getting out and doing it, but by having understandable, fair and encouraging legislation and a government that people could have confidence in, so that if they did undertake that development they would continue to be dealt with fairly. It has paid great dividends to this province, in giving us tremendous increases in our gas reserves.

Today with fast-changing technology, fast-changing need, with an urgency about lessening and ending dependency on imported oil, we now do more than burn natural gas. It can now be useful in transportation. Heretofore we felt trapped with gasoline from oil as the only answer for transportation. Of course, everyone in this assembly would know, I hope, that the bulk of our oil consumption, causing the tremendous need for imports, is created by the transportation industry. We can convert industry and homes to gas and other forms, but it is transportation where we must have the opportunity to make the biggest inroad. I'm pleased to see that this government is.... The Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer), in his estimates, I'm sure, will want to talk positively about taking the initiative and finding out what other areas are doing, about getting demonstration vehicles operating on liquefied natural gas, charging the Research Council with some responsibility, showing some leadership, challenging those that distribute fuel to transportation vehicles — trucks and cars — in this province to see if they can respond by making available the fuel at convenient spots for the motoring public. Thinking ahead — that's what this government is doing.

Mr. Chairman, we've done a lot and we've provided a lot of opportunity for the private sector to respond to government. I know it's been said that there were great philosophical debates in the past. I happen to know that they were not as great from that side as some of those members like to remember. I can remember the shambles of some of the debates. People are concerned about the conduct and negativism of the opposition today, and I want to assure them that it's not a new thing; it was prevalent in the sixties, and their accomplishment at it comes from a lot of practice, but we tend to forget that.

I want to say that these things augur well for British Columbia — the general policies of government that I'm prepared to deal with in my estimates. The specifics of administration, I'm sure, can be dealt with in their areas of responsibility. I would like during my estimates to be able to stand up day after day and take credit for the great accomplishments that have been done, but it's the team effort of a very, very dedicated and hard-working team.

It was laughable the other day when we had the charade put on by the Leader of the Opposition, who made the charge that the government only worked four hours a day, the length of the debate. They were running out and saying, "See, I worked forty minutes later in the Legislature tonight holding up the government," when they knew they were holding up the cabinet meeting that had been scheduled for 6 o'clock, immediately upon the rising of the House, and trying to create the impression that the government doesn't work. Mr. Chairman, we work hard in many ways and we're willing to listen to constructive criticism. If there's a transportation service, and if agreements are made with the government, and they have positive suggestions.... I know the member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) quite often — not when he's bringing in figures which the Minister of Transportation and Highways finds to be incorrect — on those days when he does make a constructive suggestion, certainly it's of great assistance to the government.

I think that's what the people would like to see. They'd like to see the type of results in every area that we are achieving in energy, because natural gas, of course, is a single area. There are other areas in which we're forging ahead, as a part of government policy, which I'm sure the Minister of Energy (Hon. Mr. McClelland) will be dealing with fully when we get to his estimates. You know, Mr. Chairman, that the Minister of Energy is going to have a lot to talk about. And far be it from me to break the rules that you so well and so generously administer in this House and broaden my discussion into some other minister's area, because they've got good things to talk about. I'm just bursting to talk about them, because they're positive. So obviously we'll leave that for them, because there is a lot of time left in this sitting to enable members to deal with those subjects.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Minister of Health.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman....

MR. CHAIRMAN: I'm sorry; I apologize. I thought the Premier had sat down. The Leader of the Opposition rises on a point of order?

[ Page 1916 ]

MR. BARRETT: No, I didn't say it was a point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You thought the Premier had taken his seat as well?

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I'd like to continue as continuity obtains under the rules.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Would all members take their seats at this time. Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition occupied a great deal of time in debate. Today I recognized the Leader of the Opposition four times, I believe. The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) had been trying to gain the floor yesterday, as well as today. There are 57 members in this Legislature, hon. member, and while I can appreciate the member's view regarding the continuity aspect, nevertheless it is the Chair's responsibility — and a very heavy responsibility — to share the debate of the House with other members as well as just with one.

The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.

MR. BARRETT: On the point of order. I don't know of any rule that you are referring to in terms of yesterday's debate. I don't think that is an appropriate rule or mention of a rule. As I understand, under estimates the House is in committee. Under the House rules any member may rise and the Chair, of course, recognizes various members. The Chair recognizes members not on the basis of how many times, it is my understanding, but the first one to catch the Chair's eye. There has been difficulty in the House of Commons and in every legislature in the Commonwealth to catch the Chair's eye. If I miss the Chair's eye, then I appreciate that the Chair wasn't aware that I wished to speak. If indeed I didn't catch the Chair's eye and someone else did, I accept your ruling. However, I would want it perfectly clear, Mr. Chairman, when the House meets in committee....

AN HON. MEMBER: Don't lecture the Chair.

MR. BARRETT: No, we're talking about rules.

When the House meets in committee, all members may seek the eye of the Chair, as I have done. Thank you for noticing me for the point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, if I could have your attention for just one moment, I would....

HON. MR. BENNETT: I have a point of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Premier on a point of order.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I must say, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the clarification that you would recognize the first member you see standing. I wanted to say that I have it clear because that is why I sat down when I heard you, as we all did, recognize the Minister of Health.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) on a point of order.

MR. BARRETT: Point of order, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: We have a point of order before us, hon. member....

MR. BARRETT: I just want to refer to the Premier's statement. Is the Premier saying that the minister was recognized before he sat down?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BARRETT: That's what he said.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. The first member for Vancouver Centre on a point of order.

MR. LAUK: Under standing orders, I move that the hon. second member for Vancouver East be now heard.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The question must be put without debate or amendment.

MR. LAUK: The hon. first member for Vancouver East, I'm sorry.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The correction of the motion is that the first member be now heard.

HON. MR. MAIR: On a point of order, I thought that I had already been recognized.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) was not on a point of order that can be accepted because the Chair had already recognized a member and it would be improper, hon. member, to gain the floor on a point of order for the purpose of making the motion that you in fact did move, having already recognized the Minister of Health, and then recognize your point of order. Your point of order would very well be taken had I not recognized the Minister of Health.

Hon. members, again, the Chair is always at the will of the House, and I would ask members to try and understand that it is very difficult to recognize all members at all times, but to share the available time that we do have with members from both sides of the House. The Minister of Health....

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I just want to remind you that traditionally in parliament, the Chair recognizes first a member of the government and then a member of the opposition alternately, and it goes back and forth. That is a time-honoured tradition; breach of that tradition is a very dangerous parliamentary departure, with due respect, because it would inhibit the right of the opposition to ask legitimate questions about public business.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. However, if that argument were extended to the fact that each time a question would be asked to the minister, then no other member on the government side would in fact have an opportunity to ask a question, and I think in that case the point of order fails drastically.

MR. LAUK: Just so that the opposition's position is clear, Mr. Chairman, on procedure in supply and estimates, in Sir Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, eighteenth edition, page 700 et seq. it is clear that the purpose of Committee

[ Page 1917 ]

of Supply is that the treasury benches answer the questions of ordinary members, be they government or opposition. The purposes of Committee of Supply are precisely for ordinary members, that is to say non-Treasury Board members.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: I'll wait until you've received advice.

It is not in order, I would submit to the Chair, for a member of the cabinet to rise in his place and take up the time of the Committee of Supply. There are distinctions raised in Sir Erskine May which I suggest the Chair should take under advisement.

Mr. Chairman, trying to determine order in supply while that jabberwocky over there continues to natter is very difficult. The point is in Committee of....

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Oh, for heaven's sake! If he talked half as much on his feet as he does on his seat, we wouldn't be taking so much time.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point of order, please, hon. member.

MR. LAUK: The point of order, Mr. Chairman, is simply this: the budget is introduced to the House in the way of estimates and votes. Those votes in Committee of Supply are examinable by ordinary members asking questions of the minister in charge of the vote. It is totally not the practice for cabinet members and treasury bench members to rise in their place in Committee of Supply and ask questions of a minister, because it is a long-standing practice that there are cabinet meetings; the cabinet ministers have access to the Treasury Board, and they have other opportunities to make statements to the committee or to the House. It is most inappropriate for cabinet ministers to stand in their place, unless by leave or practice of the committee to allow a clarification of a point under the vote. The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) seeks to gain the floor in the Committee of Supply simply as a delaying, distracting and diversionary tactic from the purpose of the business of the Committee of Supply.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre to withdraw any improper imputation on the motive of the Minister of Health for seeking the floor.

MR. LAUK: I don't make any personal imputation. What I'm saying, Mr. Chairman, is that if....

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, let us try to have some order in the House while we're discussing a very long and varied series of points of order, many of which are somewhat questionable.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, the member opposite clearly imputed an improper motive to me in seeking the floor. I wish to seek the floor to ask the Premier some questions. I insist that that is my right, and that is the only reason I seek the floor.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. Again, hon. first member for Vancouver Centre, if any improper imputation was made will the member withdraw?

MR. LAUK: Yes, I will withdraw it. But I must say, on the same point of order, Mr. Chairman, that the hon. Minister of Health has just admitted that he wants to ask the Premier questions on his estimates. He is not entitled to in Committee of Supply; he is a member of the cabinet.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, I'll just for a few moments read from Sir Erskine May's eighteenth edition of Parliamentary Practice, page 406:

"In the Commons not less than 40 members have often been known to rise at once, and order can only be maintained by acquiescence in the call of the Speaker" — or Chairman — "who, to elicit discussion in the most convenient form, calls, as a general rule, upon back-bench members on either side of the House — or of the question, as the case may be — alternately, who answer one another. Members of both front benches are normally given precedence over those on the back benches."

I will also quote from Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure and Practice, on precedents in debate, page 334:

"It is usual, however, to allow priority to members of the administration who wish to speak and to new members who have not before spoken. And in all important debates it is customary for the speaker to endeavour to give the preference alternately to the known supporters and opponents of a measure in question. It is irregular to interfere with the Speaker's call in favour of any other member."

The Leader of the Opposition on a point of order.

