[ Page 1951 ]

CONTENTS

Presenting Petitions

Supplemental ferry to the Powell River Queen.

Mr. Lockstead –– 1951

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions.

Purchase of Maplewood Poultry. Mrs. Wallace –– 1951

Uranium mining. Mr. Passarell –– 1952

Purchase of Maplewood Poultry. Hon. Mr. Phillips replies –– 1952

Feasibility of nuclear fision reactor. Mr. Hanson –– 1952

Chemical spill in North Vancouver. Mr. Skelly –– 1952

Water pollution. Hon. Mr. Rogers replies –– 1952

Use of chartered planes by Highways ministry staff. Mr. Passarell –– 1952

Report on Native cooperative. Mr. Lea –– 1953

Transportation from Ocean Falls. Mr. Lockstead –– 1953

Ferry fares. Mr. Lockstead –– 1953

Committee of Supply; Premier's Office estimates.

On vote 9.

Mr. Macdonald –– 1953

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 1954

Mr. Barber –– 1957

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1961

Mr. Barrett –– 1961

Division that the Chairman leave the chair –– 1963

Mr. Barrett –– 1963

Mr. Levi –– 1966

Mr. King –– 1969

Mr. Barrett –– 1970

Division on the Chairman's ruling –– 1971

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1971

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Speaker, with us in the House today is Mr. Bruce Beetham, MP, a member of the New Zealand House of Representatives and the leader of the New Zealand Social Credit Political League. Mr. Beetham is making a visit to our province and to our country to broaden the ties and learn from the experience of governments in our country. I would ask the House to warmly welcome Mr. Beetham, and also to show him how our Legislature practises democracy in this part of the Commonwealth.

MRS. WALLACE: In the gallery today are a group of students from the Cowichan Senior Secondary School. They are accompanied by two of their teachers and also by four exchange students: one from Manitoba, two from Quebec and one from Newfoundland. I would like the House to join me in welcoming them.

MR. BRUMMET: In the precincts today, from Fort St. John and representing School District 60 — Peace River North — are the chairman of the board, Mr. Abe Unruh, a school trustee, Mr. Short Tompkins, and also the district superintendent of schools, Dr. Brian Frankcomb. With them is the mayor of Fort St. John, Mayor Pat Walsh, and also Yvonne Dixon, chairman of the board of Northern Lights College. I would ask the House to make them welcome.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery today, visiting this province, is the pride and joy of the member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown), her son Gary, and his friend Chris Johnson. I'd like the House to welcome them.

MR. MUSSALLEM: Mr. Speaker, to everyone everywhere there are important days, and to some there are some days more important than others. But today is an important day for British Columbia, because it is the birthday of the leader of our party and our Premier. I'd ask the House to congratulate him.

MR. LORIMER: Mr. Speaker, I have a strong delegation of our members from Burnaby-Willingdon –– I would like the House to join with me in welcoming them.

Presenting Petitions

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I ask leave of the House to present a petition.

Leave granted.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, I have in my possession for the House over 4,500 signatures from Powell River relating to the following question.

"Whereas we feel that the ferry service between Saltery Bay and Earls Cove is already inadequate during the summer months, with passengers being left behind on many sailings because of the influx of tourists; and whereas our economy in Powell River depends on tourist dollars, and we do not want to discourage tourists from coming to Powell River; and whereas the people of Powell River depend on the ferry service to get in and out of Powell River and find it a great inconvenience to have to stay on the peninsula overnight because of not being able to get on a ferry, we the undersigned do hereby strongly protest against a recent decision of the B.C. Ferry Corporation that no extra ferry will be placed on the run between Saltery Bay and Earls Cove this summer to supplement the Powell River Queen."

Oral Questions

PURCHASE OF MAPLEWOOD POULTRY

MRS. WALLACE: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Mr. Albert Bartel is the president of the Broiler Growers' Association, and he told a meeting held in Langley on Tuesday evening last: "The Minister of Agriculture wants the broiler growers to change their stand on Cargill's purchase of Maplewood. The Minister of Agriculture wants the broiler growers to withdraw their objection to the Foreign Investment Review Agency regarding the takeover. The Minister of Agriculture is in an embarrassing position." My question is: was Mr. Bartel telling the truth or has he misrepresented the minister's comments?

HON. MR. HEWITT: I can't comment on what Mr. Bartel may or may not have said. I don't think it would be proper of me to express an opinion as to whether he was telling the truth or not.

MR. LAUK: As outlined by the member for Cowichan-Malahat, did the minister make those remarks to Mr. Bartel?

HON. MR. HEWITT: The policy of the government has been stated twice now: first of all, two or three weeks ago in this House I stood up and made a statement advising this House that this government was not in favour of the Cargill purchase of Maplewood, and secondly, as recently as a few days ago — early last week — I made the same statement. I think, though, I would like to have this opportunity to respond somewhat to what the member from Cowichan-Malahat alludes to.

A week tomorrow I was in Vancouver and met with the turkey board, the broiler board representatives, the turkey producers and the broiler producers' representatives to discuss with them the reasons for the reversal of their original stance. They originally had advised this government that they were not in favour of Cargitll's acquisition of Maplewood Poultry. Then within several days of so advising us, we received communication from them that they were now in support of it. The communication was by third party in many instances, by phone call and by message. I met with them to understand and to discuss the rationale in making a 180 degree turnaround in their position. Madam Member, that was the purpose of that meeting. It was not to try to pressure anybody to change his mind, but for the information of a minister who has to deal with the industry.

MRS. WALLACE: I would like to ask the minister to clarify what he has said. Is he telling the Legislature that the

[ Page 1952 ]

change of position made by the broiler and turkey growers came before he met with them rather than afterward?

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question is yes. They made their turnaround prior to that meeting. The reason I called that meeting was to clarify why they made that 180-degree turnaround.

URANIUM MINING

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. Placer Development in Atlin will be mining 616 pounds of uranium a day from their proposed molybdenum mine within the next year. The uranium will be ponds lined with Glad plastic in a major earthquake zone. Are Placer Development plans consistent with the uranium moratorium?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, yes.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary to clarify that "yes," the Deputy Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources has stated publicly that the seven year moratorium does not apply in this case. Is that the minister's position also?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, the mine in question is a molybdenum mine, not a uranium mine.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, has Placer Development received or applied for a permit from the Atomic Energy Control Board for the mine in the Glow-Surprise Lake region?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, the last time I checked, the Atomic Energy Control Board was not under the jurisdiction of my ministry. Perhaps the member would like to ask the minister who is responsible for the Atomic Energy Control Board.

PURCHASE OF MAPLEWOOD POULTRY

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Speaker, I have an answer to a question posed to me last week by the member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mrs. Wallace). She asked me if I was prepared to table my response to FIRA on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture (Hon. Mr. Hewitt). First of all, I did not reply on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture; it is the duty of my particular ministry to respond on FIRA applications. And the answer is, no, I will not file the correspondence, because we have other correspondence on FIRA applications, which is confidential information between the two governments. But I want to reassure the member for Cowichan-Malahat that we did indeed oppose Cargill's application. We don't want any great multinational company controlling all the turkeys in this province, because it might possibly control them.

FEASIBILITY OF NUCLEAR FISSION REACTOR

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications. Consistent with earlier statements by the minister of his desire to locate an experimental nuclear fusion-type reactor in British Columbia, can the minister confirm that the Science Council of British Columbia has engaged engineers to undertake a feasibility study for the placement of a medium sized nuclear fusion reactor in B.C.?

HON. MR. McGEER: That is incorrect, Mr. Speaker.

MR. HANSON: Is the minister aware of an engineering firm by the name of the Dalcor Group that has been engaged by the Science Council of B.C., presently involved in a feasibility study for the placement or the siting of a nuclear fusion reactor in B.C.?

HON. MR. McGEER: That is incorrect, Mr. Speaker.

CHEMICAL SPILL IN NORTH VANCOUVER

MR. SKELLY: My question is to the Minister of Environment. Some weeks ago residents of North Vancouver's Maplewood area demanded an investigation into safety standards at the Hooker chemical plant in North Vancouver, as well as a provincial inquiry into the handling of hazardous chemicals. In view of the incident over the weekend in which five sawmill workers were hospitalized as a result of a release of hydrochloric acid fumes from a plant in North Vancouver, has the minister decided to accede to the request of the Maplewood residents?

HON. MR. ROGERS: Staff of the Ministry of Environment are in North Vancouver today making inquiries into the spill that occurred. When they report back I will have further to say on the subject.

WATER POLLUTION

HON. MR. ROGERS: I was asked a question last week about Finnerty Cove sewage outfall. In reviewing the files it would appear that the first letter was sent by Dr. Loffmark to Ray Williston, so that gives you an idea of the currency of the situation. It has been around for some time. It is true that permit number 231, which the Capital Regional District holds, has not been renewed. To that extent the Capital Regional District is discharging effluent without a permit. But they have retained the services of Dr. Hoff of the Institute of Ocean Sciences to carry out a study of the monitoring programs of their outfalls and to make recommendations within two to three months.

USE OF CHARTERED PLANES BY HIGHWAYS
MINISTRY STAFF

MR. PASSARELL: My question is to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. It appears that Highway 37 is in such poor shape that the Highways superintendent in Dease Lake must charter planes, at great expense, to investigate who is still working for the Highways ministry and to deliver paycheques personally. Why can't the superintendent of highways drive?

HON. MR. FRASER: To the member for Atlin, I'll check that out, but I doubt that the information you have is correct.

MR. PASSARELL: I have a supplementary question.

[ Page 1953 ]

How much does the supervisor's wife charge for flying the superintendent to Atlin?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I'll have to take that question as notice, as well.

REPORT ON NATIVE COOPERATIVE

MR. LEA: My question is to the Attorney-General. The inspector of credit unions and co-ops has prepared a report on the Pacific North Coast Native Co-op, stating that the co-op doesn't conform to the law, and he makes several recommendations. Has the government taken any action whatsoever on this report?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I haven't seen the report.

MR. LEA: Would the minister endeavour...? Let me assure him that there is a report. Just go to the superintendent and he'll give it to you.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LEA: I would ask the minister to go to the superintendent of co-ops and ask for the report and table it in the House. Would he do that?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The member for Mackenzie.

TRANSPORTATION FROM OCEAN FALLS

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, but I thought the minister would answer the question.

I have a question to the Minister of Transportation and Highways. Yesterday 114 people were laid off in Ocean Falls. Because of lack of water transportation they will be unable to leave Ocean Falls with their families and belongings. Can the minister assure the House that transportation will be provided for those people?

HON. MR. FRASER: The answer, Mr. Speaker, is no, I can't assure that transportation will be made available. It is my information that it is available — either freight by boat or they can get out by plane.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Just for the minister's information, there is no way for these people to get out at the present time.

FERRY FARES

MR. LOCKSTEAD: I have a new question. Has the government decided to abolish residential commuter cards for the Sunshine Coast and Gulf Islands?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, you're talking about future government policy. It hasn't even been looked at.

I'm amazed at this member. I watched him on "Capital Comment, " and he said we didn't answer it all; then he said we filibustered the answers.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: This is very often true. Today it's not true, Mr. Speaker; he's doing a good job today.

However, back to my question. To the same minister: is the government presently considering the abolition of resident commuter cards for theSunshine Coast and Gulf Islands? Is it under consideration?

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I really think that question is out of order. You're dealing with future government policy.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: If it indicates future policy it is out of order. If it indicates present action it is in order.

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Mr. Speaker, I believe that question is in order. I wish he would take this as notice and just check it out. Anyway, another question to the same minister. Has the government decided precisely what the fare increases will be by the B.C. Ferry Corporation this coming June?

HON. MR. FRASER: Would the member please repeat the question?

MR. LOCKSTEAD: Has the minister or the government decided precisely what the fare increases will be this coming June for the B.C. Ferry Corporation?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: That is a matter of future policy, hon. member.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: PREMIER'S OFFICE
(continued)

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

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I thought that with a new week beginning and everybody in a good humour and the Premier having a birthday, he would stand up today and answer the questions of the opposition, which have been raised for.... I'm not sure whether it is nine or ten days. I do want the Premier's attention, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, to the Premier, through you, a review of all of the constitutional authorities of democratic government — and I referred to some of them on Friday last, such as Ivor Jennings' book on cabinet government and that of R. MacGregor Dawson on the government of Canada — indicates that we have a system, originating in the British constitution, of ministerial responsibility. Yet we've been in the very difficult position now for nine days of asking particular questions of the Premier that have been ruled in order by the Chair, that have been related to public business and the conduct of the Premier in carrying out the duties of his high office, yet the Premier has refused to answer them. I hope that this will be a new week.

In reply the Premier said: "We are accountable. " He has said: "We've put in an Auditor-General; that shows we're accountable." To that extent, that's true. He said: "My other ministers will answer the questions that are being asked by the opposition when their estimates come up; they can be asked about their conduct of public business on their salary vote." But now this is the Premier's salary vote. While we may appear to be tedious and repetitious, and all of this could

[ Page 1954 ]

have been settled days ago with simple answers to perfectly-in-order questions, we have no choice but to do our constitutional duty. This opposition might be good, bad or indifferent....

HON. MR. MAIR: Bad.

MR. MACDONALD: All right, the Minister of Health says "bad." But that isn't the point. The point is that we are asking, as elected members, questions about the public business, and particularly the conduct of public business by the Premier, on behalf of all of the people of British Columbia. If the Premier chooses to treat us with what you could almost think was discourtesy or disdain, then he is not treating the opposition as such, he is exhibiting discourtesy and disdain to the people of the province.

Mr. Chairman, as I reminded you last Friday, there was a young lady sitting up in the gallery there — a young woman, I have to say; I've got to be careful about that these days — and when the Premier was being asked perfectly legitimate questions relating to public business on the matter of the jetfoil service between Victoria and Seattle and he refused to respond, that young lady said: "We have a right to know."

HON. MR. CHABOT: Did you engineer that outburst?

MR. MACDONALD: The answer is no. As far as I know, I've never seen the young lady before in my life.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Did anyone in your caucus?

MR. MACDONALD: Well, I'd be glad to answer questions, but it's not my estimates that are up. If only we could get answers from the Premier of the province of British Columbia. If only he would set an example. He says the other ministers will answer. Mr. Premier, set an example and answer the questions relating to the conduct of your office, because people all through British Columbia........

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Oh, I'm not going to.... We'll have a chat in the corridor later, Mr. Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot).

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: I know we're on vote 9, and I hope that you will not follow the sad example that we've had for the last nine days from the Premier when your vote comes up. But let's leave it at that.

This is public business. There is a constitutional obligation on a Prime Minister, along with other cabinet ministers, to be accountable for their actions. If you're not accountable and not answerable to the people of this province, it is not something either they or we can walk away from, Mr. Premier. When I went out and spoke to various people throughout the greater Vancouver area, they repeated what that young woman was saying, that we have a right to know about public business.

So I ask the Premier to simply give us the explanation requested by the Leader of the Opposition. Was there a public commitment of funds made for the jetfoil service to Seattle? Who convened that meeting? Who made the arrangements for BCDC to provide financing and how much was that financing? These are legitimate questions. The answers may settle the issue; the answers may lead to debate; the answers may show that the Premier conducted himself perfectly properly in the convening of that meeting — if he did it. Or the answers may show that he did not conduct his office as he is expected to do by the people of the province of British Columbia.

But the point is none of those things. The point today is that the people have a right to know and have a right to have answers to questions on estimates. If we walk away from that proposition of ministerial responsibility, then we would have sold out on behalf of those people, and we have no intention of doing that, Mr. Chairman. So I ask the Premier as courteously as I can — through you, Mr. Chairman — to please give an account of what he did in relation to that jetfoil service, and what commitments he made on behalf of the people of the province of British Columbia, leading, as I understand it — it's an important public issue — to the service being financed in some way by British Columbia, and employing a foreign crew and flying under a foreign flag. That is important public business and we have a right to the answers, not for ourselves but on behalf of the people who are waiting for just those answers, Mr. Premier.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: The last speaker in the House started out by saying that it was a new week in British Columbia, a new day, and yet he continued to pursue the same line of reasoning, the same line of questioning that he pursued last week. I'm not sure what they're up to over there on that side of the House, Mr. Chairman, because it's the same type of negative, harping, self-serving questioning that we have heard in this Legislature for the last two weeks during the Premier's estimates. I've listened with a great deal of interest to the line of questioning, and there have been no questions on policy and no sincere questions about the economy. Heaven knows that this country, this province, this nation, the free world, is concerned about the future and the economy for the people who are going to follow us. That is our responsibility as legislators, but I've not heard one solitary positive suggestion emanating from that side of the House regarding the economy of this province. That is also the responsibility of the chief policy-maker of this province, our Premier. He is the one who is going to be responsible for the decisions that we make on the economy and on social measures well into the future. Yet not one question have we heard emanating from that side of the House regarding our Premier's responsibility for the economy and the future of this province.

We brought in a large budget with a huge surplus. What have we heard about it? We've heard negative, harping criticism: "You're not spending enough money here," or "You're spending too much there." But I think we must realize that we were able to have a surplus and to bring in that budget because we have the leadership of the man whose estimates we are in today. I've listened intently and I think it is the responsibility of the Leader of the Opposition to bring forth his views on the policies of this government and not just to carp and ask self-serving questions as he has been doing during the last two weeks.

I know that our leader would appreciate getting into some policy deliberations, because he has stood in this Legislature and said many times: "We're not perfect; we've made a few mistakes. We're human." But we're sure not being helped in

[ Page 1955 ]

our policy deliberations by the Leader of the Opposition or any of the members on the opposition benches. What we should be deliberating in this Legislature is the policies of the chief policy-maker, our Premier. We are in his estimates. I hate to lecture the opposition, but I think it's time we told them a few facts. I think they should be in a position to talk about policies. Some of the negative, carping criticism we heard last year during the Premier's estimates about his leadership and the policies developed by his government........

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, we are in committee dealing with vote 9, the Premier's estimates, not policy of the government. The questions asked by the opposition are all in order. Let us stay with vote 9 and deal with it. If the Premier refuses to answer, let the minister say: "The Premier refuses to answer. " But we are not here in my estimates, as much as I'd like to be, nor in the opposition's estimates, as much as I'd like to be. We're on vote 9 of the Premier's estimates. Would you please call the minister to order?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you for the observation, hon. Leader of the Opposition. While some latitude is always allowed in the Premier's estimates, which I'm sure all members of the House should bear in mind, I would ask the minister to proceed, narrowing in on vote 9 specifically.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate your guidance in this. Far be it from me to ever stand in this Legislature and argue with you. So I will talk about the man whose estimates we are in, the Premier. If you disagree with me that the Premier of our province, to whom we are trying to vote some money so he can run his office, doesn't deal with the overall policies of this government, and doesn't make the decisions — a lot of them in concert, mind you, with his colleagues — on the policies and the economy of this Legislature, maybe I'd better take a new lesson. But I think what is really bothering the Leader of the Opposition is that he's been in this negative, negative stance for so long and he's so used to asking repetitive, negative questions that he can't come to grips and deal in this Legislature with the policies of this government nor with the economy during the Premier's estimates. It is his responsibility as Leader of the Opposition to deal with the Premier and to talk about policies, but he has nothing to talk about. He has no positive suggestions.

I can remember one time when I was in opposition, We used to talk a little negatively once in a while, as well as giving many, many positive suggestions to the government of the day. He used to say: "The sky is falling. The gloom-and-doom boys over there...." Unfortunately we were the gloom-and-doom boys over there, because they did bring the sky down on the province of British Columbia and on the economy. Now they are trying to be the same gloom-and-doom boys; they are trying to emulate us, but the sky is not falling. As a matter of fact, the heavens are opening up on the economy due to the leadership of the man whose estimates we are now debating.

Mr. Chairman, I want to talk a little about the economy in British Columbia, an economy that has been led by our policy-maker in fitting together decisions to....

MR. BARRETT: Order!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. I will caution the Leader of the Opposition once that the Chair will not tolerate incessant comments from the side, reflecting on the Chair and intimidating the Chair.

The Leader of the Opposition rises on a point of order.

MR. BARRETT: It is the duty of members of this House to call the Chair's attention to order. The member is out of order and I expect the Chairman to apply the rules of the House, please.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, I will once again reiterate that during the Premier's estimates there has always been considerable latitude allowed in discussing the responsibilities of the Premier's office. Again I will read for all members section 61(2) of the standing orders under relevancy: "Speeches in Committee of the Whole House must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration."

When the Chair allows a certain amount of latitude on one side of the House, it is only reasonable to expect that that same latitude be exercised wito the other side of the House. If members wish to strictly observe the rules, then so be it, but if we continue to wander and the same latitude is expected on each side, then that too must be anticipated and expected.

In any case, notwithstanding what has been previously mentioned, it is most disconcerting to the Chair to have any member of the House incessantly shouting "order," to the left or right of the Chair. If points of order are to be raised, then members are to take their place, rise and make such an observation. If not, then the regular rules of the House apply in committee as at anv other time.

The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development has the floor on vote 9.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, Mr. Chairman, vote 9 money for the Premier's office, the Premier being the leader of the Social Credit Part, of British Columbia and of the government of British Columbia. And my, what a great leader he is. I want to say something about the reason we should vote our Premier his money so that he can continue to lead the government of the province of British Columbia. In other words, Mr. Chairman, I am talking about why we should vote the Premier his estimates, and I believe that is in order.

Now when we formed the government in late 1975 and early 1976, we were faced with a major problem. British Columbia did not have the best image, shall I say, in the world with our trading partners. Some of our trading partners who had dealt with British Columbia for some previous 20 years were taking and had taken a second look during the three years that British Columbia was governed by the socialist party. I don't wish to repeat in this Legislature some of the statements told to me privately by some of our trading partners about why they didn't want to do business with British Columbia, but I do want to reiterate that British Columbia is.... If we are to continue to support the social programs that we have in place in British Columbia — many of them intituled by the great Social Credit government in the first 20 years of their government in this province and many more instituted by this government in the last four years — we must have a growing economy and we must continue to improve our export sales.

That is something that....

[ Page 1956 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The second member for Vancouver East on a point of order.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the point of order is — I regret that I have to make it in the absence of the Premier, whose estimates are up before the people of British Columbia right now — that the minister makes general statements which we can't reply to on this vote and still be in order. Therefore he should be restricted to the vote. You know, I really think that we're seeing legislative democracy in British Columbia turned into a farce by the government benches.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member.

MR. MACDONALD: Never have we seen such a thing where the minister whose estimates it is, and who has been asked questions, takes off, and we have a speech to which we can't reply........

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. MACDONALD: Will the Chair please restrict the questions and answers to the relevancy of vote 9, because we're restricted. Why shouldn't the minister be?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Again, it is not the responsibility of the Chair alone to restrict any debate in this House. While we have a set of rules and regulations that we're all bound to adhere to and follow, individual members must take responsibility for their actions in this House. The Chair will offer whatever guidance it can, whenever it can, when members tend to stray from those general rules. The point of the member is, however, well made and should be considered by all hon. members.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, just by way of editorial comment, it appears to me that the opposition is very touchy today about what is being said in this House. I've listened to this debate for two weeks. We have talked about the economy, the policies of this government and the leadership ability of our Premier, and I don't remember the opposition ever standing up and saying that we shouldn't talk about this and we shouldn't talk about that. The member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) even talked the other day about bringing wage controls back into British Columbia, and I don't remember anybody standing up on this side of the House and trying to restrict debate.

But I know that they are touchy. They were touched up on the weekend; they had a little caucus meeting and they had a little analysis meeting. They said to each other: "Just how are we doing in this Legislature this far?" I know they came to the conclusion that they were doing very, very badly. So they had a little meeting, and they're going to try to clean up their act, Mr. Chairman. Let me tell you that I would like to see them debating the issues that face this government and our national government instead of the pessimism and negative, carping, self-serving questions that they've been asking thus far in the Premier's estimates.

I want to talk about the policies of this government under the Premier's leadership, Mr. Chairman. So far as I'm concerned, one of the reasons we should vote him his money is the tremendous ability he has and the guidance he has given me as one of his ministers and others in order that we could go out and improve British Columbia's image in the trading world. If that is not the responsibility of our leader, if that is not one of the reasons we should vote him money to run his office, then I better take a new lesson in debate in this House. I think that if I sat down and did a little research, I could find lots of precedent for that.

Mr. Chairman, under the leadership of the Leader of the Opposition when he was in government, we suffered some damage to our image in the trading world. Under our new Premier we set forth to change that image. The results are very, very positive indeed, because now British Columbia, I would say, is leading all provinces in the stance we have taken on international trade. We are looked at by many, many embassies in the world as being the province, a leader in Canada, in the stance we have taken in improving international trade. We are looked on with envy by other provinces in Canada because of the high profile and the very good work we have done under the leadership of our Premier in improving the image of this province in international circles, and by the progressive, innovative methods that we have taken to assist industry in British Columbia in improving its trade abroad. As I said, this is very important.

As you know, during the three years that the Leader of the Opposition was government, we could have improved our trade. The opportunities were there, particularly in the sale of metallurgical coal, of which British Columbia has over ten billion tonnes, enough to run the steel industries of the world for the next 200 years.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order. When I asked the Premier to give some leadership on another issue, you ruled that I was out of order because I was not dealing with his estimates. The previous speaker is talking on his ministry, not the Premier's estimates. He is talking on his ministry, and he will have opportunity to make this point when he comes up. I think you should bring him back to order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. Again, if rules of this House were to be enforced strictly, then the Chair would be in a very difficult position of even allowing the questions of the Leader of the Opposition regarding the questions of relevancy regarding the Premier's office, as against those of the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development.

MR. BARRETT: On a point of order. At no time, Mr. Chairman, have I been called to order in the last five days — that any one of my questions related to actions of the Premier's office has been out of order. I cannot accept an interpretation today on questions I've yet to ask and on questions that I asked last week which never were called out of order, and I even asked the Chairman to clarify them. My questions are strictly in order; they relate to the Premier's office and his actions as Premier in his office. The people of this province have a right to know, and we will continue to ask, despite the filibustering of that member.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. members, points of order raised in the House are to be made briefly and in relation to actual points of order. In commenting on the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell), who asked on relevancy regarding the comments being made by the Minister

[ Page 1957 ]

of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), I was not referring to the Leader of the Opposition. I was using it as a comparative example.