MR. BARRETT: I agree completely. As I said earlier, it is improper to question the Speaker's call. However, both references appear to strengthen the argument on the point of order raised by my colleague, the first member for Vancouver Centre. One, alternate recognition; government, then opposition. The government member whose estimates we're dealing with spoke; then, alternating, the opposition. Two, important debate is separate and distinct from committee debate. I just raise those two points on your references, and I respect your ruling.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, on the point of order raised by the Leader of the Opposition, I must again point out the tremendous difficulty that the House would be in if we were to consider the minister to whom questions are being addressed as being one of the speakers in debate. While the member may be asked questions, it can only be fair that he be asked questions on both sides of the House during debate, as members on both sides of the House often have questions of a minister that they feel are pertinent to their specific ridings. Again, I must ask....

[ Page 1918 ]

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I'm afraid I must at this point cut off further debate on this particular point of order, unless it is a new point of order that the member is rising on.

MR. LAUK: You're referring to an area of May which does not apply to this committee, and I wanted to point out that in our own standing orders it doesn't apply. Standing order 37 states clearly that in this House the practice is that "where two or more members rise to speak, Mr. Speaker calls upon the member who rose first in his place; but a motion may be made that any member who has risen 'be now heard' or 'do now speak,' which motion shall be forthwith put without debate."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, hon. member, and prior to that I had recognized the Minister of Health before recognizing your point of order.

MR. LAUK: That doesn't matter.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, could we leave this at this particular point, possibly to review the matter, and at this time carry on with the Minister of Health?

HON. MR. MAIR: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I knew that my old chum, my pal from Vancouver East, would yield the floor graciously to me and let me ask a few questions.

MR. BARRETT: After all this, he's leaving.

HON. MR. MAIR: I'm sure that if the Premier doesn't hear all the questions, Mr. Chairman, he will read the Blues, and I'm sure that he will answer the questions that I have to ask.

I must say that I'm flattered to think that the opposition would do so much to prevent me from speaking. I hadn't realized that either my delivery, my oratory, or the content of my speeches so frightened the members opposite, but evidently I do frighten them for that reason and I'm delighted and I'm very flattered indeed. I couldn't help but think, when the first member for Vancouver East, the Leader of the Opposition, was trying to stop me from speaking, that not only does he come from the most expensive seat in this House — it cost him $80,000 to buy his way in; that's nearly seven times as much as I spent on my whole campaign last time, and he had to spend that just to buy the seat....

Interjections.

MR. HANSON: On a point of order, I found the remarks of the Minister of Health regarding the leader of our party offensive, and I ask the minister to withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the member to whom the remarks referred is in the House, and I believe that only he can make that request. Does he so do?

MR. BARRETT: I consider the source and pay no attention to the accusation.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. MAIR: It's good to have my old chum take such an attitude, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to talk on a couple of matters that have been raised in the Premier's estimates. I'd like to speak a little bit about his leadership and the work that the government does, because I think it's important that he have the full opportunity to consider this and answer some of the suggestions that have been made. I have listened with great care to many of the questions from the opposition, and a lot of them dealt with the matter of campaign funding. I'd like to deal a little bit with that and ask the Premier some questions on that, because I think that as the leader of the government he certainly should be called to account as to how he feels campaigns should be funded and what, if any, amendments to legislation or new legislation he thinks there should be in order to ensure that we have fair play in our elections in the years to come. So those, Mr. Chairman — just so that I can help guide you in following my argument — are the two main areas that I'd like to talk about.

I think that the opposition is quite correct to raise with the Premier the question of how hard the government works and what hours it's prepared to put in and when it's prepared to do its business and those sorts of things. I was very happy to hear those remarks raised, both in the Premier's estimates and in other arguments the other day. It brought to mind 1977, which was a particularly long session; I think most of us will remember it. Because of the enormous amount of work that this chamber was called upon to do and because of the searching questions being asked by the opposition — well within their rights, within estimates — the government decided to sit extra hours. We proposed, as members who were with me at that time will remember, to sit in the morning from 10 o'clock to 1 o'clock, then sit the usual hours in the afternoon, and sit every evening. Well, a funny thing happened. First of all, the opposition didn't show up for the morning ones; they just wouldn't come to those at all. Then when we came to Monday and Wednesday evenings....

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, we are dealing with vote 9, not House business. I'd ask you to be as rigid in applying the rules as the previous Chairman.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, in response to the point of order, I am trying to deal with the duties of the Premier of the province of British Columbia, which have been dealt with extensively throughout this debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: All members will be reminded that we are dealing with vote 9.

HON. MR. MAIR: It may very well be that the Leader of the Opposition is uncomfortable to be reminded of these things; I'm sure he is. As I was about to say, when it came to the evening sessions that we had planned for Monday and Wednesday, they did show up and they spun their wheels on points of order.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, House business is not dealt with under vote 9. I'd love to discuss House business, and if you wish to set aside a time for such a debate, I'd be glad to participate if I could gain the floor. I would ask that the minister stick to vote 9, please.

[ Page 1919 ]

HON. MR. MAIR: May I speak to the point of order, Mr. Chairman? I am not dealing with House business at all. I can't help but allude to it. What I am dealing with is the discipline of the government under the leadership of this Premier. It has to impact upon hours of work, but I'm talking about leadership and I'm talking about discipline. That is all. If it happens to also allude to the hours that we work and when we work, that is only a logical extension, with the greatest respect, Mr. Chairman, of my argument. I recognize that the Leader of the Opposition is going to get more and more uncomfortable as I talk about these things, because I am not going to be particularly flattering of his leadership — either as Leader of the Opposition or as Premier, when he was Premier — but that's not because I'm here to criticize him; I'm here to compare him to the Premier that we have and the discipline the Premier brings to this House.

As I said, when it came to the evening sessions of Monday and Wednesday, the opposition, while showing up, would not do any business. They simply rose, as the Leader of the Opposition has today, on point of order after point of order, until we exhausted the hours available. So the net effect of trying to do more work, trying to show the leadership of bringing more hours to our business day, was zero. We wound up getting no more done because they would not do any more work. I make that observation to contrast the attitude of those who would criticize the Premier of this province, and the Premier himself and the leadership he gives.

Having dealt with that, I'd like to speak a little bit about campaign funding. I presume that because the Premier is the leader of the government and is the person who leads us in the making of policy, and because it has been examined extensively in this chamber for the last three or four sittings, I'm certain it must be in order as well. I know, Mr. Chairman, that you would certainly agree with me that the members of the opposition wouldn't knowingly carry on any debate in this House that was out of order, and since they spend hour after hour dealing with such matters as William F. Buckley and Austin Taylor Jr. and American citizens and that sort of thing in connection with campaign funds, it must have been in order, or otherwise, of course, you or the other Chairman would have ruled it out of order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair will have to advise the Minister of Health that we are discussing the administrative actions of the office of the Premier, and the Minister of Health must be reminded of that. Perhaps the debate could be contained to the administrative actions of the Premier and specifically vote 9.

HON. MR. MAIR: Yes, I certainly intend to, Mr. Chairman. I intend to adhere very closely to the argument that I made standing in this very debate about a week or so ago on this very subject, because it was raised by the opposition, dealt with at great length, and I felt at that time that it was my duty to participate in that debate and assist the Premier in coming to some conclusions about the questions of election expenses and how funds are raised for all political parties, because that is surely within his administrative duties.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the question raised by my colleague was campaign funds out of the Premier's office, as acknowledged by the Premier's staff. If they wish the debate to go into campaign funds in general, we are establishing a precedent. I only ask your ruling. Certainly any campaign funds regarding secret funds of the Premier's office are definitely in order; I don't think other campaign funds are in order. However, I abide by your ruling.

HON. MR. MAIR: May I speak to that point of order, Mr. Chairman? What I would like to do, so I can assist you in making your ruling, is tell you the argument that I propose to develop.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I will remind all hon. members of our standing orders, and I will cite at this point the standing order found on page 23, standing order 61(2), which says that "speeches in Committee of the Whole House must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration."

HON. MR. MAIR: Just so you recognize that I am trying to do just that, I'd like to tell you that the argument I am now developing is one that was started by the Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues, and I think it was a fair one. It was the question of campaign funds, whether in the Premier's office or outside it; it was a question of his leadership and how campaign funds ought to be obtained and how they ought to be spent. I think, in order to assist the Premier in answering those questions, as I am sure he is going to want to do in due course, I should offer to the Premier and to the House some examples of things that I think the Premier, when he's making decisions about his administrative duties, ought to consider.

I hope that the Leader of the Opposition is not so nervous about what I'm going to say that he is going to interrupt me constantly with points of order, because I'm not going to talk about secret meetings and things like that which he's been belabouring for the last four or five days. I'm going to talk about the thing that I think is important to all of us here: how do we, as parties, raise funds for elections and how do we spend them? What leadership should the Premier show us? What administrative duties should he perform to ensure that all of us do these things well? So, Mr. Chairman, if the Leader of the Opposition will bear with me, I'd like to carry on in that vein, and I have a number of questions that I'd like to ask the Premier.

First of all, Mr. Chairman, if I may be permitted, in leading up to the questions I'm going to ask — and they are about six or seven in number — I should perhaps give a little of the information that leads me to these questions. The first bit of background, of course, is the suggestions and allegations made by the members opposite, both by allegations of fact and through suggestions in their questions. The second is some information which has come to my attention over the last few weeks which has shocked me, and I think that the Premier ought to have notice of this and ought to pay heed to it and give me some answers as to what he intends to do about it. I hope, Mr. Chairman, that that clearly falls within his administrative duties, because I think that if what I have been told is the case, the Premier as the chief administrative officer of this province has got to be called to account for it.

I'm sorry, I sensed that you wanted to interrupt me, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair would like to hear what you're getting at.

[ Page 1920 ]

HON. MR. MAIR: Well, as I say, I have listed approximately seven questions which I will put to the Premier. But before doing so, I think it is only fair — and I'm sure the Leader of the Opposition wishes to be fair with me — that I have an opportunity to give some background as to what leads me to these particular questions.

I have to go back to a character I mentioned in this chamber a couple of weeks ago. Mr. X, you may remember, was the lawyer in Kamloops who gave $400 to a political party and had half of it go to the federal candidate. At that time, Mr. Chairman, I raised it in committee under these estimates. It was very much in order at that time, so it surely could be no less in order now. I'm not sure whether you were the Chairman at the time or whether one of your colleagues was, but in any event he listened to it with great interest, and I think the members opposite listened with rapt attention. As a matter of fact, I recall an explanation for this rather interesting situation being offered at the time by the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke), who is not in his seat today. Because of that, because I raised it in committee on these estimates, because I did get that answer from the member for New Westminster, and in order to keep the record straight, I felt that I should continue the saga today. That will lead me neatly into the seven questions I wish to pose to the Premier.

Now, Mr. Chairman, the problem, as you may recall, came when Mr. X made his donation of $400 and found out, much to his dismay, that at least half of that money went to a federal campaign to help the NDP candidate against his chosen Liberal candidate. He was very, very upset. There was an explanation, of course, from the member for New Westminster. He said: "Look, it's only a matter of income tax deduction. It's just a matter of a receipt. All he has to do is bring the receipt in, and we'll sort it all out." Since that time a Mr. David Wright, a reporter for one of the Kamloops newspapers, looked into the matter a little further, and he reported as follows. I won't read it all, but I'll be delighted to table it in case anybody thinks I'm quoting it out of context — even with my underlinings. This is with reference to Mr. Lapa, who ran against me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Minister, the Chair has great difficulty fathoming the relevance of your speech to the administrative actions of the Premier's office, when discussing items that would have been carried on outside the office of the minister. In Committee of Supply, we have to stick to items that are strictly relevant, that pertain to the estimates of the minister or the portfolio and the administrative actions of that office.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Chairman, I intend to adhere every bit as strictly to your ruling as I did when I last spoke on this subject. I hope you will accept the assurance that the background I'm giving you now will lead very carefully into the seven prepared questions I have, which all deal with what I as an honourable member of this House consider to be well within the administrative duties of the Premier; certainly well within his responsibility as Leader of this province, and that's what we've been talking about. The Leader of the Opposition has been saying we've been talking about leadership for the last ten days, and that's precisely what I intend to develop, if you'll bear with me, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Wright, the newspaper writer, says the following: "The provincial wing of the party" — that is the NDP — "was fighting the May 10 B.C. election. Then NDP provincial candidate Andy Lapa said recently: 'I don't know what happened' " — he's referring to the $400 — "adding that 'The situation is an embarrassment to me.' Lapa suggested that what happened was that the cheque went to the federal rather than the provincial contribution desk at the NDP constituency headquarters." Now that's what Mr. Lapa had to say about it.

However, the report goes on: "An official with the chief electoral office at Ottawa said: 'I don't know how this could happen.' " So the electoral officer says he doesn't know how that can happen. But what did the official agent of the NDP at the time say? He said as follows: "If a contribution to the provincial party was to go to the federal wing, the name would be listed with the provincial organization. The provincial association would then donate it to the federal wing. There's nothing wrong with that. It's up to the political party." So now the agent says: "We can do whatever we damn well please with your money. We can use it against your own chosen candidate, if we wish."

"The organization has to make sure that the money goes to the bank," the electoral officer said. Well, that's very good. "All election contributions are audited by an accountant. That is a law," he said, adding: "The auditing is usually accurate because the accountant's reputation is at stake if it is not." Very good.

"The official also said the NDP 'run their business both federally and provincially as one.' This statement was confrmed by the provincial opposition leader, Dave Barrett, when in Kamloops recently to assist the NDP campaign during the February 18 federal election. He said: " 'We are one party, federally and provincially.' "

AN HON. MEMBER: Whose time was he working on when he was there?

HON. MR. MAIR: That's a very, very good question.

Now, Mr. Chairman — and I know that I have your undivided attention — I perhaps could have overlooked that and thought, well, perhaps there's just some mass confusion, but, lo and behold, in a Kamloops newspaper just a day or two ago, a former campaign manager for one of my opponents in a recent provincial election, Mr. Chris Johnston, wrote a letter to one of the Kamloops newspapers. He had a further observation to make, and he particularly wrote this in criticism of what I had been saying about this $400. Mr. Johnston said he "found it something terrible when an NDP donation" — referring to me — "supposedly went to the federal campaign fund, when both the federal and provincial elections were going on and the same campaign office was used for both campaigns." I will repeat that: "The same campaign office was used for both campaigns." I will let him in on a secret, since he is a member of what is only a provincial party: this provincial constituency of the NDP has been substantially financing the federal NDP constituency for as long as I can remember.

Well, that got me to thinking a little bit, and I thought I'd better ask the Premier a couple of questions. One of the questions I thought I'd better ask him.... Because I'm holding him to account as the leader of our government, and I think he should tell us what he intends to do as the Premier of this province about this situation. I think this is part — and probably the most important part — of his administrative duties because, after all, if we can't have fair and clean

[ Page 1921 ]

election campaigns in this province, where are the people at then? So let me ask the Premier these questions.

First of all, Mr. Premier, I'd like your views on this: should campaign funds donated for provincial campaigns be shanghaied into federal campaigns? That's a question I'd like to have you answer, because I think that if you, as leader of this government, are permitting that sort of shameful exercise to take place, you really must be held to account and we must do something about that.

Secondly, Mr. Premier.... These get more serious, and I hope that you are making notes, because I don't have a chance to give you any notes any more, you know. I've moved down to the other end of the table, down with the non-smokers, and I don't have any chance to talk with you very much anymore. My kids do, but I don't. The second question I must ask you, Mr. Premier, is this. Should a citizen of this province — and this comes within your administrative duties because, after all, you're responsible for section 92's administration under the BNA Act; property and civil rights are under there — be entitled as a right to support one party federally and another provincially? Should that be one of our God-given property and civil rights? I think that's pretty important.

Thirdly, should a citizen be entitled to join and fully participate in the affairs of more than one political party — let's say the Social Credit Party provincially, and perhaps the Liberal Party federally, or even the NDP federally? Now, if he can do that, surely you ought to come out and make that very clear, Mr. Premier, because there's obviously some doubt in people's minds. I want to observe that if he can vote any way he wants — and I'm going to assume that your answer to the previous question is yes, he can vote one way provincially and one way federally — surely to goodness he can support any party he chooses and surely he can belong to any party he chooses. I think, Mr. Premier, that you have an obligation to this House to make your views very clear on this, because evidently there are some people in this province who are very much in doubt about these rights.

Question number 4. It's getting a little heavier now, Mr. Premier, and I know you've had a long day. I was a little late for cabinet this morning, but I know you started at 8. I was there at 8:15 and missed my turn. I want you to make very careful notes now. Should funds from the provincial government for MLAs' constituency offices, secretaries or both be in any way diverted to federal campaigns? I'd like to know that. That's a pretty important one. Should I, for example, be allowed to turn over my constituency office, for which this government pays, turn over the services of my constituency secretary, for which this government pays, to, say, a Liberal candidate in a federal election? Or should I be able to do that for a Conservative candidate or an NDP candidate? If I can do that, then it's perfectly proper for, let's say, the Liberal Party to play both games. And it would certainly be proper for the NDP to use provincial funds to help their federal candidates. I would like to know, Mr. Premier, because there are some people who cast doubt on that. I certainly think that it's well within your administrative duties to let us know about that.

The next question, Mr. Premier.... I hesitate to go on with these because I know, that your load is very, very difficult indeed. I'd like to know something further about the use of provincial funds. I'm led to believe that you think it's okay if provincial funds are used for purposes for which they're not intended. I know that's a terrible thing for one of your colleagues to say; but surely, Mr. Premier, you must admit that if that practice has been permitted, you must say something about that and say something about it very clearly today.

Through you, Mr. Chairman, I have two more questions of the Premier, but as I look at them now, I realize I have given the Premier some pretty heavy ones in the first five. Rather than go into the last two questions at this stage of the game, and having captured the attention of everybody in the House, including the opposition and the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), who, I understand, is going to be thrown out a little later — I thought I would just let you know that, because the press gallery should have their cameras ready — I think at this point in time I will offer the floor to the Premier, so that he can tell us how he is going to apply his dynamic leadership to solving these difficulties which face the people of British Columbia.

HON. MR. BENNETT: By leave of the House, I would like to introduce city of Kelowna council members.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'd like to introduce to the House Mayor Dale Hammill, alderperson Elise Clark, and city officials accompanying them — the ones who really do all the work. I ask you to bid them welcome.

The Minister of Health has posed a number of questions, some of which, I guess, should be responded to with logic and what is inherently fair — that is, the right to support the political party of your choice. I'm sure it goes against the right of free choice if political parties try to bind people to support them federally when they belong to the provincial party, or try to bind people to support them provincially if they want to support the federal party. I'm sure that no political party which is committed to fair play, justice and the right of choice — which is afforded to individuals in this country — would put such restrictions in the bylaws which make up their constitution.

It follows, then, that you have the right to support one federal party and a different provincial party. In my case, provincially I belong to a party in which we do not have a federal associate. I would hate to be bound to a party in which I felt I was a junior partner — it sometimes happens. I would hate, by some agreement, to be forced to support some federal party — say, the New Democratic Party — but found I couldn't support it because the leader, Ed Broadbent, advocated uranium mining. No, I couldn't support it. I can remember Mr. Broadbent being here during the federal election, and I can remember statements which were attributed to him in the paper.

To come to a more serious area, one with which I'm not familiar, because we have no federal counterpart — that is, whether money paid to constituency offices could be diverted to federal election campaign expenses — I don't know how this could be done. To me, that suggestion is not one of philosophy.... I guess it's serious. It would be a misappropriation of public funds. I can tell you what my interpretation is of the funding and staffing of constituency offices. There's an allowance, and that allowance is for payment of the secretary, rental of offices and provision of services which that office needs, for which I sign a receipt

I submit telephone bills and sign the receipt.