Again to the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development: I must ask you to return to the relevancy factor of vote 9.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I don't want to comment on the points of order, but it appears to me that it was the leader of this government who led the first economic mission to Europe in the fall of 1977, and that's exactly what I am talking about. It's certainly my ministry, but our Premier led that mission. We tried to repair British Columbia's image abroad, under the leadership of this Premier. That's why we're paying him. Are his travelling expenses not under this vote? Is that not under the Premier's office?

You guys are touchy over there. At that meeting you had on the weekend you tried to self-analyze a little bit, and you found out that your image wasn't very good, and you're trying to clean up your act, but you're still negative and you're still harping. And the very fact that you're so touchy today.... You're jumpy.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, I would ask once again that we return to vote 9, the Premier's estimates.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Now they've even got you jumpy over there. We've talked in this debate this far....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew is rising on a point of order.

MR. MITCHELL: I think the speaker should stay on the Premier's estimates, not on meetings that we may attend on the weekend.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I would like to continue my exploration of increasing our exports and improving our image, which is under the leadership of our Premier. As I said, our Premier led the first economic mission to Europe. We touched on many countries. We talked to Geneva about the GATT negotiations. We said that that would be one of the most important decisions made concerning world trade for Canada. Mr. Chairman, that comes under the Premier's estimates. The Premier was there; we made a policy decision. We didn't get everything we wanted in GATT, and we'll still fight for it. We'll fight for it under his leadership. We've asked Ottawa to put a new deal together where we could continue the ongoing negotiation. It will be dealt with at the next Western Premiers' Conference. If that doesn't come under the estimates of the Premier, I don't know what does. But as I say....

No, I'm not making any announcement, Mr. Premier. I'm trying to say that under the leadership of our Premier this government has led the way in providing a good image for British Columbia. We have helped our industries to expand, export more goods and services, and provide more jobs. The results are there, and that's why they do not want to talk about it. More people are being employed. Small manufacturing firms are coming into this great province of ours, and those who are manufacturing are exporting more abroad and providing more jobs for the economy of this province. That's under the leadership of our Premier.

That's why they don't want to question the policies; that's why they don't want to go back to last year's negative, harping criticism of the economy. They want to continue to be pessimistic; they want to continue to be negative; they want to continue to tell us that the sky is falling. They can't give any questions to our Premier on his leadership ability or the policies of this government, because they are so sound and so solid that they don't dare question them. That's why they're being pessimistic, negative, harping. They're trying to ruin the image even now when they're in opposition.

What is the biggest threat to the province of British Columbia and to its economy? The fact that those birds might get back in. That's why people are shaking in their boots. If there is any investment’s leaving or if there isn't any coming in, that's the answer. Even now that they're in opposition they're still negative. and they're still trying to harm the economy of this province.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before recognizing the first member for Victoria, I would caution all members about the use of temperate language, particularly when referring to other Members of the Legislative Assembly.

MR. BARBER: I ask the people in the gallery: would you want to be represented abroad by someone who behaved like that?

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

MR. BARBER: In 1976 a jetfoil left Victoria harbour in order to commence yet another experimental run between here and Seattle. Unfortunately the jetfoil got stuck in a fishnet and had to be towed back to Victoria harbour. Having been stuck in a fishnet, the jetfoil then went on to complete another experimental run.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Are you against fishermen?

MR. BARBER: Fishermen? No. But I do wonder why jetfoils get stuck in fishnets.

And the jetfoil again, in 1976, failed to persuade the people of greater Victoria, as an economic opportunity, that it could compete with other services available for the same clientele in the same market.

This year, however, the jetfoil looks competitive. Why is that? Well. fishnets and all, it's largely because of the Premier. Since — if I recall correctly — 1974, Boeing Co. has made strenuous efforts to market the jetfoil in its own back yard. This is perfectly understandable. The marine engineering division of Boeing is a very able and very highly skilled body of people who have put together a very interesting piece of technology. They have, however, historically been embarrassed by the fact that they haven't been able to find a market for their own equipment in the Pacific Northwest, where it is, after all, built. They tried with our administration and failed to persuade us that the jetfoil was economically sound. It is, I suspect, technically sound — technologically advanced. But then, as now, the fundamental problem with the jetfoil has been its economics. Its economic feasibility, its economic advisability in a market like Victoria to Seattle.

This year, however, the difference is, Mr. Chairman, that the Premier has become involved. This year, we're aware that a meeting took place in the Oak Room at 4:30 p.m. on March 13. We are aware that the Premier, this year, in a

[ Page 1958 ]

deliberate way and in an artificial way has rearranged the economics of a jetfoil service.

So I have a few more questions today, Mr. Chairman, for the Premier. I want to know why he meddled in the matter. I want to know what advantage, if any, he sees in making a fundamentally uneconomic service, apparently economic, by killing its only competition. I'm referring, of course, to the Princess Marguerite. I'm referring, of course, to the Queen of Prince Rupert. I want to draw to your attention a pattern of political involvement and political meddling by the Premier. I want to remind you that in the mid-seventies, Boeing, for perfectly sensible reasons, decided to — in every strenuous way — persuade some customer or another in its own back yard to adopt a service which it has not so far been able to sell anywhere on the west coast of North America. They began with our administration. We ran, under Mr. Strachan, a trial service. We concluded that the vessel was technologically worth some study, but was not economically competitive. Boeing did not proceed and neither did we. On two subsequent occasions during the first term of this government, Boeing once again made vigorous representations to that government, to that Premier, and to members of his cabinet. Once again, Boeing was unable to demonstrate that a jetfoil was economically competitive in the Victoria to Seattle market.

This year there is a difference. This year Boeing has got what it has wanted for six years. This year, because of the Premier, Boeing Co., the largest private aerospace corporation in the world, has got what it wanted. What's the difference between all these years past and this year? It is only this. As far as we can tell, the Premier has deliberately downgraded the only competition in order to now make the jetfoil artificially competitive.

How did this happen? Well, the Premier has, since taking office on December 22, 1975, appointed five different ministers to be responsible for the vessel Princess Marguerite. Five ministers later we no longer have the vessel. That was the direct result of the intervention of a sixth — the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis). How did that happen? Once again the Premier found chaos in his own cabinet and had to step in. What the Premier found was a fight between the Minister of Transportation (Hon. Mr. Fraser), who wanted, on behalf of the board of directors of B.C. Ferries, to use the vessel Queen of Surrey on the northern run, and the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), who had promised, as early as September 26 of last year, that the vessel Surrey would be made available, not for the northern run, but for the Victoria to Seattle run. It's a matter of documented record that because of the foolish and misguided promise of the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development, B.C. Steamships spent at least $54,000 to undertake refit drawings for the Queen of Surrey. You see, they acted in good faith. They thought that the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development was telling the truth. They thought that the Premier was, because that's what the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development told them. Mr. Elworthy believed Mr. Phillips when he told him on September 26: "It's okay, don't worry. Bill says you can have the Surrey."

Why did they do that? Because they have been persuaded — wrongly — that the vessel Marguerite could no longer serve. Some of them even went so far — wrongly — as to claim the vessel was unsafe. The fact that the Premier's own mother travelled on that vessel on October 5 of last year surely suggests that it wasn't all that unsafe, or surely the Premier wouldn't have let his own mother travel on it. Nonetheless, the Premier would have his way and has attempted to persuade people that the vessel Marguerite was "unsafe " for babies and tourists. You remember the quote, Mr. Chairman.

The questions I am leading to — I read the look on your face — are about the involvement over some time on the part of this Premier in the administration of B.C. Steamships, in the related administrative responsibilities of B.C. Ferries, and in a meeting that took place in his office on March 13 of this year. I'm trying to draw for you, Mr. Chairman — you may not accept it, but I think it's there nonetheless — a pattern. The pattern is this: after five ministers, the last three of whom were grossly incompetent in their handling of the vessel Marguerite, it became clear that the Premier would have his way and would get rid of one more piece of concrete evidence of successful work by the New Democrat administration. The Marguerite did succeed; it did make money; it did work; it did bring tourists to Vancouver Island.

The Premier appointed a sixth minister to mediate the dispute between the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development and the Minister of Transportation and Highways. As a result of that misguided mediation we ended with the vessel Queen of Prince Rupert. On January 31 of this year, the Minister of Finance took some pride in the announcement that the Marguerite was — unhappily, he said — no longer serviceable. He neglected to tell us that the Coast Guard of Canada did not agree. He neglected to tell us that the Coast Guard of the United States did not agree. He neglected to tell us that the Edwardson & Co. report and the Lloyd's Insurance report also did not agree. Nonetheless, doing the Premier's business, about which I am questioning the Premier now, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance announced that the vessel Marguerite wouldno longer serve, and that the Queen of Prince Rupert was supposed to be a replacement.

However, the Premier made a mistake. He misjudged. He miscalculated, as he has done in this instance and in so many others. He believed that the people of Victoria would believe him. The Premier seemed to believe that the people of Victoria would consider that a vessel which regularly carried 1,800 people — was licensed at maximum for 2,000 — could somehow be replaced by a vessel which carried 387 people. This was the Rupert replacing the Marguerite.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. Again, we must get back to the point of relevancy, and I must say that this matter could be fully canvassed under another ministry. Hon. member, the Chair has undergone numerous arguments today about both sides, regarding relevancy, and if it is the wish of the House, as it appears to be, that we're going to get back to standing order 61(2), whereby we say, "Speeches in Committee of the Whole House must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration, " then, again, I must ask the member to get on to vote 9 and carry on, rather than discussing something that can be discussed quite thoroughly and completely under a vote other than vote 9.

MR. BARBER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I welcome your advice and I will try to follow it.

What I'm trying to follow here in the House is the Premier's role in the handling of one major public policy issue. I think that's fair. I'm sure you'd agree. The policy

[ Page 1959 ]

issue is marine transport to Vancouver Island — specifically, marine transport from Seattle to Victoria.

If the Premier had not called such a meeting, if he had not named one cabinet minister to mediate a fight between two others, if he had not himself made certain public statements about the alleged unsafe condition of the Marguerite, then you're quite correct, Mr. Chairman, in assuming that we would have nothing to discuss here. But the point is that the Premier did make public statements about the vessel Marguerite....

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: He did!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. Notwithstanding the fact that the public statements have been made, I must advise you again that in May, seventeenth edition, page 739, "General Restrictions on Debate in Committee of Supply, " it states under section (p), "cannot be discussed....nor action for which a minister is not responsible." Again, only by really stretching the Premier's estimates, which if stretched sufficiently could encompass, in fact, all cabinet, can we get any kind of relevancy on to vote 9. I would ask the member to bear this in mind and to get back on to vote 9, the Premier's estimates.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, as you know, the jetfoil currently is not the administrative responsibility of any minister. It has been made the administrative responsibility of the Premier by the Premier, because he called a meeting to arrange the service. So I think my remarks are entirely in order. In any case, they're really quite brief and I'm proceeding to questions.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. When the Chair goes to some length to explain to a member, it's most irregular for a member to stand up right after that and say that he believes he is in order. The Chair is doing the best it possibly can to advise members. If you wish to challenge the Chair in any way, fine, but again, hon. member, I'm here only to serve the members of this Legislature, both those on my left and those on my right as equally as possible. I ask for cooperation and ask again for vote 9 to proceed on the first minister's estimates.

MR. BARBER: There is no need for me to challenge your ruling because I agree with it. I am, in fact, restricting my remarks to the duties of the Premier, as you told me to do.

One of those duties has been, over some time, to make statements about decisions regarding a very, very important aspect of policy as it affects my riding. I'm sure you agree. The Premier has made the jetfoil an economic possibility whereas before it never was. How did the Premier do that? These are my questions, Mr. Chairman. Did he deliberately scrap the only real competition the jetfoil might have on the basis of poor advice, phony arguments or false claims? Is that how the Premier made the jetfoil potentially economically sound for Boeing?

Let me restate my point. The jetfoil could never compete with the Marguerite by itself, but if Boeing Co. had a compliant government that was willing to get rid of the only competition, then maybe the jetfoil could compete. Is that what the Premier did? These are among my questions. Did, in fact, the Premier meet in his office with a representative of Boeing Co. to discuss precisely how the jetfoil service might be introduced and how the only economic competition to it might be eliminated? The Premier's talking to his consultant. I'll wait a moment. It's a serious question. It calls into serious question the execution of government policy in a fair-minded way.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

Now the Premier's listening — almost. Did the Premier meet in his office with a representative or representatives of the Boeing corporation to discuss with them how it might be that the corporation could introduce a jetfoil service from Victoria to Seattle, and how, as well, Boeing could deal with the problem of having to compete with the vessel Marguerite when it knew in fact it could not so compete? Did the Premier, prior to March 13, meet with representatives of the Boeing corporation to discuss that particular aspect of that corporation's wish to enter the Victoria to Seattle market? This government has done favours for Boeing. This government has removed under false pretences the competitive vessel, Princess Marguerite. This government has deliberately introduced a vessel that cannot possibly meet the ordinary demands of that service. You look at 1,800 seats for the Marguerite and 387 for the Queen of Prince Rupert and you know full well the ships are not comparable. The replacement vessel that the Premier has boasted of from time to time is slower, smaller, has less capacity and cannot do the job. The Premier bears significant personal responsibility for the entire mess, which the public knows full well is the result of their policies concerning the Marguerite, the Queen of Prince Rupert, the Queen of Surrey and marine transportation generally.