Now that I rent — I used to get space free; obviously then the government wasn't charged — that rent is charged every

[ Page 1922 ]

month. The receipt is signed by me to show the expenditure has been made. The salary of my constituency secretary before was done when she was employed and provided as a service from another firm. Even then her salary, UIC and others had to be documented, and that's how the bill was made and how it was paid. Now that she's directly an employee it is the same practice. The salary hasn't changed, nor the benefits or method of payment, but all are signed by the office.

Her job is to work as constituency secretary, and that is a very major function. I don't know how funds could be allocated or how they could be misused. I would suppose if it has been done it's very serious. I have no knowledge of any such infraction. I would expect that no member of this Legislature would do such a thing, knowing the consequences. I would hope that your question is hypothetical, Mr. Member, because, quite frankly, taking any other course than that I have mentioned and utilizing it in a manner other than intended would be very serious indeed for the member involved. Let's hope that that provides a clarification to your questions.

I believe I answered all your questions, Mr. Minister of Health. Let me just respond a little further on some of the areas that have been brought up to do with the government, and that is in areas where there has been some misunderstanding. And while I know we have a bill before the House, there has been some question.... I understand we can talk about B.C. Place under Bill 7, so I will keep my comments for this bill.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I should give my questions to the Minister of Health to ask the Premier. Would the Minister of Health ask the Premier — with much more success than I have been able to.... I'll wait. I thank you for your assistance, Mr. Member.

I rose earlier today, Mr. Chairman.... I'm waiting for the attention of the Premier, because I'm definitely in order....

MR. CHAIRMAN: You have the attention of the Chair, Mr. Member.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't want to repeat the questions if the Premier doesn't hear them.

HON. MR. MAIR: Is it okay if I leave?

MR. BARRETT: I didn't know you were here.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Will all hon. members remember that all statements are addressed to the Chair.

MR. BARRETT: Now that I have the Premier's unglazed attention, I would like to know whether he as Premier convened a meeting of Victoria business persons to deal with a jetfoil service between Victoria and Seattle. Did he request such a meeting take place on March 13 at 4:30 p.m.? Did he, the Premier of this province, call a meeting of a group of business persons to discuss a jetfoil service between Victoria and Seattle? Is that question in order, Mr. Chairman? Let's establish that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, the question is in order.

I ask the Premier this simple question: did he, as Premier, convene a meeting on March 13 to deal with a jetfoil service between Victoria and Seattle? Did he meet with a group of Victoria business persons on behalf of his office, as Premier? Did he discuss a jetfoil service proposal between Victoria and Seattle? Did he have the government make commitments of taxpayers' money to finance such a service? If so, how much money has been committed? How long will the service run? Would the Premier give us the names of the people in government who will be responsible for administering his decisions at that meeting?

Mr. Chairman, I think we've had an out-of-order discussion of campaign funds. I think we've had wandering, and I'd like the House to get on with business under vote 9, the Premier's office. I'd like the Premier to say whether or not he wishes to answer these questions. Are you bothered by these questions? Do you feel uncomfortable about these questions? Would you prefer to write out a list of questions that we could ask you?

There are hard-working people out there who pay taxes to a government. The system of government we have demands accountability. As a matter of fact, I quote the Premier's own words today: "accountability at the proper time." This is vote 9, the Premier's estimates, in which he intends to double the number of staff that he has in his office — a huge increase in the expenditures in his office. This is the proper time to ask what he does from his office. Vote 9 is that, as I understand it, and I am asking him, according to his own definition today, to be accountable for his actions.

These are simple questions, all in order, all proper, all correct. Did the Premier convene a meeting on March 14, calling together Victoria business persons to discuss a proposal of a jetfoil service between Victoria and Seattle?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Were you there? Oh, well, I see — the 13th. Was it the 13th, Mr. Premier? My information was that it was the 13th. Would the Premier tell us how he decided that the British Columbia Development Corporation would be the financing agency for this project? Is it the Premier's policy now to directly involve himself in the role of Crown corporations such as the BCDC? If it is, would the Premier tell us if other business persons can meet with him and have their application or request for funds forwarded to the BCDC with his support or his nod or tacit approval? Will there be fair access for all business persons in the province of British Columbia, on an equal basis, to meet with the Premier to discuss proposals put forward to BCDC? Will that be a new method of BCDC decision-making? Did the meeting take place?

Mr. Chairman, do you hear me? Am I in order? I receive an acknowledgement of both. I am heard. I am in order. Is this not an accountability session with the Premier of the province of British Columbia? Is that not the Premier himself sitting there? Is it none other than the Premier of British Columbia, the man who sought election, who had the power delegated to him by the voters of this province to make administrative decisions and between elections to be accountable to this Legislature for his expenditures?

This is vote 9. This is the legal, proper and appropriate time in committee to ask the Premier questions, and I have been constantly assured and supported by the Chair that my questions are in order. I am not sure whether or not the Premier has heard my questions. Perhaps they are too complex to understand, so I have to deal with them seriatim.

[ Page 1923 ]

Perhaps the Premier would nod or give a nudge and let us know that he has heard the question and understands it.

Through you, Mr. Chairman: did you meet on March 13 with a group of business persons from Victoria to discuss with them the establishment of a jetfoil service between Victoria and Seattle? That's question number one. Perhaps the Premier could say yes or no and then we could go on with the other questions.

In the absence of a denial, Mr. Chairman, I have to assume that a meeting did take place. If I am incorrect, I am sure the Premier will correct me. The meeting that I state unequivocally took place was on March 13. The Premier was present and, as I understand it, there were a group of Victoria businessmen and others present as well. May I ask the Premier whether it was in this meeting that a commitment was made to finance the jetfoil service through taxpayers' money? Perhaps the Premier would like to think about the complex question that I am asking.

Will the Premier tell us whether or not BCDC was advised that they were to finance a jetfoil project between Seattle and Victoria? If they were so advised, would the Premier tell us how much money, collected from the taxpayers of British Columbia, has been committed to this project? Would the Premier tell us how long this proposal is to run and how long it is to be financed by the taxpayers? Would the Premier tell us how he instructed BCDC to implement the decision that was taken at that meeting? Was it a verbal request or order from the Premier? Were all BCDC board members there and did they participate in the decision, or were they told of the decision after the meeting's conclusion, either by telephone or by letter? If there is an agreement, would the Premier be prepared to table the agreements in written form with this House?

Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your patience. I appreciate the silence from the Chair, which is obviously an ongoing acknowledgement that my questions are in order, that I am not abusing the committee and that I am using in proper role and function the time-honoured committee role of accountability questions to the minister concerned. We are indeed on vote 9; we are indeed on the Premier's estimates; and we are indeed acting as we are responsible to do as Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition — to ask questions as we are privileged to do under this particular part of any normal session. Everything is in order; everything is proper; I have the floor on the basis of time-honoured hard-won rights. Now I am asking questions of the Premier on behalf of those people who fought for those rights, some of whom even took the trouble to vote to preserve these rights, some of whom actually went out and voted in election campaigns, both provincial and federal, because they understand maturely the obligation they have to ultimately have these rights exercised in the proper parliamentary form.

Mr. Chairman, because we are both here and because we are both in order I will repeat the questions. I do not believe that the Premier, in his very busy manner, has really heard what I have to say. I don't want anyone to misjudge his silence as arrogance or indifference; that would be unfair. Lord knows, no one should be unfair with the Premier of our province, especially at this time. So I ask him again, in his responsibility as Premier, whether he had a meeting with a group of Victoria business persons on March 13.... I'll wait because he may be interrupted and not grasp the whole meaning of this very complex question that I am asking.

MR. CHAIRMAN: You have the Chair's attention, Mr. Member. Please carry on.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, I certainly have the Chair's attention. I have my own attention. But neither is the attention I seek to maintain. I'd like to broaden it and include the person who is responsible for the estimates we are dealing with, vote 9 — the Premier of the province of British Columbia, his salary, his office staff, and the money that we pay him to perform his duties. We have a responsibility to ask the Premier how he performed those duties, and what duties he was involved in. Was there a meeting on March 13 between the Premier of the province of British Columbia and a group of Victoria business persons to discuss a jetfoil proposal between Seattle and Victoria? Through you, Mr. Chairman, does the Premier wish to answer?

Number two: on the assumption that such a meeting took place.... We'll just wait a moment until this conversation is over. Now that I have the undivided attention of the person whose vote we're dealing with, through you, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask again a series of questions.

We will dispense with the question of whether or not there was a meeting. I think that there was a meeting. As a matter of fact, I make that statement: a meeting did take place on March 13 between the Premier and a group of Victoria business persons. Let's get over that hurdle. I'll accept the fact, without you acknowledging it, that a meeting did take place. If I'm wrong, then say no.

Okay, a meeting took place on March 13 between the Premier of this province and a group of Victoria business persons. We've got that established. I don't hear any denial of that. At that meeting, was a commitment made by the Premier of British Columbia to assure financing for a proposal of jetfoil service between Victoria and Seattle?

Mr. Chairman, perhaps I spoke too quickly and the Premier didn't grasp the full meaning of the question. Was a commitment made at that meeting to finance, out of BCDC, a Jetfoil service between Victoria and Seattle? If so, could the Premier tell his humble taxpaying citizens of British Columbia how much of their money he committed to this service? Could the Premier tell us how long the agreement is to last? And could the Premier tell us the total amount of the money committed and whether or not the total amount of the money committed will come from the British Columbia Development Corporation?

Mr. Chairman, under the rules, perhaps you could inform me as to how much time I have left at this particular juncture in my having the floor. I wouldn't want any of my time lost in the complexity of what appear to be very difficult questions. If you could inform me how much of my time is left, then I could certainly cram in as many questions as I can during this very brief period.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Under standing orders, the hon. member has ten minutes left.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman; I'll be brief. We are on vote 9. We are dealing with the accountability of the Premier of the province of British Columbia. This is the one vote and the one time of any specific legislative session for members of the Legislature to ask questions of the Premier of the province of British Columbia. At no other time would the questions that I am asking be in order in committee other than this. Because there is no other time to

[ Page 1924 ]

ask these questions, and since these sessions only happen, in current practice, once a year, I ask the Premier of this province at this time.... Since it is the proper accountability time under the time-honoured rules in a free democratic society, establishing parliaments, when accountability must be given for taxpayers' dollars, I ask these questions of the person who is responsible at this moment for answering these questions related to tax moneys collected from the hard-working men and women, the people of the province of British Columbia. I ask again: was there a meeting at which the Premier was present on March 13, 1980, to deal with the jetfoil service between Victoria and Seattle? I assume there was and I've agreed with myself that such a meeting took place.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: I'm sorry, Mr. Chairman, I heard some kind of interruption. I'm sure it was comprehensible but it escaped me.

Assuming that the meeting took place, I would like to know if a deal was made at that time by the Premier of the whole province of British Columbia, using taxpayers' dollars to finance a jetfoil service between Victoria and Seattle. Is that so? At the same meeting, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to know, if an agreement was made, whether or not it was put in writing or if it was verbal. I think it's important for the people of British Columbia to know how business is conducted in British Columbia. Are there minutes of the meeting and is there a written agreement between the government of British Columbia and this group of persons which wishes to implement a jetfoil service as a consequence of the agreement reached at that meeting?

I'd like to know from the Premier how much taxpayers' money — ours and his — he committed to this project from British Columbia Development Corporation. How much money did he commit us to in this project? Then I'd like to know how the British Columbia Development Corporation was informed of the decision. Was it by phone call or mail? To further satisfy my curiosity I would like the Premier to tell us whether or not this was an unusual or particularly unique meeting or whether or not further applications for the use of British Columbia Development Corporation funds can be made directly through the Premier's office. I'd like to know whether or not other business persons in the province of British Columbia will have a method where they too can be afforded the opportunity of coming to the Premier's office or to a committee room where the Premier will attend a meeting, to make a deal, to establish a project with funds out of the British Columbia Development Corporation with the Premier's blessing.

Mr. Chairman, all my questions are in order. Mr. Chairman, you agree that there is no other time when I could ask these questions and be in order in Committee of Supply. There is no other time when it is proper to ask the Premier such questions. His accountability is now and the proper time to ask the questions is now. I'm asking the Premier these questions; he's not chosen to answer them. I have been charitable in interpreting that. Perhaps he hasn't heard all of them, but I think he has. I think he's heard all the questions; now I'd like some answers. I'll sit through another speech on the window on the Pacific and how wonderful you are if you tell us, and I'll humbly listen to and accept your interpretation of your own leadership. I'll try to limit my comments about what kind of masochism I'm willing to submit myself to in soliciting these answers. Or if you want to get a backbencher up to take a little more time so that you won't be confronted with these questions, I understand that too. If you have a device or a tactic to get a backbencher up to ask a few questions, please be my guest. And if you want to use another device — perhaps you have to answer a phone call — go right ahead. These are your estimates. These are legitimate questions. They are all in order. They all deal with taxpayers' dollars. This is the time when you must be accountable. This is the one time in a whole legislative session that we deal with your estimates, and these are the questions that I'm asking you.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, apparently the Leader of the Opposition is the one who has difficulty understanding, because I've answered the area that the Leader of the Opposition has opened up very clearly. He proceeds to play his game, but I've answered very clearly and that is the answer that's there. If the Leader of the Opposition has had difficulty understanding it, I would suggest he take the Blues home and read them tonight, because that's the answer I've given. There will be plenty of opportunity during various estimates in the upcoming months in this Legislature, to deal with decisions made by government or government agencies on the appropriate estimates. I think that's very clear, Mr. Chairman. I know it's clear. It's clear to anyone who has listened to the response from the repetitiveness of the Leader of the Opposition. It is obvious to those who know him well and have studied his theatrics and history and what has worked for him before, that he wants to repeat the question so many times that you'll rule him out of order. He'll be dramatic and get thrown out of the House. Well, Mr. Chairman, I wouldn't want that to happen so I'm prepared.... All members in this House realize that I've given the answer that I'm prepared to give. The opportunities are there for any decision government makes to be further canvassed during the estimates of any minister, for either those things that take place to do with their ministerial responsibility, or to do with any agencies or corporations under their ministerial responsibility. I think that's clear.

I don't intend to get involved with the Leader of the Opposition, who has now taken a lot of time in the Legislature being repetitive and chirping across the floor. I've given the answer; that's my answer. He can choose to continue this ploy. He can keep it up. He may even try the patience of the other members. He may even succeed in getting thrown out; maybe he wants that. I hope not, but it may be that's what he wants. But, as I have said, the answer is clearly there.

There have been a number of questions I've responded to since my estimates have come up, and a number of questions that I felt should be asked, to which, not having had the question put by an alert and well-researched opposition, Mr. Chairman, I have provided the answers. With those answers on the record, perhaps the opposition, to look as though they are responsible, will pose the questions now to the answers that I've already given. There have been some very major answers given in policy areas of the government. Perhaps now, because of the fact that they failed to deal in these areas during their earlier opportunities, they will avail themselves of the opportunity to fit their questions to the answers. There have been some major areas dealing with gas reserves, energy, policy of government, trade, and our relationship with the rest of Canada. This is one time when we have an

[ Page 1925 ]

opportunity to debate on a very high level. Those areas have all been introduced by myself. Unfortunately, the tactic on the level of the opposition does not lend itself to any of those issues, or those things which I — at least the members on this side of the House — feel are important to the province, and which I think all Canadians are concerned with now.

I can remember before the session how the much-vaunted research staff of the New Democratic Party were finally going to make them a credible opposition. Up until now the news media have considered that they've had to take the questioning role, not because they want to but because they feel that questions should be asked and the opposition was not doing a credible job. This was the year. Statements coming into the session were that the opposition were going to come in thumping on unemployment, inflation and all the things, I think, people are really concerned about and the things I tried to deal with in my estimates. They barely touched them. They don't care what worries the people. They are in love, though, with their tactics. That's what they're concerned about.

So if we take what would seem to be undue time to you, Mr. Chairman, I hope you will be tolerant, because I believe this is a very telling performance for them on where their priorities lie. The questions and their style, as it evolves from day to day, are very interesting to behold. It changes from day to day — the outrage, the wild accusations, the innuendo, the quiet theatrics of repeating a question over and over when, as much as that question can be answered, I have answered. There will be great opportunity in this Legislature in the coming months for ministers to deal with decisions of government under their responsibilities.

So, Mr. Chairman, it is very difficult to respond, but I am willing to remain here and deal with these areas. Certainly on part of the questioning at least I could make the comment again that I wish I could take credit for all of the good things that happen in this province, but we're a team. I wish I could take credit for a jetfoil service. I wish I could take credit for all these good things, but the government operates as a team and there are things that happen out there in the private sector for which credit should be given. I'd like to take all the credit but I can't. It's generous, by implication of the Leader of the Opposition, to want to give me all sorts of credit. Should this government support any society or any part of the private sector, should such a decision be made either by a ministry or by a decision of government through which the ministry or agency works.... Certainly I'm going to stand up and tell them they've done a good job. If it involves government, I'll take the credit for that, because I think credit should be given.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Answers have been given. The Leader of the Opposition doesn't like the answer. He wants to get into an area that goes into other ministries, that involves agencies assigned to other ministries. He can maintain his stance. I want to say I have given an answer, and I believe it's a good answer. I believe I have tried to respond to those areas which could involve the Premier's office and relate to the government as a whole, aside from the fact that as members of cabinet we are all involved in all decisions of government. If you applied the rule that everything done by government could be brought up under the Premier's estimates, there would be no need to go through the estimates of each ministry. If you wish to embark on a new procedure, I'm prepared to carry that for my colleagues. They all have many administrative things to do; new and exciting things are happening. I'm willing, should that be the determination of all the members of the House, to change the procedure.

Some mention was made, during the repetition, of the size of the Premier's office. I feel it's fair comment to respond to a suggestion of an increase of appropriation for the Premier's office. It is substantially up this year with reorganization and the new Ministry of Intergovernmental Relations. After four years of experience as government we are indeed looking for ways to continually strengthen the performance of government. My office and, of course, myself have introduced an additional position of deputy minister in the office of the Premier — a senior deputy minister. We have introduced an opportunity for an assistant to the deputy minister to provide additional help and to strengthen the Premier's office. We have provided in those estimates the normal secretarial complement to accompany those positions.

The estimates do increase the cost of the Premier's office. I am prepared to defend that increase. I think the increase is warranted. I think the third-largest province in the country should take no comfort.... We've run a very economical office. In fact, it is still one of the most economically run offices in the country although we are the third-largest province. The two larger provinces of Quebec and Ontario take substantially more money for the Premier's office. Combining the administration of the executive council and the Premier's office, the cost in the province of Ontario is $2,663,000 compared to a projected cost here of $551,000. These are our figures for the coming fiscal year. These are only those figures which are available for comparison with what would presumably be a less costly year, the year just completed by those provincial governments. Even P.E.I. shows a substantial cost, although it is one of the few provinces that haven't gone for a separate minister of intergovernmental relations; they operate it from the Premier's office, as was done here. Of course, it was a tremendous improvement in government organization even to have Intergovernmental Relations in the Premier's office.

We found a tremendous lack of organization and coordination when we came to government. The situation at that time might — being as kind as I can to the administrative structure we found — be termed chaotic. The structure now provides for some coordination of government services, of cabinet committees; a proper cabinet committee structure was set up. The orderly disposition of ideas that become policy, that become part of the actions of government, can work up through the committee system. The servicing of that committee system, that is the executive council — all of those things now take place; the coordination so that one ministry knows that impacts on another ministry can have some association.