The Premier has deliberately interjected his own office and his own energy — although he doesn't work nights these days, the energy seems to be lapsing — into this dispute. We wonder why he's done such favours for Boeing. They deliberately downgraded the only competition the jetfoil has in order to make the jetfoil artificially competitive. So we wish to ask the question for the fourth time now. Did the Premier — let me broaden it a bit — or an agent specifically instructed by the Premier to do so — one doesn’t want people getting off the hook too lightly — meet with representatives of the Boeing corporation to discuss with them how they could best introduce that service to Victoria-Seattle and how they could overcome the problem of competing with a vessel, the Marguerite, which previously had made it impossible for them to enter the market because the market wasn't big enough to support both services?

There is a pattern here, Mr. Chairman. You appoint five ministers in a row, and you make sure there's no effective political leadership for the B.C. Steamship Company. You then fall victim to a phony argument about the alleged lack of safety of the vessel, even though your own mother rides on it on October 5. You allow people to believe the vessel isn't safe for babies and tourists, even though the Canadian Coast Guard, the American Coast Guard, Lloyd's of London, the Edwardson Company report and the president of the company himself tell you that's not true, that the vessel is perfectly safe. You try to conjure the image with the public that because we're so concerned with public safety we'll scrap this 1,800 capacity vessel and we'll give you the Queen of Prince Rupert, which carries fewer than 400.

[ Page 1960 ]

Now they tell us that the vessel will run twice a day — or at least they used to tell us that, but we don't hear that so much anymore. Why? Because they've discovered that it's not entirely practical. Who's going to be sailing at 3 o'clock in the morning? What American customs office is prepared to open up at 4:30 in the morning? They've discovered it's not practical. They've discovered they can't load buses because of the problems with the front-loading and side-loading nature of the pier and the vessel. Therefore, once more we see indisputable proof that this government, as a favour to its friends and as a favour to Boeing, got rid of a vessel under false pretences and replaced it with a hopelessly inadequate little vessel that can never possibly serve Victoria to Seattle.

And in the meantime, what else have they done as part of this favour for Boeing? Well, sure enough, they've put together a little company. This appears to be the result of the meeting with the Premier on March 13 — although he won't answer questions about it, as long as we've been asking and often as we've asked. As a result of the Premier's involvement we now have a non-profit company which proposes to run the service which never before was feasible because it couldn't compete.

The government, therefore, Mr. Chairman, has done three great favours for the Boeing corporation. It's scrapped the Princess Marguerite under false pretences; secondly, it put on the Queen of Prince Rupert, a totally inadequate replacement vessel; and thirdly, having done the first two things in order to get rid of any effective competition for the jetfoil, the Premier then called a meeting on March 13. I'm told that the meeting was attended by four other cabinet ministers: the Minister of Education (Hon. Mr. Smith), who is also the member for Oak Bay; the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis), who is also the member for Saanich and the Islands; the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser); and the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips). It appears, in fact, that the Premier took in — at least by Socred standards a rather high-powered crew.

At that meeting — I wonder if the Premier would care to confirm it — he started out by giving a wonderful little speech about the glories of free enterprise, and then another wonderful little speech about the glories of the jetfoil, and then made further comments about how he fully recognized the Rupert could not possibly replace the Marguerite — contrary to what the Minister of Finance had said on January 31 — and would therefore have to be supplemented by a jetfoil. Did the Premier also tell the members of the chamber of commerce there that it was politically necessary for them to support the government in this venture, otherwise it might fail politically? How many more favours was he prepared to do for Boeing in order to have this vessel serve where, economically, it was never possible to serve before?

The Premier is personally responsible for having appointed five ministers in four years to be responsible for the Marguerite. No wonder the leadership there was such a mess. The Premier is responsible for appointing minister number six, the Minister of Finance, to mediate the fight between his colleagues, the Minister of Transportation and the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development — the ministers responsible for the laughably inappropriate decision to replace the Marguerite with the Rupert — and the Premier is also responsible for touting the jetfoil. Our questions to the Premier, in summary, are these:

1. Did he, or someone specifically seconded by him, meet with representatives of the Boeing corporation in private, in secret, unannounced, to discuss with that corporation the economics — or lack of them — of a jetfoil operation from Victoria to Seattle?

2. During that meeting, did Boeing Co. raise the problem of competition with the Marguerite, andraise the problem therefore posed of how they would be able to enter themarket if they couldn't compete with the old Marguerite itself?

3. Did the Premier subsequently name the minister newly responsible for the vessel Marguerite, tell him to get rid of it at all costs, and tell his colleague, the Minister of Finance, to replace it with something that could not possibly serve in order that the jetfoil could succeed?

4. Having got rid of the Marguerite under false pretences, having put the vessel Rupert on, knowing that it was totally inadequate — as they do know, as they would never deny — did he then call a meeting of representatives of the business community of Victoria on March 13 in his office and advise them, as I recounted just a few moments ago, regarding their obligations to save that government? This is what it really boils down to, Mr. Chairman.

Let me restate it. As a piece of technology the jetfoil is very impressive; I've been on it a couple of times. I suppose it doesn't ordinarily get caught in fish-nets. It probably works most of the time. But as a piece of economic strategy it makes less sense in a market like Victoria to Seattle when there is superior competition. Boeing badly wants to introduce this service here. In order to do so, they appear to have agreed with the Premier to reduce to the minimum possible level the costs and charges associated with the start-up season, thereby artificially making the jetfoil appear to be economic. They were delighted when the Premier removed the only economic competition the jetfoil might have had. No doubt they're delighted down in Seattle today to be aware of what great favours Boeing Co. has had done for it by the government of British Columbia.

But great favour or not, for Boeing, one wonders whether or not the Premier's policy has been a great favour for the people of Victoria. I'm not sure. I think, in fact, the great majority of the people of Victoria do not believe the Premier's government when he tells them that the ship Marguerite is unsafe; I think the great majority of the people of Victoria do not believe the Premier when he tells them that the Queen of Prince Rupert is an adequate replacement. I suspect, as well, that the particular charming character and unique nostalgia associated with the vessel Marguerite can never and will never find adequate replacement in a jetfoil. Therefore, what could have been in a significant way new and growing business on the old run will prove to be difficult on the new. I doubt it will fail altogether. Our American cousins will continue to come up from Washington state to Victoria; because it is, after all, an extraordinarily beautiful place to visit. No one will ever be able to keep people away from here; no matter how often this government stumble-mindedly doubles the ferry rates, a few will still make it through.

But that's not the point. The point is whether the jetfoil would be economic unless the Premier made it so by getting rid of the competition. What favours has the Premier done for Boeing Co.? What arrangements...?

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: My colleague asks: what favours will Boeing do for him?

[ Page 1961 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Or have they done.

MR. BARBER: Or have they done. Because, you see, Boeing, wanting the service, is prepared to go to some lengths in order to provide it. And that's fair. They're doing what a great American corporation has always done: enter the Canadian market under the best possible circumstances, make the best possible initial deal and, once they've cornered the market, go to town. They've always done that, and here the Premier is agreeing with them.

So we want to know again, Mr. Chairman, what commitments the Premier made at that meeting of March 13. What prior commitments, if any, did he make to Boeing Co., or did he have expressed to them on his behalf? Precisely who from the business community attended the meeting? We have a new question for today. Did the Premier implicitly or explicitly advise the business community of Victoria as follows: "Two years from now, if the non-profit society has succeeded, we will be prepared to turn that run over to private enterprise"? "Two years or more from now, if the market is sufficiently developed — the government, after all, has taken all the risks — we will let you take all the profits. '' That's the meaning of the Premier's apparent policy. If he did not make such a commitment, implicitly or explicitly, let him deny it today. I'll accept his denial at face value.

But I've heard a lot of other reports about that meeting. I've heard of a lot of other meetings taking place and a lot of other commitments implicitly made. After all, it would not be inconsistent with Social Credit philosophy, whatever that may be, to tell guys in private enterprise that they want them to make a private enterprise buck. Fair enough. If Social Credit has any philosophy it appears to be that one: you’re welcome to make a buck at any cost. However, this particular time there's a very special cost attached.

I agree that private enterprise guys have got a right to make an honest buck — I fully agree. My emphasis is on the word "honest" buck. But when private enterprise is favoured this way by the taxpayer, I'm not quite so sure I agree; because, you see, private enterprise isn't taking any risk here. I suspect that's because they know the jetfoil is not by itself economic. That's why they never introduced a jetfoil service. That only makes sense. If it was independently economic, and if they didn't have to rely on the favours of the Premier or Boeing, then a jetfoil service would have been introduced long ago. Private enterprise knows its business, and they would know whether or not they could make a buck on Victoria to Seattle. So logic requires that we conclude that because no private service was ever introduced until this year, something must have changed, because we know they've been looking at it for the previous six years. What's changed? Only this: the Premier's meddling; the Premier's involvement; the meetings in the Premier's office.

We want to know what took place on March 13. We want to know what commitments were made in the short and long term. We want to know what tax dollars have been committed. We want to know whether or not the Premier is prepared, once again, to see in this instance a foreign crew flying a foreign flag, diminishing job opportunities for British Columbians thereby. We want to know whether or not those commitments have been made in the name of BCDC or perhaps in one of the secret trust funds arranged by Austin Taylor and Ian Adam. The money's got to come from somewhere. We want to know what authority the Premier had to make a commitment for BCDC, because we would remind the Premier that some time ago he told us Crown corporations were independent and not subject to political intervention, meddling or direction. Well, in this case, BCDC seems to be totally subject to such meddling and totally subservient to the Premier.

He can't have it both ways. But he can have it this way today: stand up, answer these specific questions which we've been raising for the last nine consecutive days in your estimates, and we'll move on to other stuff just like many of your colleagues would have us do.

But let me end with this, Mr. Chairman. The opposition is always gratified to know that its questions are getting through. How do we know that? We know it when the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development stands up and tells us to stop asking our questions. We're delighted to have the advice.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, the first member for Victoria makes a number of incorrect statements and assumptions relating to the issue of transportation which should more properly be addressed under other estimates during the opportunity for debating ministerial estimates during the Legislature.

MR. BARBER: Oh, good heavens! Can't you answer any of those questions? What's the matter with you? Why don't you just answer them?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, first member for Victoria. The Leader of the Opposition was the first one to rise. I will recognize the Leader of the Opposition.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, does the Premier acknowledge that he was at a meeting on March 13 to discuss proposals for a jetfoil service between Seattle and Victoria? This is the only opportunity. It is vote 9. It is the Premier's estimates — responsibility for his office. Does the Premier acknowledge that he attended a meeting on March 13 to participate in discussions about a jetfoil service between Seattle and Victoria?

We are dealing with the Premier's estimates. The only time of the year that the House can deal with the expenditures of the Premier is under vote 9. We must address specific questions to the Premier, through the Chair. The debate must be relevant to the Premier's actions. I ask through you, Mr. Chairman, of the Premier, with no complications, just a simple question. Will the Premier acknowledge that he attended a meeting on March 13, in the precincts of this building, to discuss a proposal for establishing a jetfoil service between Victoria and Seattle?

Mr. Chairman, I have asked one question. I think the Premier understands it. I think he heard me. Did the Premier, at that meeting, agree that the British Columbia Development Corporation would be responsible for the funding of a jetfoil service between Seattle and Victoria?

This is vote 9. These are the Premier's estimates. It is the responsibility of government to be accountable to the taxpayers and the citizens of the province of British Columbia. Under the rules of this House the accountability takes place during committee stage — which we are in now — on a vote by vote debate. To be explicit, to be completely in order, not to transgress the rules of this House, I specifically ask the

[ Page 1962 ]

Premier of this province: did he agree, at the meeting he attended, that the British Columbia Development Corporation would pick up the costs of establishing a jetfoil service between Victoria and Seattle?

Now we've gone through two questions, Mr. Chairman. We understand very clearly what we're doing here. We understand very clearly what my responsibility is, what your responsibility is, Mr. Chairman, and what the Premier's responsibility is. My responsibility, as Leader of the Opposition and as a member of this Legislature, is to ask explicit questions under separate votes about public expenditures related to each person's office. We are on vote 9, the Premier's office, and this is the only time I can be in order and ask the questions I'm asking.

I ask the Premier, again, if he attended such a meeting. No answer. None. I've asked the Premier if he agreed to or initiated the commitment to expend $3.6 million of taxpayers' money on a jetfoil service between Seattle and Victoria. And that $3.6 million was to be in U.S. funds, so it will be a cost to the taxpayers of well over $4 million in Canadian funds.

The Premier has neither been struck deaf nor dumb, but one cannot be blind to the obligations of citizens who run for office. One cannot be blind to the obligations of the swearing of one's oath in becoming a member of this House, and a further oath on becoming a member of the cabinet or the Premier. In that oath is a responsibility to Her Majesty and to the citizens of this province. It is the citizens of this province who are now debating supply to Her Majesty, and Her Majesty is represented by the person who is now sitting in the Premier's chair, with delegated authority to account to us and to Her Majesty what is going on with our money. We have had silence from the Premier on specific questions about taxpayers' money, under oath, that the Premier is to be accountable for.

My colleague for Victoria asked some other specific questions that perhaps the Premier did not hear. Is it the policy of this government to expend over $4 million of taxpayers' money to employ American citizens, on an American ship, under an American flag, without a penny of American capital invested in this project? If it is indeed the policy, Mr. Chairman, then I ask, through you: would the Premier enunciate...? Mr. Chairman, I may not expect answers, but I do expect undivided attention.