We can't have, as the Leader of the Opposition says, things happening in his government for which he denies he had responsibility, such as the Minister of Mines issuing a permit for uranium exploration about which he says now: "Oh, I didn't do that; my government didn't do it; it was the ministry." You see, that's the sort of thing. I believe him when he says that; I believe he didn't know. When he says he didn't know what was happening when he was Premier, I'm sure he didn't. I believe he has been consistent in his policy, and he can say that they just were not able to have any policies that were clearly defined, so that the government just

[ Page 1926 ]

went its own way. We couldn't afford to do that, because the chaotic situation we found had an impact not only in the ability of ministers to run a government, but on good public servants, which we have in this province, to respond.... I must pay credit to them, because they fulfil a very, very major role in carrying out and in helping to develop policies. I must say that it wasn't fair to them that they didn't have a clear-cut way in which they could work with one another.

I see the Leader of the Opposition yawning. He finds this part boring, the part that's important, about how government gets things done. I realize there is only one standard and one area of interest for him. But the public, I think, are interested in the Premier's office and every ministry doing a pretty good job.

We used to run an inexpensive office — I think too inexpensive. So, as was alluded to, we have increased the estimate to $551,000. Not all these people are in place yet; the new deputy minister will be available in the buildings, starting preparation in the office, April 21. That support staff and additional support staff will be placed at that time. I'm sure he is busy doing that now in the area of support staff, of secretarial service. So not all the positions asked for in this vote have been filled. They are very, very important, I think, Mr. Chairman, in coordinating policy in government and dealing with other ministries over and above Intergovernmental Relations.

I think Mr. Wallace will do an outstanding job. He has experience in government and a wide range of knowledge of the problems of communities, because of having been involved in a number of centennial events; the number of centennials that British Columbia has actually had has brought him into contact with almost every community in this province. His is not just a narrow viewpoint of someone who has been in Victoria all his life, but that of a British Columbian. He also has a national and international viewpoint. His experience in London, representing our province and our country as agent-general, will assist him greatly in the administration of these duties, which I think will be extremely helpful to the development of new government policies and the administration of government in the future.

So that's why there has been a substantial increase from $245,047 to $551,612. All those positions are not yet filled, but they revolve around what has already been announced, the appointment of a deputy minister. Even with these new, very important appointments — I think not a person here would disagree that after four years' experience this additional staffing and expertise will be good for British Columbia — the Premier's office is very, very inexpensive compared to neighbouring Alberta, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, or any other province.

AN HON. MEMBER: The lowest in Canada.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, the lowest in Canada by the figures provided to me, using our estimates and those they picked out of the estimates of the other provinces. So I'm willing to defend it. I know the Leader of the Opposition, who touched on it in his remarks, having had the office, would probably recognize the need for more staff at a time when government, not to grow bigger, needs to have the type of administration and information at the top that can prevent the growth of government for government's sake, that can make sure we concentrate and have the coordination among ministries so we don't have the type of overlap that was there when we became government. That's what we found, and that's why we needed an Intergovernmental Relations ministry. We didn't put it in lightly; it wasn't brought in because it was some attack on the old government. We brought it in because the need was there — there was chaos.

We looked at all the other governments — Ontario and Alberta — and we looked at the way their governments actually functioned. We found out British Columbia was unique at that time in its lack of coordination. I think, perhaps, there was no ability to lead and no understanding in that government. You couldn't just get in there and start doing things willy-nilly. The public service grew and programs were overlapping. Things were being done which seemed to be policy matters like, specifically, an exploration permit for uranium mining, which they now try to say was a clerical error. I think I heard that excuse somewhere before.

Mr. Chairman, it is very important that we have that type of coordination. Intergovernmental relations is now a full ministry. It's important, because it's been expanded again into the type of coordination that not only ministries need, but to the contact we have with other governments, not only in Canada, but the government of Canada itself. It's very important now that that contact be as effective as possible.

I'd like to touch on one of the areas we've talked about that I think is important. We should be debating or discussing it. Maybe it isn't even a debate; maybe we should be encouraging each other about the future of the country. It's a subject we tried to introduce earlier in the debate and in the estimates, and it's the type of thing, I think, that comes under the Premier's office. I think we need the best representation we have. We need the type of solid support to discuss with our counterparts and the rest of Canada just where the country's going at a time when they say the west needs more effective representation. Well, I think we do. I think we need the contact. If it's not in the government in power, we need it government to government.

We need a structure, and we've talked about constitution. If you mention the word "constitution" everybody's eyes glaze over, but it's simple reading. It's just the rules and ways in which the country is administered. Recognizing the uniqueness of the country, our wish to have a federal system, the ways in which we stop the overlap on the tension and the fighting and the way we remove those tensions, we should reaffirm ourselves to those things that the provinces do best. Let them recognize their historic rights, and give them the ownership of their resources in their areas to develop. That is very important. We should be discussing that.

I understand that the New Democratic Party, legitimately in their concern, don't agree with us there. They believe that the resources, particularly, as I understand, natural gas, can be best if turned over to the federal government and used in whatever interest they may decide. But we disagree with that. We say that those resources belong to the province. We will not turn them over to the federal government. It's those sorts of things people fight for, not just in the political sense, but fight to retain. We fought to retain things in this world. In this country we'll fight to retain those things that properly belong in the realm of British Columbia and the provinces. We won't support — in fact, we'll violently oppose — any political system, political party or politician that would give it away. We will oppose just as vigorously any government, federal or otherwise, that tries to come and take it away from the people of British Columbia. We try in this debate to put that clearly on the record.

[ Page 1927 ]

Does the New Democratic Party wish to put on the record the last policy they announced, that of turning over, starting with natural gas, the energy resources to the federal government? Are they going to do that? Is that still their policy? Because the people should know. You know, it's been stated many times. They deny the Waffle Manifesto as stated there, but then it has been their policy when they were government. We opposed it. We think these things should be discussed and we would like to go down — in fact, we're going to go down with or without the support of the New Democratic Party, because I doubt, then, with that division.... We're prepared to go down and take a strong stand — the strong stand being for the country and emphasizing that a strong country must recognize its roots and those things that belong to the province and recognize that it doesn't weaken the country to have a strong British Columbia. We'll only have a weak Canada if they have foolish policies and make moves that would weaken British Columbia. Because a strong British Columbia means a strong Canada. If they weaken British Columbia they can destroy one of the most optimistic parts of the growing financial future and also an area of population development that this country can look forward to. Not all parts of the country share the same bright future. Some of them are part of our history. Some of them have a future not as buoyant, but they're still part of our country. We can devise and improve on what we have, respecting the traditional rights.

Mr. Chairman, I think these things should be put on the record. The opposition may wish to continue — they make think they're being very clever — with what I view as a silly attack, if they call it an attack, or a silly presentation. But I've dealt with it and I think all members should be aware of it. I've dealt with it in my remarks this afternoon and I think they will have full opportunity during the coming months, in estimates, to deal with a number of areas. I'm prepared at that time to get up in any of those estimates and support the policies, decisions and programs of this government. And yes, I'd like to ride in on some of the success and say, "Yes, we did it," of those things that my ministers have done and done well and what this government has done well, because I think there are things for which this government deserves credit. As I've said, I don't want the opposition to give me all the credit; it's a government that is a team, and I think some of these things are going to bring great credit on this government.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the Premier is puzzled and is unable to pull himself together to address himself to specific questions. I think it's important that the Premier understand that the delay of estimates is because we are at the point of estimates where if specific questions were answered with candour and honesty, we could get to other business. I'm not saying that the questions have been answered dishonestly, because no questions have been answered at all.

Mr. Chairman, one of the most curious statements made by the Premier, as I tried to follow a train or a number of monorails of thought, was: "Perhaps now you'll fit your questions to the answers." That is a curious statement. I would gladly try to do that if I had some answers. I find that a most curious statement, but I think it's in the same vernacular perhaps of such other statements which we heard earlier from the Premier as: "If I made a statement it was appropriate at the time." I believe that the Premier should pull himself together and get down to answering some specific questions so that we can carry on with what is the normal part of business at this time.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

My understanding is that what the people want and what the Premier wants is a matter of political differences of opinion, but my understanding of what the responsibility of the Premier is at this time under vote 9 is accountability. The Premier may wish to try in regrouping to bring up many other subjects, but the fact is that this is the time when he is supposed — he is responsible, as he says himself — "to be accountable at the proper time." Mr. Premier, I'm not asking questions about the private sector. I'm asking questions about your decisions related to taxpayers' dollars. If you refuse to answer these questions, then say that too. Just stand up and put it all together in place and say: "Look, I'm not going to answer those questions." But you haven't said that. You haven't even said that. The closest we've got from you is: "Perhaps now you'll fit your questions to the answers."

Mr. Chairman, I know that you would call me to order if I broke the rule that the Premier is suggesting, not to ask him questions that should properly go to any other minister. I note that I have not been called to order, that I have been asking questions of the Premier all of which are in order, all of which are proper, perhaps complex, but nonetheless directed to the accountability of the Premier's office and the man who currently holds that office, and his actions and accountability for those actions in that office. The Premier has made some remarks — I hope that are not of a threatening nature — to the Chair that a member would be dismissed from his duties in this House. I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that there would be no threats to the Chair. I would be the first to defend the rights of the Chair to see that the debate is in order. Mr. Chairman, I note that I have followed your advice by keeping the questions clear, simple, in order and directed to the Premier's office.

Now that we have re-established that sane approach to these estimates, may I go on with the questions?

The Premier has made some decisions related to taxpayers' dollars, to finance a jetfoil service between Victoria and Seattle. The Premier was at a meeting, that I understand he called, on March 13 of this year, to discuss the establishment of a jetfoil service between Victoria and Seattle. Is that correct, Mr. Premier — through you, Mr. Chairman?

[Interruption.]

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I want to assure you that I have no echo, and I will carry on.

I thought I made it very clear that these questions are proper. The questions deal with the taxpayers' money, methods of doing business in the province of British Columbia, and decisions made by the Premier of the province. I don't wish to accuse the Premier of having tunnel vision; I would just like to draw his attention to the fact that we are dealing with his estimates.

Tell me, Mr. Chairman, is it in order to ask the Premier under this vote whether or not he was at a meeting on March 13 of this year to meet with a group of business persons from Victoria to discuss a jetfoil service?

MR. CHAIRMAN: I think the question is in order.

[ Page 1928 ]

MR. BARRETT: Hearing no objection, I will now ask the question — through you, Mr. Chairman — when I have the Premier's attention. It is very complex and difficult to understand for some people, so I will wait until I have the undivided attention of the minister whom the taxpayers will be paying out of this vote.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, would you call that member to order? He is speaking out in the House without being in his proper place — poking his head out of a tunnel.

Interjections.

MR. BARRETT: I hear stomach murmurs in the back benches, Mr. Chairman. Some people would call it rude, Mr. Chairman, not to pay attention during one's estimates. Far be it from me to say that. I would expect some demeanour of normal behaviour in terms of response to questions and responsibility of estimates. Perhaps my expectations are not to be justified or fulfilled.

Perhaps we could start again, so that we get an understanding of where we are. I am perfectly entitled, by the rules of this House — yea, it is my responsibility as a member of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition — to ask a minister of the Crown during committee stage of estimates, which we're now in, questions related to his actions as they translate into expenditures of the taxpayers' dollars. We have a constitutional monarchy that has delegated, through Her Majesty, the responsibility to us citizens to conduct our own affairs in a time-honoured British parliamentary system that has, by tradition, evolved into a system of direct question and answer in committee stage of estimates. Beyond advocacy of formal debates, we are here in a committee meeting. It is the only time we can ask questions, on this basis, of any minister, as long as those questions are in his or her purview.

Normally, the minister whose estimates are being discussed gives rapt and undivided attention to his or her responsibilities. On occasion there are serious matters of state that require a pause in the debate. If indeed, Mr. Chairman, we're at that stage of a serious matter of state and the Premier has to confer with the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer), then of course I will patiently wait until the Premier acknowledges that he's ready to again perform his role in this time-honoured legal fashion of answering questions.

Through you, Mr. Chairman, I ask this question: is the Premier now ready to answer questions? Are you ready to answer questions in your estimates?

Well, I think silence means that, yes, he is now ready to answer questions. We have established, without a denial, that a meeting took place in Victoria on March 13, here in the parliament buildings, between the Premier and a group of businessmen to deal with a jetfoil service between Victoria and Seattle. Because there has been no denial, I am assuming that such a meeting took place. Did that meeting take place?

I would not want anyone to have the impression that the Premier was being rude. I think it's more, perhaps, that he has such a busy mind, so involved with complex problems, overwhelming even a great team leader's ability to grasp simple questions and simple responsibilities in the role of the Premier. So now we'll do it again, while he clears his mind, pulls himself together under vote 9, and recognizes what one's duties are when seeking office and obtaining it, as a minister to Her Majesty and as leader of all the people, the Premier of the province of British Columbia.

We've had a little response — a smile. Mr. Chairman, we're not permitted to speculate on the cause of the smile. With very young children, it is usually an indication of gas; that can be easily relieved by a slight tapping on the back, drawing the child's attention to normal functions. If the minister wishes to perform a gentle tap on the Premier's back and relieve the pressure a little bit, then we can get on with the problems we're asking the Premier to address himself to.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: I'm sorry, Mr. Member, even a medical practitioner, even though he specializes in brains, can also deal with the discomfort that causes smiles.

Through you, Mr. Chairman, is the Premier prepared to answer specific questions about his responsibilities as Premier of this province — under his vote, all in order? Did you meet with a group of business persons from Victoria and discuss with them the establishment of a jetfoil service between Victoria and Seattle? Did you have such a meeting? Think about it, if you will; reflect. Secondly, during the discussion of the proposal for a jetfoil service between Seattle and Victoria, did you make a commitment on behalf of the government of British Columbia, which you lead, to finance this project? Was this commitment a financial commitment out of the British Columbia Development Corporation? How much money is involved? Is it $1 million? Is it $3 million? Is it $6 million? Is it $4 million? Or is it some other figure of taxpayers' dollars that will go into this project? How long will the project be financed? Lord help us all. Some advice may be useful; other advice could be very dangerous. I think we'd all best pause until this particular phase is over with.

Did you hear the questions, Mr. Premier? Do you intend to answer questions in your estimates? A simple yes or no to that would be very helpful. Is it your intention to perform to the best of your ability your sworn constitutional obligation of being present during estimates and being accountable for your actions and actions that emanate from your office? Is it your intention to uphold the oath of office of accountability to this Legislature and to the people of the province of British Columbia who do indeed finance this Legislature?

If it is not your intention to answer any questions, it would be useful if you got up and said: "I will not answer any questions." Now there's an even more appropriate question. Is it your intention to answer any specific questions during your estimates regarding your decisions as Premier? Is it your intention to answer any specific questions during your estimates regarding your responsibility as Premier of the province of British Columbia?

If the answer is "yes," which means you uphold your constitutional responsibility, the following questions are the ones that I specifically put to you as Premier in upholding the oath I have as a member of this Legislature. In upholding my oath I put to you these questions.

Have you committed any taxpayers' dollars to finance a jetfoil service between Victoria and Seattle? If such a commitment has been made, is the agreement a verbal one or is it in writing? If it is in writing, would the first minister be prepared to table a copy of the agreement for the perusal of the members of this House and the public of British Columbia, who must pay the bills?

[ Page 1929 ]

Will the financing of this project come from the British Columbia Development Corporation? If so, how was the British Columbia Development Corporation notified? Were they notified of their participation in this project by mail or by telephone?

Mr. Chairman, I for one appreciate your thoughtful consideration of these questions. I acknowledge that by your silence every one of them is in order. Every one of them is proper. Every question is in its place and I am performing under the rules of this House my responsible duties as an elected member of this House to ask in estimates specific questions of the minister concerned.

We have witnessed a conscious decision, or otherwise, by the Premier of this province not to fulfil his role or his oath of office in being responsible to this Legislature, in stating candidly and frankly answers to questions that are directed to him in his performance of his duties as Premier of this province. Whether he likes the questions or he doesn't, the questions are there. They are simple, they are clear-cut. They are asking for an accounting of the expenditure of taxpayers' dollars. They are asking for an accounting of how business is conducted in the province of British Columbia. And they are asking how others, who have a project that they consider to be viable, get the Premier to support their project in meetings with him, with the proposals going forward after decisions to the British Columbia Development Corporation. Would the Premier call a meeting on behalf of any other group or society which wishes to meet with BCDC? Would he arrange that meeting through the auspices of his office?

Mr. Chairman, I think it is very unfair for the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) to bring a colouring book in to the Premier at this time. Pretty pictures distract a man who is attempting to pull himself together to deal with very complex questions. I say put the crayons away, save them for another day, and let's get on with some important business in terms of conduct of the office.

Mr. Chairman, between you and me, no one else, is it not proper that questions be asked during estimates? Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I know that you would, if you could, answer these questions, and I thank you for that too. I don't find the Premier's behaviour to be effrontery. I don't find it particularly insulting. I don't find it within the range of normality either. Normal behaviour by responsible ministers is to note questions and then indicate to the Chair that they are ready to answer questions. We don't have a normal response today, and I'm not going to pass any judgment on that. Normally questions are answered. Normally the House business commands the attention of the person who is responsible for the office. It is a peculiar definition of one's job to assume that because a person holds a job or an office, the person who holds the office will define what the duties are.

I hope the record, which is only written and not visual, will indicate that the Premier has again sat through a series of questions that even the most humble person can understand, even the most uncomplicated backbencher has grasped, about the conduct of public business in the province of British Columbia, related to taxpayers' money and deals made by the Premier of the province in what must be considered to be an extraordinary fashion — if, indeed, what I'm suggesting took place at all. If I am wrong I would ask the Premier to stand up and deny that meetings took place, deny that commitments were made to finance a jetfoil service between Victoria and Seattle. I would ask the Premier to get up and deny that taxpayers' dollars, through the British Columbia Development Corporation, will be called upon to finance this project, and I ask the Premier to deny that the British Columbia Development Corporation was told by the Premier what to do with this project. I ask the Premier to get up and deny these statements rather than ask questions. I ask him to deny that a meeting took place, that money was made available, that the jetfoil system will be financed out of taxpayers' dollars by BCDC, and that he ordered BCDC to so involve itself in this project. I ask him to deny all of those things, in a group or seriatim — that's one by one, for your edification, Mr. Member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), who usually has a total grasp of every comment and nuance that is present in this chamber. How about it, Mr. Chairman? Can we get some answers from the Premier?

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Mr. Chairman, while there may be a visual change, I know that the rules will be applied with the same consistency. The Premier has been asked to answer specific questions related to his office. We are witnessing one of the most bizarre and incomprehensible bits of behaviour by any responsible minister that I have ever seen in this House, an absolutely conscious absence from his responsibilities in dealing with the oath of office and in dealing with the responsibility that he took on. There has been no parallel to this.

Seeing your signal, Mr. Chairman, and wishing to obey the rules, I will resume my seat, hoping the Premier has pulled himself together and will specifically address himself to these questions I've posed.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, we are having, if not a relaxing afternoon, an opportunity to watch the Leader of the Opposition at his finest. I don't know whether that's a compliment.

I want to correct one impression he is trying to create and that is that there is no accountability from this government. I said that if there are any agreements that may be made in the future, having to do with transportation, under a Crown agency or a ministry, if and when such agreements are made in any area and become government policy, the government will be fully accountable through the minister responsible. At that time I would be pleased to stand up and support and even cheer, and try and take some of the credit for some of the positive things the government is doing.

I gather from the questioning that the Leader of the Opposition is worried about jetfoils. If, as he suggests, an agreement eventuates with the B.C. Development Corporation, we will certainly be prepared to stand up and be accountable. There is a proper opportunity for accountability in BCDC under the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips). That is why we have each minister accountable to the Legislature in his estimates — to give that opportunity. To use this period to ask questions on speculation, when there is great opportunity for accountability, is to talk so much fluff, and I can’t understand it, when there are so many major things which will benefit British Columbians to be discussed in this chamber.