I ask the Premier to inform us and the taxpayers of this province how other business persons can have access to his ear and, at times, to his voice to determine how they, too, can receive his intercession with the British Columbia Development Corporation to receive public funds to back a private enterprise proposal. I'd like to know from the Premier of this province how one goes about getting money through the British Columbia Development Corporation to buy an American service, through American funds, to employ American people and sail under an American flag, and how one goes about getting this accomplished.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask the Premier if any of the questions and statements made by the member for Victoria are incorrect — or, if my questions are incorrect, if he would correct my questions. If there is any statement I've made in my questions that is incorrect, I ask the Premier to inform me that I'm incorrect and that I'm asking questions which are incorrect.

Did you go to such a meeting on March 13 to discuss a jetfoil service? Did you or didn't you?

Mr. Chairman, I think it should be marked that the Premier of this province may be in contempt of the traditions of this House. If the Premier does not wish to answer specific explicit questions about his decisions, then let him get up and say: "I refuse to answer." That would be far more responsible than sitting in what must be viewed as dumb insolence, Mr. Chairman.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps at this point I will remind the Leader of the Opposition that courtesy is debate in always encouraged in the House and, secondly, that all members in this House do speak to the Chairman or the Speaker, and that all members are responsible for any questions that may or may not be put to them by other members.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I speak to you with tremendous rapport. Mr. Chairman, I address the questions through you. Mr. Chairman, we both note that the questions are perfectly in order. They would be out of order under any other vote or at any other time in this House, except, perhaps, daily question period. Because I am in order, Mr. Chairman, because it is my responsibility to ask questions such as these about any cabinet minister during their estimates, would it be impolite — if that's perhaps what you're casting about for, through you, Mr. Chairman — for me to ask the Premier if he would be kind enough to inform me, through you, Mr. Chairman, whether or not he intends to answer any of these questions? I'd like your ruling, Mr. Chairman. Is it impolite for me to ask the Premier of the province of British Columbia whether or not he intends to answer any questions during his estimates? If, indeed, Mr. Chairman, the Premier does not intend to answer any questions, say so publicly, and we will end this bizarre series of debates that has been going on for the last seven or eight days. If it is the Premier's policy and conviction and determination not to answer questions, please stand up and say so, and we can go on with other business.

While there is hope in my human breast, Mr. Chairman, that somehow the Premier does intend to answer questions, I will continue to ask. If, however, I am being misguided by faith in the traditions of the parliamentary system and faith that I have that the Premier, when taking his oath to office, meant it, and that we would get answers, then, of course, I'll go on. But we're witnessing the behaviour of a man who has yet to explain to his fellow citizens why he did not vote in a federal election — that's related to the Premier's office, Mr. Chairman — why his responsibilities as a citizen were disregarded in that area, and we do not have any answers as to why he does not intend to answer questions in his estimates.

It is an incredible performance, Mr. Chairman, by a Premier who might be out of touch. What is the reality of the Premier's estimates? I'd like to ask the Premier how he defines what his responsibility is to the most humble members of all of the back benches of this House. Is it not the responsibility of opposition members when they're in opposition to run around the province and say, "not a dime without debate," if they can't get answers to their questions? Mr. Chairman, I ask you to judge.

I assume that it's proper to repeat the question. Through you, Mr. Chairman, with all humility: does the Premier of the province of British Columbia have any intention whatsoever to answer specific questions chosen by the members of the opposition to be asked, in order, in his estimates?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Please continue, Mr. Member. You

[ Page 1963 ]

have the floor. You have the attention of the Chair, Mr. Member. Please carry on.

MR. BARRETT: Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have the attention of the Chair, and I do believe for the first time I really have the attention of the Premier. I repeat: does the Premier intend to answer any questions chosen by members of the opposition, in order, during his estimates?

Mr. Chairman, I have never witnessed such absence of responsibility in this chamber in my brief time here.

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

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 25

NAYS — 29

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

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. BARRETT: I ask the Premier just one simple question. Is it the intention of the Premier of this province to answer questions put to him during his estimates — in terms of his actions specifically, and the questions being in order?

Mr. Chairman, I put this question directly to the Premier through you. I'll wait just a moment to get the Premier's full attention, so he understands the import of the question I'm putting to him.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I've almost got the Premier's full attention. Through you, Mr. Chairman, is it the intention of the Premier in handling his estimates to answer any questions that are in order, which are put to him by the opposition, so that we may know the parameters of how the Premier intends to handle his estimates?

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: For the edification of the member for Columbia River (Hon. Mr. Chabot), I recognize that the rules say very clearly that I cannot insist on answers. I'm not insisting on answers; I'm asking a question. Does he intend to answer questions? If he doesn't, let us know now. If the Premier doesn't intend to answer questions during his estimates, let him stand up and say: ''I do not intend to answer any questions from the opposition." That would go a long way to clarifying where we are. But silence is difficult to interpret. If the Premier does not intend to answer any questions during his estimates, then would he please inform the House that that indeed is his policy?

Mr. Chairman, people take the oath of office based on the presumption that they intend to perform their duties. You and I both know that I am perfectly in order. and that I'm only in order during this particular time of any session, here in committee stage of the Premier's estimates, to ask the Premier specific questions. The Premier has been struck dumb by arrogance and an entirely mistaken view that somehow he is above any responsibility of accounting to this House for his actions. There is nothing we can do to force the Premier to answer a single question. But it should be recorded for every citizen in this province that we have a man leading this province who refuses to indicate whether or not he takes his duties seriously enough to sit in his place, write down questions during his estimates and inform the House that he will indeed answer questions that are in order which are asked in his estimates.

Is it arrogance? Is it ignorance of duty? Is it lack of responsibility? Or is it fear. Mr. Chairman, that prompts this strange behaviour by the Premier of the province of British Columbia, who has been treated gently, kindly, by the opposition members of this House, in simply asking him questions?

I asked the Premier to stand up and give us a rationale for his behaviour, the reasons for his decision not to answer questions, the reason why he sits there in dumb silence, and does not respond to specific areas of accountability for his office that have been brought to his attention by the opposition, who are entirely in order, entirely in conformity with the rules of this House, the best traditions of parliamentary practice and, above all, with our oath of office in serving Her Majesty in any capacity that the people call upon us to serve.

Mr. Chairman. I've never witnessed anything like this before. I said that once before. I thought that perhaps after a short pause the Premier would come to his senses and begin to understand that you cannot hold office without being responsible for your actions in that office. I put it to you, Mr. Chairman, once more, because other colleagues of mine have other specific questions to ask the Premier. Is it the Premier's intention to answer any questions at all today?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Member, I would remind you that standing order 36 says: "Even, member desiring to speak is to rise in his place, uncovered, and address himself to Mr. Speaker." Or Mr. Chairman, in this case. That does imply that the member will be speaking.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I have risen in my place and I am uncovered for all present to see. I am in order. I hold my place in this House on vote 9 in committee stage to ask a simple question of the Premier of the province of British Columbia, whose salary we are being asked about now, to decide whether or not he deserves it. It is the Premier's

[ Page 1964 ]

salary, paid by the citizens of this province, and during the time of the discussion of his salary it relates to questions on how he conducted himself in his office while he held the post, before we say yea or nay to his salary.

Before I say yea or nay to his salary, I again put this question, through you, Mr. Chairman, with all the time in the world necessary to get an answer, a yes or no, so that all of us can judge our own standard of conduct in this House according to the pattern set down by the Premier in this session: Does the Premier intend to answer specific questions that are in order at this time in his salary estimates? It is a simple question, clearly put, understood by anyone within earshot. Would that every citizen of the province of British Columbia could see this performance this afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Would that every school child, every senior citizen, every hard-working person who must pay taxes in the province of British Columbia, could see this very sad day in the Legislature this afternoon, Mr. Chairman.

My duty to Her Majesty is clear, Mr. Chairman. I am Her Majesty's Leader of the Loyal Opposition, loyal to my oath. I am doing my duty by asking the Premier of the province specific questions under his salary estimates. Is it his intention to answer any questions put to him in this chamber during his estimates?

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to give the Premier a little time to think. Does he appreciate what he is signalling to this House and to every citizen in this province by sitting there in silence? Does he have an explanation for why he chooses to sit in his place in silence and not answer questions, as one is tradition-bound when one swears the oath of office — to answer during one's estimates related to one's salary?

MR. CHAIRMAN: You have the floor, Mr. Member.

HON. MR. CHABOT: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. The Leader of the Opposition is standing in silence. I believe it has been historical in this House for a member to ask questions during the estimates, not to stand in silence and not ask any questions. So the pauses are uncalled for, and I think that each and every time these, lengthy pauses are brought on by the Leader of the Opposition in his little performance here, you should call the vote and put the question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Member, the Chair has reminded all hon. members of standing order 36, which indicates that members are to rise and to speak, and to address themselves to Mr. Speaker or Mr. Chairman. I thank you for your advice, and I will ask the Leader of the Opposition, who is standing in his place, to continue.

MR. BARRETT: I stand in my place, uncovered, in order, and I'm asking one simple question now — one that will resolve the whole matter of the impasse that has been brought to this House by the Premier himself. Would the Premier inform this House how he wishes to handle his estimates? Is it the Premier's intention to refuse to answer questions put to him that are in order, at the proper time and in the proper place for accounting for his office? Is it his intention to answer any questions that are in order that are put to him during his estimates? There is no other question of importance at this point, and I think it's appropriate, Mr. Chairman, through you, that I point out again that I am in order.

The whole debate has boiled down to one simple question, simply put. For the advice and edification and leadership of this House, is it the Premier's intention to answer specific questions put to him regarding the conduct of his office by him, during his estimates? You can see that the question goes to the crux of the problem we have. There's not much point in our convening as a Legislature if this democratic process is a burden to the sensitivities of a government that seems to know better than anyone else in the world whether or not a ship is safe. If the inconvenience of this Legislature's meeting is too much burden for the government in conducting business, and if the humble attempts of the opposition to elicit information are impertinent to the Premier, then say so; we'll understand,

If the Premier wishes consciously to absent himself from participation in his estimates, why is he Premier? Is someone else going to answer the Premier's estimates? We'd like to know that. I ask again, very quietly and very openly, in order: is it the intention of the Premier of this province, at this time of accountability, to answer any specific questions put to him about his responsibilities as Premier of the province of British Columbia? Just a yes or no can determine the nature of the debate. I think it's important that we take enough time to determine that. If we're not going to have any questions answered, then put aside the Premier's vote and go on with other business. But we're led to believe that we were called here today to deal with the Premier's estimates.

It's my understanding that our Whip was informed that the Premier was going to deal with his estimates today. The committee has been called. The vote is here before us. The arrangement between the Whips, which you have no knowledge of, Mr. Chairman, and which I only have some rumour about, seems to have come to fruition: lo and behold, we're in the Premier's estimates.

Here we all are together in committee on vote 9. Have we been called together on this vote on false pretences? Are the taxpayers being told that the government has decided to sit the day in dumb insolence after having called us to the chamber, after having determined what the vote is, and after having told the House that we will deal with the Premier's estimates? The House Leader on the government side, the government Whip and the committee have all been notified. Indeed, here we are in the Premier's estimates. Am I in the right place at the right time, and in order? Yes, yes, yes to all three questions. Here we are in vote 9. Here we are dealing with the Premier's salary. Here we are asking the Premier of this province specific questions. And here we are, in response to questions, receiving dumb silence. Thank goodness we're not in the armed forces, Mr. Chairman. Dumb insolence is a minor misdemeanour in the armed services.

MR. LEVI: No, it's not minor.

MR. BARRETT: As a former sergeant-major in the British army has informed me, it is not a minor incident. My colleague is a former sergeant-major in the British army who drove a tank. You can see why he drove a tank; look at those glasses. Nonetheless, my colleague did serve in the British army to defend the very freedoms that we have here today in coming to this very point of accountability in the parliamentary system.

I ask again, Mr. Chairman, for your guidance in the House and for the guidance of the members of this House. It is the Premier who will determine what will take place in his

[ Page 1965 ]

estimates. I ask very humbly and very simply: do you intend, through you, Mr. Chairman, to answer any specific questions related to your estimates that are in order?

Is it stubbornness, is it a feeling of showing a sign of weakness, is it ignorance of responsibility to this chamber that causes this silence? Is it arrogance? Is it indifference? When one takes the oath of office one is responsible for one's actions in the parliamentary system. Nothing could be more clear, more obvious or more blunt than recognizing exactly the point we're at. The taxpayers have sent us here to carry out various duties and responsibilities, none of them chaotically, all of them in order and backed by some hundreds of years of traditions. Beauchesne, May and our own Standing Orders give us the guideposts that clearly define how we go about getting information on public accountability in the House. Only once in a year can we ask the Premier of the province specific questions about his office. This is the only time of the year: his estimates, vote 9. I acknowledge your patience, Mr. Chairman, and pointing out to me, through your patience, that I am indeed in order, that I do hold my place in the chamber in order, that I am not transgressing any rule whatsoever. I am standing here uncovered addressing you, Mr. Chairman. I am trying to find out from the Premier of this province whether or not....

Defending the system, Mr. Chairman, that allows both you and I to share a smile, I put a question again through you, without insisting on an answer but ever hopeful, as my belief in the system has never wavered regardless of how some people may fail the system, regardless of how some people may fail to understand responsibility and accountability in the system. The system is greater than any one of us who has passed through here since this chamber was opened, as the carving says, in 1897. With cruel frequency members pass through here. "Yea, their names are long forgotten, those who served in this chamber." But the chamber survives us all; the system survives us all. The system is the only thing the people have in a free society that ensures them that there is accountability. The accountability is today. Again I ask the Premier the following questions. Is it your intention to be accountable, to answer questions that are in order, chosen by the opposition or any other member of this House? Is it your intention to answer any questions during your estimates?