Should a jetfoil service be developed by a society, whether they deal with a government agency or not, it will be of service to the people. We will be glad, if there is any

[ Page 1930 ]

government involvement concluded, to get up during the accountability of the responsible ministry, and as part of that accountability — if we play a concrete role — take some of the credit. I can't take the credit for everything that happens in the province, as I've said before. I'd like to. Some attempted to do that when they were government. Someone acted as his own Finance minister and got the province in tremendous trouble. The Leader of the Opposition remembers that. That ego trip was very expensive for the province. I remember him desperately handing over the Finance ministry to the then Minister of Agriculture, the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), at the last minute to shed the accountability.

This government brought in ways in which the government can be accountable, not for what the Leader of the Opposition in his charade would like to deal with, but for the actions of government when they are taken. There is accountability. Do you know what we've done? Beyond estimates, we now have an auditor-general. The auditor-general has criticized government accounting, even with the improvements this government has made. Just think if they'd had the nerve to have an auditor-general when they were government. How terrible it would have been. She'd have to start out saying: "This is number 1, this is number 2, this is number 3 — add them up."

But we brought in accountability. If what the Leader of the Opposition wants to deal with is accountability, let's talk of the ways we brought in accountability. Let's talk about the auditor-general, because we brought that in. When we advocated it when we were opposition it wasn't because we suspected there was a mess in the offices of the then Premier and Minister of Finance, which spilled over to a great financial shock to the people of the province. We did it out of principle. We put it in to apply to our government. We want that responsible, constructive criticism that the auditor general gives, and I think it's useful. Having built in those safeguards, it makes it more difficult in these areas every day for the public to listen to the irresponsible things that the Leader of the Opposition, the New Democratic Party, can say. I say it's good for us. I say that type of criticism is good, because the people can trust them, and they know they have a means of keeping the government accountable, and we have to respond. Sure, we brought it in to apply to our government and any other government that should follow. That's accountability.

What about quarterly financial reports? During the previous administration, the now Leader of the Opposition, who was then the Premier and Minister of Finance, wouldn't level with the public on the finances of this province. Not only would he not level, but quotes of his concerning the finances of ICBC, just a few months before the financial statements, gave assurances that everything was all right. And then what we found out upon being elected government.... Chartered accountants were called in to help wade through the mass of disarray. Accountability? There was none. They wouldn't tell because they couldn't tell. That's why this province experienced, for the first time in its history, a panic December election — mid-winter. It was getting to the time of accountability, when ICBC's financial statement had to be made public and the government could no longer cover for the shortfall of dollars; they were going to have a deficit.

We brought in quarterly financial reports. Sometimes it's difficult when people say we've got too much money right now, but it tells the cash position of the province all through the year. There can't be a surprise sneaking up to you at the end of the year, Mr. Chairman, now, as was brought upon the people of this province through that period between '72 and '75, particularly the year when it all came home to roost and they fled. They could no longer keep it covered, because time had run out. That's when we saw a hurried election. If anybody has ever seen a leader in panic that was the time. It is a time British Columbians are not fond of remembering. The member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) nods his head; he remembers well.

None of us anticipated the mess we'd find. But today the public have accountability. We've shared with them for the first time our quarterly financial reports. We've shared with them for the first time our government accounting methods by an auditor-general. We now have the method for accountability that gives the public confidence. Thank goodness we have it, because from the performance today they certainly couldn't count on the Leader of the Opposition and the New Democratic Party members. Mr. Member for Dewdney, through you, Mr. Chairman, we have that type of accountability, and we wish that scrutiny. I say that in estimates and in this chamber as each minister's estimates come up, if agreements are made in areas of public performance, not things that are speculated, naturally this government will be accountable. This is the government that brought accountability where none had existed before. I can remember — it might seem repetitious, not in this debate but perhaps because we shouldn't forget.

We shouldn't forget the tremendous hidden loss of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia. We shouldn't forget the statements just a few months prior to the election — and then the emergence of the information which would have come out — assurances that the loss would be minimal. I think the figure was something under $20 million or perhaps no loss at all. That's what they were saying. Do you remember that? Do you remember, Mr. Chairman, what we found just a few months later? How quickly the position changed. Because the losses were not.... It wasn't break even; it wasn't $5 million; it wasn't $10 million; it wasn't $20 million; it wasn't $30 million; it wasn't $50 million; it wasn't $75 million; it wasn't even just $100 million.... How can you say just $100 million? That's a lot of money. It wasn't $125 million — and I know now some of the members who might have forgotten are getting shocked. It wasn't even only $150 million. The loss was over $175 million. What a difference in the three or four months. Now who was Minister of Finance? Who was giving the assurances? What members over there were directors of government as government members in that Crown corporation who would know the financial situation, who were giving public assurances?

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'm told now from a former director of ICBC that the loss was even higher than I stated. The Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) says it was $187 million.

HON. MR. McGEER: Scandalous!

HON. MR. BENNETT: The minister says "scandalous." That was an area of no accountability. Now the people of responsibility who gave their assurances then have the nerve to think they've gained the credibility to talk about accountability now. We have accountability. It's guaranteed

[ Page 1931 ]

through an auditor-general. It's guaranteed with quarterly financial reports. We only wish that the government that proceeded you, Mr. Leader of the Opposition, when you had your chance, had put those mechanisms in place; they would have saved the people of this province tremendous financial loss and heartache.

So don't try to create the impression there is no accountability, Mr. Leader of the Opposition; because there is, in each of the ministries. You can't deal with speculation and you can't deal with all of the types of areas of what the opposition considers to be pretty punchy debate; they consider it pretty punchy in the new low-key style of the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I want to assure the House that there will be a great accountability in this House and through the mechanisms that this government has brought in and established through legislation and in other areas. We think it's important; we've guaranteed it. As I say, there will be accountability. So I don't want the Leader of the Opposition to try to leave that impression, beyond the impression he is leaving of what he thinks is important. Mr. Chairman, that is what this government has brought to this province: quarterly financial reports, auditor-general, an ombudsman, and accountability for people against government; people who have felt frustrated in trying to get some accountability for why they are frustrated in dealing with government, and perhaps the ability to deal in all other areas, courts and.... We now have an ombudsman. I know — at least I think — that opposition over there said they were going to do it; I'm not sure if that's in the area of the good things we've done which they said they were going to do or whether it was something they weren't going to do. There again — accountability. In four short years there's been a dramatic leap by government into the twentieth century: government accountability, coordination, or legislation guaranteeing the positions of auditor-general and ombudsman. Those things have given the public an accountability they never had before. They weren't brought in just because of the sorry performance of that group when they were government; not at all. They were brought in because they were needed and because we need to be accountable. That's how we've guaranteed it.

AN HON. MEMBER: The public are entitled to it.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The public are entitled to it. We're willing to stand the examination of those types of positions. Public rights — that's what you call accountability; that's what you call a government responding to the public.

Beyond that, the Minister of Finance has gone even further in some of the ways he has provided additional information, not only in accountability but in the information accompanying the budget this year. The statistical information of government and projections will be useful not only to the opposition, because it opens up a greater area of information for them to criticize — constructively, I hope — but it also gives the people of British Columbia some idea of where their province is going and it lets them know what opportunities lie in store.

Somebody jumped because in the projections I think it actually mentioned that we'd have some slowing in our economy in 1980 even though we're still growing faster than the rest of Canada. It pointed to greater improvement in 1981-82-83-84. That opened us up to the question: "Why aren't you doing something here in 1980?" Because the information is accurate and because we're accountable, those are the best efforts of the economists and the people working in Finance. It's not being hidden from the public; for the first time it's being shared with the people of B.C. The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) knows that's important. He knows that is accountability.

I don't even know if that type of information was collected or used. Because of what we found, I can't believe it was used before we became government. But I know it's useful to more than the government. I know that type of accountability gives the people information they've never had before, information everyone can use all at once in making plans for how they intend to participate as part of the private sector in this province. Do you know what it does? It puts them on an even footing with the government they pay for. For the first time people are given information that puts them on an even footing with the government they pay. So they now have some chance to take part in building the economy and anticipating services, rather than have some socialist government elected some time saying: "The private sector hasn't done it. Obviously they are not competent, so government must do it."

Well, obviously, there was information that government wouldn't share with them before. They didn't want the people to know. Because then the people could really do things for themselves. But now they have this information; that's accountability. This government has brought in and done all of these things in just a little over four years. Just think of what lies in store for us if we've accomplished all that in accountability and have shown the results that can come from sharing that information, from being open. I talk about being open. Our people are frightened stiff of the last government. They knew we needed to find energy. They were afraid to try, afraid and frightened. Here they were busy drilling in Saskatchewan and Alberta — even Saskatchewan — but not that bunch over there. They scared the living daylights out of them. They scared the miners up to the Yukon, scared the gas and oil industry to the east — east of our province. But all they need is confidence, the assurance that there's a place for them. And look at the results. That comes from accountability. It comes from openness, not the kind of fear that's struck in the hearts of men and women everywhere by governments such as we had in this province. Fear was running through the province. Do you remember, Mr. Minister of Health?

HON. MR. MAIR: I was scared myself.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The Minister of Health says he was scared himself.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: He's still scared.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member for Mackenzie says he's still scared. And now he's blushing, because the members have turned around and said: "Don't talk. Today we're not talking. Tomorrow's our day." He's smiling now, and he's been told not to smile. A very serious day.

So, Mr. Chairman, all of these things have been done to give greater accountability. And more can and will be done. Every opportunity is available. If someone says that information should be made public on any issue, if there is something of government that has been completed, that government has

[ Page 1932 ]

participated in — or an agency — yes, we'll be accountable and the public will share in the information. You're right that they should know, and they will get the information. But to try and deal in this unusual way is very, very unusual indeed.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

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

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would use the opportunity to inquire of the government House Leader if he might give us some information about what the business will be tomorrow.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, with all due respect, that is not a legitimate point of order.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Government business!

MR. HOWARD: That'll be a change, Garde.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:48 p.m.