I think the Premier understands the question. I didn't say I think he understands his job. I said I think he understands the question. Any member of this chamber is permitted, through you, Mr. Chairman, to speculate on why the Premier doesn't wish to answer. Is he embarrassed about the meetings that took place that my colleague referred to? Is he embarrassed about the U.S. $3.6 million that's going to go to the Boeing Co. to employ Americans, to run an American ship, run under an American flag, while thousands of British Columbians are without jobs? Is he embarrassed that the agreement that he initiated will mean that at over $4 million of Canadian funds will go to a U.S. company to run a jetfoil system that will not employ one Canadian? Is he embarrassed to explain to the rest of the business people in the province of British Columbia how they get into his office, how they make deals with the Premier, how they sign contracts, how they get influence with the British Columbia Development Corporation? If any of the things that I've said, Mr. Chairman, are wrong or out of order, please call me to order. But these are questions that have been put by my colleagues, and by me, and treated with indifferent silence.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would remind the member that during Committee of the Whole, the administrative action of a department is open to debate, but one cannot be discourteous nor impugn improper motive.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I'm not impugning improper motive to the actions of the Premier; I'm asking questions, I may have some question about the motive for not answering questions, but that's separate and distinct from the questions I'm asking. There is an (a) and a (b) category: (a) category is whether or not he intends to answer any questions; (b) category is that I'm making references to specific, clear questions that we have asked information about.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: I want to thank the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) for his usual intelligent comments in the debate.

AN HON. MEMBER: Better than usual.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, are these the Premier's estimates? Am I here on the right day, at the right time, to ask the Premier questions? Let's even get more fundamental. Is this vote 9, Mr. Chairman? On a point of order, are we on vote 9, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Yes, we are.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, we have established something. Vote 9 is a vote that has a sum of money that the taxpayers provide to run the Premier's office. Now before we say yes or no to this sum of money, we must ask questions about how it’s going to be spent and how it has been spent in the past. Is that correct? Yes, Mr. Chairman, that is correct.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're talking to yourself.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, the member says I'm talking to myself. I can hardly find better company, considering the response I'm getting. I'd love to have a two-way conversation. Not that I'm bored with myself, Mr. Chairman. I find as I listen to my questions that they seem in order; I am uncovered; I was in order when I came in here and I'm still in order. But I have no precedent for this kind of behaviour.

Mr. Chairman, I've got an idea. I'll tell you what, Mr. Chairman: I'll let a colleague of mine ask some questions. Mr. Chairman, would you like to ask some questions? If the Premier doesn't wish to answer my questions, would he answer someone else’s questions? Mr. Chairman, let's try him out.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Three minutes, Mr. Member.

MR. BARRETT: Thank you. I’ll use my last three minutes to try him out. I put my questions on the record. My good friend. the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber), put his questions on the record. Perhaps it's something offensive that the Premier feels about myself or my colleague from Victoria. Perhaps he would overcome that offensiveness in dealing with the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr.

[ Page 1966 ]

Levi), who is viewed by all members of this House as the most likeable, the most agreeable and the most responsible member. Perhaps the Premier would prefer to answer my colleague. I'll tell the world that you've decided to answer someone else, rather than me. That's okay. I'm just a humble private serving the people of British Columbia, Mr. Chairman. Maybe the old sergeant will get some answers.

Mr. Chairman, my questions are on record. The one question that is more important than anything else stands. And I repeat it before I take my place. Is it the intention of the Premier of British Columbia to answer questions during his estimates? Yes or no — just as simple as that.

MR. LEVI: Dumb insolence really is a very serious charge in the army. They get very upset when it happens. You know, Mr. Chairman, some years ago in this province there was a very famous criminal case in which the chief Witness, who was going to provide all the information, decided at the very last minute that he wasn't going to give any information at all. He became known throughout the world and the criminal underworld as "Silent Bill. " In fact, he went to his grave not having said anything. Well, I hope the Premier isn't going to go quite that far. We do, after all, want to get some answers from him.

Because of the silence that the Premier has exhibited over the last ten days, we've had an opportunity to give a lot of serious thought to what his views might be of the functions of his office versus what is accepted by other people on this side, and perhaps even people on that side, as to what his functions are. He's the Premier of the province, the head of the cabinet and the leader of the party. In this vote we have an opportunity to ask him about the functions of his office.

Among the many things that Winston Churchill did in his lifetime — which was a long one — he took the trouble one day to sit down and enumerate, based on a great deal of experience of his own as Prime Minister, what the functions of a first minister were. I think some of the things he said are very appropriate, and I want to quote from something Churchill said:

"An accepted leader has only to be sure of what it is best to do, or at least to have made up his mind about it. The loyalties which centre upon number one are enormous." That's number one over there.

"If he trips, he must be sustained. If he makes mistakes, they must be covered. If he sleeps, he must not be wantonly disturbed. If he is no good, he must be pole-axed, but this last extreme process cannot be carried out every day and certainly not in the days just after he's been chosen."

He makes a number of attributions to the question of the role of the first minister.

You know, last week the Premier got up and started to tell us about his very serious concern about interest rates. It was as though he'd just discovered the problem. We could have told him over here that that problem has existed for a number of years and that there was an opportunity for him, as the first minister of this province, to participate and to express his concerns about interest rates during the federal general election held between the middle of December and the middle of February. In those weeks he could have had some influence on people's thoughts about the election, but he opted not to be here. He didn't even bother to vote.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

What he did on Friday which disappointed me was that he decided to attack a public servant, the governor of the Bank of Canada. He is very upset because Mr. Bouey will not attend the Western Premiers' Conference. The Premier, in a fit of pique, is attacking him because he can't talk to him about the interest rates. Well, the Premier should do what other Premiers do; what Premiers Lougheed, Blakeney and Levesque do. Now there are three stalwart Premiers in this country who make their views known, and from time to time they take the trouble to go to the capital and express their views. So if he's got anything to say about the interest rates, why doesn't he go and see Mr. Bouey? I would like to ask the Premier — this is a question he can answer, surely — has he been in touch with Mr. Bouey and expressed his concerns about interest rates? If he's that concerned, has he written to him? Has he made some suggestions as to what Mr. Bouey should be doing instead of initiating the program he did, in relation to setting the interest rate based on the sale of treasury bonds every Thursday morning? Has he expressed that interest? After all, Mr. Chairman, he spent a great deal of time last Friday in his estimates talking about his concerns about Mr. Bouey and the interest rates. Now that's leadership. If he wants to show some leadership, I would strongly suggest that he follow the example of Premiers Blakeney, Lougheed and Levesque and go public, travel and express the thoughts that he has to the people that he appears to want to be talking to.

Now we know that he has a problem. It's a very serious problem to do with moving about the province, because he's wondering whether, in fact, while he's away his government won't fall. No, he can always travel. He's only one individual. The government isn't going to fall if he's away from here. He says most of the things that people say in his government before they say them anyway, so he doesn't have to take anybody with him. He can go down and exercise some expression that he wants to give to his feelings about the interest rates. But he hasn't shown that kind of leadership.

I would ask him a question: has he, as the head of the province of British Columbia, been in touch with Mr. Bouey, the governor of the Bank of Canada? We understand from the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) that he has expressed some concern about it, but he is only a minister; we've got to talk to the leader. Has the leader been in touch? Has he expressed this concern by letter to or in conversation with the Prime Minister? I haven't been too successful, Mr. Chairman, in getting any answers from the Premier on whether or not, in fact, he's been in touch with the Prime Minister. I'm talking about the present Prime Minister, because in the previous question that I asked, at the beginning of the Premier's estimates, way back on March 25, I asked him about the John Farris case — the former chief justice of the court of appeal. The reason I asked was because we did agree with the Chairman of the committee that if it was particularly along this issue it was in order. I have pursued that question with the Premier. At the end of that day he was making a comment about the opposition, and he said: "There's good reason for opposition, because we make a lot of mistakes in government, and we'll make some more." Okay, he has given us his impression of what we're supposed to do.

There have been some mistakes made; we know that. We're trying to get some answers from the Premier, and he's

[ Page 1967 ]

not prepared to give them. We've spent close to two hours trying to get him to even say whether he's going to answer any questions at all, without getting up and giving us the "window on the Pacific" speech, which we've now heard for the thirty-fifth time, and we're really not interested in hearing it again. I ask the Premier, and I've asked him about seven or eight times — I think this is the eighth time: did he have a discussion with the Prime Minister of Canada regarding the resignation of the former chief justice of the court of appeal, and the appointment of the new chief justice of the court of appeal? Now we know from that great expert on parliamentary procedure and process, Mr. MacGregor Dawson, who in his book, when he writes about the Prime Minister's office — not the Premier's office — talks about the appointment of judges, that they are federally appointed. They are appointed by order-in-council. He states in his book: "Such appointments are the direct concern of the Prime Minister of Canada and the Minister of Justice. "

So, Mr. Chairman, we want to ask the Premier: did he receive a call from the Prime Minister regarding the circumstances surrounding the resignation of the chief justice of the court of appeal? Did he receive a call from the Minister of Justice, who is very much concerned about the appointments of judges? We have not had a situation in Canada where there was a resignation of the chief justice of the court of appeal in which there was absolutely no explanation other than the letter of resignation by the man himself, who said, and I paraphrase, that certain things have been said which make it impossible for me to continue. That's a very serious situation for the justice system of this province, when somebody says that and resigns. Then we're told by the Minister of Justice that the inquiry being conducted by the federal judicial council had come to an end, because, to quote him, " the man is no longer a judge. " But that does not solve the problem of the justice system in this province, which that Premier stated some weeks ago he is concerned about, has an interest in, supports and wants to see continue to be a strong system.

We have spent many weeks in this House debating some of the serious problems of that system, but it's only in the last six weeks of this parliament that we've actually discussed perhaps the most serious problem that exists in the justice system, one which the Premier as head of the government must have heard from the Prime Minister of Canada. Who else would he communicate with? Prime Ministers communicate with Premiers. That's what happens; that is the system of protocol. People don't just call up secretaries or leave messages about these important issues. They talk Prime Minister to Premier or Minister of Justice to Premier, and presumably say, if it is not the Prime Minister: "I've been asked to call you by the Prime Minister to tell you about this particular situation." That's what we've been asking; we've been asking about that particular question.

Then I asked other questions. Because under these estimates we're dealing with his office, we ask questions about the function and the role played by his former chief administrator, Mr. Dan Campbell, in the office where he had Intergovernmental Affairs. At that time we asked what the Premier did in respect to the much publicized actions of that individual, which subsequently led to his resignation. We know that the Premier had great trust in that individual. They had been together a long time. He was assisted by that individual right from the time the Premier became the Leader of the Opposition in 1973. He's a man of great experience. He's a man who was a former cabinet minister. Because of his parliamentary experience and his administrative experience, presumably he was of a great deal of assistance to the Premier.

But unfortunately that relationship came to a very sad end. That relationship came to an end within the Premier's office. Mr. Campbell was being paid by the taxpayers. This was the reward the Premier was going to show to this man because of his good work: he was going to run the office which the B.C. government was going to open in Ottawa. It's a very desirable thing to have such an office in Ottawa; there’s no question of that. It's an excellent idea. We should be close to what goes on in Ottawa on a day-to-day basis.

So the Premier was apparently going to appoint his good friend Dan Campbell. Then, lo and behold, out of the public debate that grew out of what is now known in this province — and will be known in the history, of this province — as the dirty tricks affair, certain accusations were made in respect to Mr. Campbell's behaviour regarding election funds. Then we found out that there was some $250,000 of election funds that weren't accounted for.

I can recall a couple of years ago in this House when we debated the sale of three ferries. the sale of which was being handled by McLeod, Weir. One of the principal officers of McLeod, Weir was a man called Taylor. It turned out that he was a bagman for the Social Credit Party. You might well ask of the Premier.... In the sale of those ferries there was a commission of some $230,000 paid. Perhaps the Premier would tell us: did any of this money find its way into the coffers of the Social Credit Party? After all, the bagman of the party was Mr. Taylor, and one of the principals in the company that bought the ferries was Mr. Taylor, and there was a commission paid,

We've had no explanation from the Premier about how those funds were assembled. Why, he even once said that there were two accounts but he doubted that there was very much money in them. Then we find out that there was at least $250,000 not accounted for. It was characterized as an oversight. They put in an amended form, and now we're waiting for the results of an inquiry being conducted by the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams), and we haven't heard anything. We have the government investigating the behaviour of the government party. If there's not a conflict of interest in that situation, then.... That really gets me.

Again, bear in mind that we're on the estimates of the Premier. We're talking about his staff; we're talking about the expenditure of money. We are dealing with the actions of one of his chief employees. We don't know at the moment how many employees are in the Premier's office.

My god, the Premier's aged in the last two minutes! There's no doubt that the thrust of this debate is having a full impact on the Premier. It looks like a scene from "Lost Horizon." The transmogrification of the member for Okanagan South into what looks like the member for Dewdney (Mr. Mussallem) is phenomenal. There is not one science fiction writer in this province who would believe that the Premier of this province could in fact look like the member for Dewdney. If the member for Dewdney would assume the position the Premier usually assumes — head down on the chest, arm around by the ear — we would know that in fact you are the Premier.

Through you, Mr. Chairman, to the surrogate Premier of British Columbia, the member for Dewdney. Do you know if the Premier got a call from the Prime Minister of Canada regarding...? My gosh, he's writing it all down. Well, I

[ Page 1968 ]

suppose at this stage of the game, at a quarter of five in the afternoon, any kind of an answer would be welcome. However, I think that while we have a great deal of levity here, the whole situation that we've been encountering with respect to the Premier's estimates is much more serious than that. I've tried over the last few days to understand why the Premier doesn't want to answer. He wants to use what is really a subterfuge in saying that that minister will answer this question and this minister will answer that question. The only thing we can presume from that is that those ministers completely understand the actions of the Premier at all times, even though sometimes he doesn't even talk to them.

We hear that there is great difficulty sometimes for some ministers to communicate with the Premier. So we have to go to the Premier for the answers to these questions. I know that the member for Dewdney has the Premier's ear all I the time. He carries one of them around with him in his pocket all the time. He takes it out and looks at it.

We're not making very much progress now that the Premier is not here. Well, the member is beginning...he's a little more talkative than the Premier. If the member is making notes for the Premier, then we must get him to look at some of the other problems. Bear in mind that I've asked these questions. Has he been in touch with Mr. Bouey, the governor of the Bank of Canada, about his concern with the problem of interest rates? Has he been in touch with anybody from the government of Canada? Has he been in touch with the Prime Minister or the Minister of Finance? Last week he expressed real concern about what was going on. He could have gone the other route but he didn't. He could have become something of a national spokesman for the west. Now, of course, he's been completely upstaged by Premier Blakeney from Saskatchewan and Premier Lougheed from Alberta. He is now in the same league, in terms of credibility, as the Premier of Manitoba, Mr. Lyon, and Premier Davis of Ontario. He's going to have to go some to get them to listen to him. Nevertheless, did he do those things? Did he contact the government? Did he speak to them about his concern about interest rates?

It would be useful for us if the Premier, when he answers, would also make some comments about what he sees as his options or solutions in respect to interest rates. Is he simply going to do what he always does and blame the federal government? "It's all the federal government's fault. We have no control over that — all the federal government's fault." If it's not the federal government's fault — this problem with the economy — it's outside of the country. He bears no responsibility for anything. After all, he won't take responsibility, Mr. Chairman, for the fact that BCRIC is sitting there with nearly $600 million and still casting around for somewhere to invest it. It would seem to me that it would be in the best interests of the people of this province if they took some of that money and did something about the development of housing and interest rates so that people could pay mortgages that they could afford, instead of sitting there like a great big piggy bank accumulating interest at the rate of 14 percent or 15 percent. If that's the basis on which that's operating, then that's another one of his ideas. Let's remember what Mr. Churchill says: "If he stumbles, let's help him." Well, he's been stumbling all over the place.

The other question in relation to the chief justice of the justice system is important to answer. We need to have some answers. We want some answers in respect to Mr. Campbell's behaviour. That is important. It's important not only for the government, but surely, Mr. Chairman, it's got to be important for that Premier who is the head of his political party. Up in the roof of this chamber, there are still the echoes of the great debates that used to take place here and the screaming about "legislation by exhaustion." All right, we got rid of that. Then there were the screams about accountability. We did something about that. We brought in a Hansard so we could understand what people were saying. People on this side think it's about time we brought some television into this debate too. Nobody would behave the way the Premier's been behaving over the last nine days. He's sitting there in a kind of dumb insolent stance, refusing to answer any kind of question at all.

How do I get an answer to my question by going to another minister? Who am I going to ask about Mr. Campbell's actions in spending money that was not accounted for in the election? Am I going to ask the Provincial Secretary? He'll tell me he didn't know anything about it. Am I going to ask the Attorney-General? He'll tell me he didn't know anything about it. My gosh, that's a very talkative Premier we've got in that chair right now. So we have to come back to the Premier. He knew what was going on in his office. We know that because he sees himself as being a confident, efficient, all-knowing Premier.

I'd be very surprised if he didn't know what was going on in respect to Mr. Campbell and the problems of the money. So he has to tell us about it. Or is that subject taboo because it's still being investigated? We want to know that. Simply get up and make some comments about it. After all, we're going to be asked to approve over half a million dollars for his office. He does not have in his office at the moment the intergovernmental affairs staff that he had last year, and yet his staff has increased enormously. And we don't know who he's going to appoint in there. We now know that one of the appointments in his office was engaged in non-government work and being paid for by the taxpayer — and I have in mind Mr. Campbell. He's the Premier, it's his office, they're his estimates. What does he say about that? Is he able to tell us that he can separate the time that Mr. Campbell spent as a paid public servant from the amount of time and energy that he put into working for the Social Credit Party? We can only find out those answers, Mr. Chairman, by asking the Premier. We're not anxious to receive a report from the Attorney-General's ministry on this, because the record of reports coming down from that government, either through the Attorney-General's department or by somebody else, is not very good. They're written with great buckets of whitewash and we have no confidence in that kind of thing. It's the Premier that can answer the questions. Would he put our minds at rest as to what exactly has been going on in his office?

So he has a range of questions that he can be involved in answering. There have been a number of questions asked in respect to the economy, to plans for the future, albeit ad hoc plans. We've talked about the tunnel; he doesn't seem to have any comments about the tunnel. He wants us to comment on the tunnel, and we have even less information than he has — and he's got no information at all. We've had the debate on the crossing. We're now going to leave that until we get to the Minister of Transportation and Highways' (Hon. Mr. Fraser's) estimates, because the Premier has made it very well known that it's really the Minister of Transportation and Highways' business, and it appears from some of the comments made by the Minister of Transportation and High-

[ Page 1969 ]

ways that he does know more about it than the Premier. So we'll leave that particular one until we get to the estimates of the Minister of Transportation and Highways.

We would like the Premier to tell us his views on the monorail. After all, in this province we've now got a monorail proposal and a tunnel proposal. We've got a new kind of ferry proposal; we've got a stadium proposal; we've got a business convention centre proposal both in Vancouver and here — all sorts of proposals. Presumably all of this, the Premier will tell us, is tied into some grand plan.

Well, the only grand plan that they've got is to hold what they have in terms of seats in the election and to get re-elected. It's not part of a grand plan. It's part of a lot of ad hockery, a lot of knee-jerk reaction to the kind of polls that they're taking and the kind of information that's being fed back to them. If anything characterizes the kind of position that that Premier is in, in respect to where his government stands in the eyes of the public, it is the absolute terror that he feels about leaving this House and going down east to attend a conference, knowing full well that if he went away he couldn't count on the government being in office when he came back. Surely that's got to register with him regardless of all of the speeches by the minister of defence over there. He should realize that the public sees the political situation in this province as being on a razor's edge between the government party and the opposition party, and that they don't have the overwhelming support they keep insisting they have. The seating arrangement doesn't tell us that; the seating arrangement tells us that there's a great deal of dissatisfaction with this government. He's the leader of the party. No amount of his speeches like "window on the Pacific,'' are going to do anything. If he's to bail out that lot over there, he's going to have to be very candid and forthcoming about what he's doing. If he's not prepared to do that, then he'll suffer the consequences, and he's obviously suffering the consequences now.

Mr. Chairman, the Premier isn't here, but his surrogate has been taking notes. Mind you, it's actually much more appealing to look over there and talk to the member for Dewdney. He smiles occasionally, he nods, he lives, he breathes; it's very pleasant. It's a much better way of having a debate than simply looking across at somebody who is the epitome of dumb insolence, you know. He kind of stands there, a little bit hangdog, or sits there and really doesn't say anything. So he's a fine fellow. I hope he will transmit to the Premier the questions that I've asked, because if I don't get any answers today, then I'm going to ask them again tomorrow.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, it's highly irregular that the assembly is called upon to debate the estimates of a minister who does not deign to grace the House with his presence and be accountable to the Legislature.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Premier is expected back.

MR. KING: Well, I'm not sure whether that is a useful thing or not, because certainly unless the first minister of the province of British Columbia is prepared to attend in the House during the consideration of his estimates and during debate as to whether or not his stewardship of the first minister's office has been such that the public can have full confidence in that minister, and that his pay and the expenditures for his ministry can be justified, then I say to you, Mr. Chairman, that the historic function of parliament is being completely frustrated and complete contempt is being shown for the traditions of British parliamentary democracy. That's a serious matter, particularly by a first minister.

There are a number of questions that.... Would the Chairman consider a recess until the Premier of the province is prepared to attend in the House and listen to the questions placed before him? This is a new twist for the parliament of British Columbia. I can understand a member or a minister leaving the chamber for a few minutes. but I have great difficulty understanding a minister who will sit mute for days on end, refuse to answer questions, and then, in the face of consideration of his estimates, leave the chamber. He's been gone some 15 minutes now; I would think that would be adequate time to attend to most of the human functions that could distract a minister from his responsibility in his estimates. I suppose all we can draw from his absence and from his stony silence is the fact that he holds this House, and elected members of this House. In contempt. That is the only conclusion one can draw when his departure is taken in concert with his refusal. day in and day out, to respond to any of the legitimate questions put to him by my colleague the Leader of the Opposition and other colleagues who have addressed questions to the minister.

Mr. Chairman, I don't know what to do with the government. I frankly don't know how I am going to explain this to my constituents. Here we have a legislative sitting that has ground to a halt because the first minister, chief of the executive council, refuses to answer questions, and then departs for whatever reasons he may have, leaving a backbencher to try to replace him.

Well, the Premier is back. I would like to address a few questions to the Premier regarding an apparent deal that was made between the province of British Columbia and an American corporation. Boeing, with respect to the operation of a jetfoil or a hydrofoil, whatever it is, between the city of Seattle and the city of Victoria.

Mr. Chairman, I am not a particularly parochial member. I recognize that this is a large province and services are needed across the length and breadth of it. But I would point out that many rural areas of British Columbia, I am sure in the north as well as in the interior, are starved for services with respect to public transportation, with respect to adequate highway maintenance and construction programs. Surely those people have a right to know the mechanics of any deal which is negotiated by the first minister of this province in his office. Whether he was totally responsible for that negotiation or not, certainly he was a party to it.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The people in my area have a right to know whether or not the commitment of their tax dollars to that plan — whatever it is, apparent subsidy to an American firm to provide transportation.... They have a right to know what it is. They have a right to compare that service and the terms and conditions of the contract surrounding it with the treatment that they are receiving, as to whether or not they are receiving full value for their tax dollars. Is there anything improper about that kind of requirement from the taxpayers of the province of British Columbia? I think, Mr. Chairman, that MLAs are elected and directed to Victoria so that they can ask questions on behalf of their constituents and expect the courtesy of a reply.

[ Page 1970 ]

It is a new twist, and it has to be the epitome of arrogance for a minister of the Crown to say: "I don't like your question, and until you are ready to design questions that I approve of I will not deign to answer them. " That has to be the epitome of contempt for the House. It has to be the epitome of arrogance in terms of one's perception of his public duty. What kind of man are we dealing with here, Mr. Chairman? What kind of standard is he setting? What kind of example and benchmark is he setting for the junior ministers in that executive council to respond to their duties and obligations to this institution when their estimates are up for consideration? Really, it's scandalous and shocking. The rest of the ministers must know about it; they must perceive this to be either unprecedented arrogance or, worse, cold and clammy fear.

What are the rest of ministers in that executive council to think, Mr. Chairman? Do they know whether the Premier is just too arrogant to respond to legitimate questions of public policy and public administration from his office? Do they know whether it's that or whether it's cold fear that's gripping his heart and won't allow him to be candid and open and frank with the House? If those questions are in the minds of his ministers, I have to ask whether this man is competent to lead the province of British Columbia. Does he enjoy the confidence of the electorate? Does he enjoy the confidence of his own cabinet colleagues?

I don't know whether I'm going to have any more success than any of my colleagues in terms of eliciting information and a candid response from the Premier. I'm sorry. If he would start to answer questions, I have no particular desire to get into a great debate with the Premier. There are a number of questions that I want to raise. I think they're legitimate. They're not particularly political; they're public information. But unless I receive some indication, Mr. Chairman, that the Premier intends to even recognize the role of Her Majesty's official opposition, it seems almost futile to go into the exercise of placing these questions on the record of the House.

Well, I'll try one. I've been intrigued by a police investigation that took place into the conduct of certain Social Credit staff people respecting the dirty tricks affairs, the writing of phony letters and allegations of forgery surrounding those letters. That investigation has been completed, Mr. Chairman, and I think I'm entitled, under the circumstances, to question and to comment on the investigation as such. It's not really the investigation I'm getting at anyway; it's the Premier's response to that investigation, when police officers attended, apparently at the Premier's office, seeking to interview one or more people from the Social Credit caucus research staff.

What I found very interesting was the Premier's comment that the reason he had someone notifying the Social Credit staff people that the RCMP or the city police, whoever they were, were there to interview them was because the Premier did not want to see these young ladies on the Social Credit caucus staff unduly frightened by the police. He wanted to prepare them for the ordeal of being questioned by the police in the province of British Columbia. I forget what his precise language was, but I wish the Premier would explain to me why he felt it was necessary to act as a go-between for Social Credit caucus staff, which he had earlier said he had nothing to do with — that was caucus business.... Out of his office he felt it was necessary to use one of his employees as a go-between to notify the Social Credit caucus staff that police were going to be questioning them about their role in dirty tricks.

Now the thing that bothers me about it.... It's a small point, I suppose, but I thought that legislators, lawmakers, had a responsibility not only to write the laws that the police are a component of enforcing, but to try to persuade the citizenry that the police force should be a social instrument of protection and should not be feared by innocent parties in the public. I wonder why the Premier felt it was necessary to advise and counsel Social Credit caucus staff: "The police are going to be here to question you, and I don't want you to be concerned or frightened by it. " Does the Premier extend that kind of consideration to any other ordinary, average citizen in British Columbia who may become involved in a police investigation? Does any other member of this Legislature feel obliged to go and intervene between a police investigation and a constituent? I say the answer to that is clearly "of course not, " unless there is a suggestion that the police have acted improperly in some way in interrogating a citizen or denying him natural justice of some kind. Then, of course, they have access to legal counsel.

I find it curious that the chief of the executive council of the province of British Columbia, the number one lawmaker in the province, the Premier of the province, felt compelled to act as some kind of a shield to Social Credit caucus staff in terms of their experience with the police. Why was that? What kind of signal does that send out? What did the Premier mean? Why did he feel it was necessary to have someone from his office phone that Social Credit caucus staff and say: "The police are here and I wanted to alert you; I didn't want you coming in here cold and being frightened."

My constituents don't get that kind of treatment. They don't receive it from me, they don't receive it from the Premier, and I suggest that there should be one law for all citizens in the province of British Columbia. There should be no special protection, no special intercedence, no running interference — certainly not by the Premier's office — for those who happen to be employees of the Social Credit Party, when citizens of the province in general do not receive that kind of consideration. I don't want to put an unfair complexion on the thing but they are questions that come to mind, in my view legitimately, as a result of the Premier's statements.

If the Premier is prepared to get up and tell me that there was some plausible and acceptable reason for it, fair enough. What concerns me is that we not have two standards in the province: one standard of justice and administration for those citizens out there who have no political clout but who pay the taxes, and another for the people on the inside who happen to be associated with the governing party. That's what concerns me. The Premier may have a plausible excuse, a plausible reason why he did this. I would be very happy to hear it because, quite frankly, I have been questioned on that point by quite a number of people in the province of British Columbia. They say: "Why is that? Why did that happen?"

I would appreciate it if the Premier would give me some response to that question. I think it is a legitimate question. I will take my seat at this point and ask the Premier, with all due respect, if he would mind explaining what his purpose was, what his motivation was, in taking the course he did.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, is it the Premier's intention to answer any questions which are in order — put to him by the opposition during his estimates? Why is it that the Whip informs us today is going to be Premier's estimates day

[ Page 1971 ]

and he refuses to participate in what the Whips have arranged as the debate for today? The Whips made an arrangement for us to go into committee to deal with the Premier's estimates. He has been asked specific questions all afternoon; he doesn't wish to answer. Was he not prepared for today? Why is the House being forced to go into committee on the Premier's estimates when the Premier refuses to participate in his own estimates?

I move the Chairman do now leave the chair.

Interjection.

MR. BARRETT: There has been intervening business.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: On a point of order, I'd just like some guidance from the Chair — not from the Leader of the Opposition — in regard to the motion, which I would believe to be out of order since that motion cannot follow an earlier motion without some business intervening. I am not aware of any that has.

MR. BARRETT: We certainly aren't aware of the Premier, but we've had some.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The motion that the Chairman do now leave the chair is not in order; there has been no intervening business.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, would you define why the motion that the Chairman do now leave the chair is not in order? There has been intervening business; there has been debate. If you rule there is no business, that's fine; we know what Bennett's been doing then.

MR. CHAIRMAN: "Intervening business" is something that could be entered into the Journals of the House, such as a vote.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I challenge your ruling.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair's ruling has been challenged.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

Mr. Chairman's ruling sustained on the following division:

YEAS — 29

NAYS — 23

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

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The first member for Vancouver Centre on a point of order.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, it occurs to me that the Chairman whose ruling is being decided by the House, should not be voting in the House vote. It is standard practice that the member leave the chamber when the vote is being taken.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Thank you, hon. member. I will take the point under advisement, but I do advise the member at the same time that it has been traditional in this House that the member return to his seat for the vote. It has been a practice of this House, but we will look into it further.

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

ESTIMATES: PREMIERS OFFICE
(continued)

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

HON. MR. BENNETT: I must say, through you, Mr. Chairman, to members of the committee, that a number of the questions have been responded to by myself in other sittings on the estimates. Some of the members may not like the answers, and some of the members may not want to observe the traditions of this House and deal with estimates during their specific ministerial vote. This is the way the government will continue to respond to the normal procedures. That is why, Mr. Chairman, I have answered all the questions that relate specifically to the Premier's office that can be dealt with. As for those other areas, as much as the members — and I'm sure they're sincere — desire information, I'm sure that information will be forthcoming.

The estimates of the Minister of Transportation and Highways and other ministries that cover a number of these areas will be up soon. Some of the questions have been based on incorrect assumptions and statements and, as such, I have brought up that it makes them unanswerable.

One question that was brought up dealt with an area in which this House has dealt, and that is our concern with high interest rates and the Bank of Canada. I think it was the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi), or perhaps it was the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King), who asked whether we had held any discussions with the governor of the Bank of Canada.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're hearing voices. It was the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair).

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, it was one of the members opposite.

[ Page 1972 ]

MR. BARRETT: Oh, answer the questions relating to your office.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The Leader of the Opposition is again, as he is wont to do, speaking rudely from his chair. Having been given ample time to pose questions of great public interest, he has chosen again, in his own way and in his own style, to use the time of the committee. There are questions which I have responded to, and where they should be directed elsewhere I pointed that out, through you, Mr. Chairman, to the member. But that's not enough for him. He must continue now to mumble, and I'm glad I can't hear them, because I'm sure I would probably have to ask you to call him to order if I could hear distinctly what he's saying. All I see is him mouthing the words and hearing this high-pitched noise.

Mr. Chairman, it was asked by one of the members of the opposition today whether the government and I, as Premier, had dealt at any time with the Bank of Canada governor Bouey. I would point out again that it is a matter of public record that the governor of the Bank of Canada met here last year with myself as Premier, at which time I had voiced our objections. Since that time those objections have continued to be voiced. I announced in the Legislature on Friday that I was sending a further communication to Governor Bouey to do with the high interest rates imposed by the Bank of Canada.

During that member's representation he alluded to the fact that — not to the fact, but he made a suggestion — I had personally attacked the governor, which is incorrect. I took great pains to say I had great personal respect for the Governor, but felt very strongly that the governor of the Bank of Canada should present himself not just to myself but to a meeting of the four western Premiers: Premier Lougheed, Premier Blakeney, Premier Lyon and myself. I felt that this part of our country was perhaps one of the first political opportunities to meet with heads of government when there appears to be a unanimity of purpose — a unanimity against high interest rates imposed by the Bank of Canada. I was very concerned that Governor Bouey was unable to or would not attend the Western Premiers' Conference. I asked him to reconsider. I also sent a letter to the new chairman of the Western Premiers' Conference, Premier Lougheed, about my concerns, and because of the great importance I attached to Governor Bouey's presence at the conference I suggested that we could accommodate him on the agenda. I also felt that the people of western Canada particularly and the people of Canada as a whole would expect that once this offer was extended it would be taken up. Not only in our province but in our country as well I see the issue of high interest rates from the Bank of Canada, which result in problems filtering down to homeowners, renters, small business people and others, as the primary problem in this country today. As I have said, those same high interest rates, imposed not by parliament but by the Bank of Canada, apparently with the blessing of the government of Canada, do not give a strong or clear financial policy in this country.

In bringing up this matter, the opposition member asked what positive suggestions this government has. I might point out — I see the Leader of the Opposition is leaving once again — that I mentioned that in committee in this legislative chamber. He's come back, Mr. Chairman.

MR. BARRETT: Are you going to answer my questions?

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

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Premier will address the Chair, and all other members will retain their place, because the Premier is speaking.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member is feeling particularly chirpy today.

On Friday I mentioned numerous times in this chamber just because of that interruption I will take you back — that our concern was with high interest rates. I also offered some suggestions on economic policy, which the government of Canada — and now the Leader of the Opposition is leaving again — can implement to prevent capital from fleeing the country. It could also target in on at least two areas we have identified as reaching a crisis in this country — that is, to restore capital cost allowances and an expanded MURB program to harness the capital and savings of the people of Canada, not into high-interest loans, but to divert them into equity ownership in the construction of rental accommodation and housing, which is particularly critical to the people of British Columbia and western Canada.

I know that the high interest rates of the Bank of Canada do not appear to be part of a positive economic policy, but merely a mechanism by which they are keeping capital from flowing out of the country and trying to use it to attract new capital. I believe the propals we made specifically directed to housing construction and rental accommodation would prevent that capital from leaving, and they could attract sufficient other capital to help in a number of areas.

I am sorry that when we get onto these serious topics the Leader of the Opposition finds them boring and leaves the chamber. There are a lot of people out there counting on not just the suggestions of the government but also those from the opposition, to try and find solutions to this very real problem. But while the consequences of federal responsibility are shared by all the people of the country.... This little Social Credit government is just trying to be a part of the solution. We've put a number of suggestions forward both in this chamber and nationally as to how we can resolve some of these problems for our people. So I was surprised today when one of the members of the opposition not only seemed unaware of meetings that had taken place with Governor Bouey, but also of the fact that I announced in this chamber that I was sending a letter last Friday concerning the present policies of the Bank of Canada. Those are but a few of the suggestions we have. I hope that points out to that member, or those members of the opposition who were apparently unaware not only of what the government had done but of what discussions and actions had taken place in the past.

A suggestion from the opposition was that somehow this government had only discovered high interest rates. Well, Mr. Chairman, as individuals we've shared them with other Canadians for some time. We have felt their effects, and this government consistently, since elected, has not only spoken out but put them on the record as part of the area of our economic policy that needed the attention of governments in this country. We've called for the formation of national economic policy to be established, not unilaterally by the government of Canada, and not even on its own by the Bank of Canada, apparently with or without consultation with the

[ Page 1973 ]

federal government. We've called for the participation of provincial governments, who in this, our federal system, have a unique responsibility and play a key economic role in the decisions that we, as governments, can make, and our areas of responsibility, our ownership of resources.

You will remember, Mr. Chairman, that British Columbia owns about 95 percent of our resources; about 95 percent of all the land, all of the minerals and the forests are owned by the provincial government in right of the Crown. One of the other areas of policy we've tried to attack is to provide, when it comes to land, greater opportunity for individual ownership; because it is my belief that we have the smallest amount of land — and yet we have this large province — in the hands of private citizens of any state or province in North America. That means our people are starving for a greater opportunity to own as individuals. They feel no accomplishment through collective land.

It is because of this ownership, the fact that our economic policies can be so much a part of decisions we must make in developing national policy; the fact that we own the land and the resources; the fact that provincial government financial actions, the agencies of government.... Mr. Chairman, that is why we need representation with the federal government in developing national policy. We need direct representation on the agency which the member brought up this afternoon, the Bank of Canada. That bank, a central bank, which sets the guidelines for all of the monetary system in this country, is not owned by Ottawa. It is supposed to be responsive to Canada from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and that includes British Columbia. You yourself, Mr. Chairman, have spoken many times of the uniqueness not only between the various regions of the country but even in our, own province — the demands of your region. And you've spoken most eloquently for the people of central British Columbia.

You recognize, then, that we need policy-making that takes in regional interest as well as the federal interest. That is why these proposals have been put forward by British Columbia both in a constitutional sense and in an economic sense to try and provide some help and some means of providing the answers in the country. It has not been negative. It has been an attempt to have from the people of British Columbia's government over the last four and a half years positive participation not just at first ministers' conferences but in the day-to-day relations with the government of Canada and the other provinces with which we share this country.

Mr. Chairman, that has been a prime change in the policy or perhaps not the policy but the attitudes of British Columbia towards the rest of the country. That is, we have gone out of our way to inject British Columbia into the mainstream of thinking in the rest of Canada. We haven't ignored conferences; we haven't not attended conferences. On the contrary, one of the criticisms that came up from the opposition was the fact that government had so many people, not only ministers but other members of the professional bureaucracy or government staff, having to attend meetings with other governments and the government of Canada. That's been an important change in relationships. We have attempted through those meetings to secure not only agreements beneficial to British Columbia, but to try to secure a policy agreement that will be beneficial to other parts of Canada and all Canadians. We've taken many of our proposals to these meetings that have not yet been considered economically, transport for instance.

We've prepared information on the guaranteed annual income or the negative income tax as a means to perhaps consider providing equity among Canadians wherever they live in the country, an equity that would overcome regional differences, that might better harness the large amounts of money that are transferred in transfer payments in bringing equity to individuals. Those are a matter of record, Mr. Chairman; those are just a few of the things that have been done at a national level.

But to have a member of the opposition get up, Mr. Chairman, and ask about events in the Bank of Canada and our concern and make the sort of suggestion that this government has just recently become concerned not only is not in tune with the record of this government, but certainly is not in tune with the fact which every other British Columbian knows, that not only in British Columbia but in all of Canada, this government is in the forefront, and this government has spent more time in a constructive way, a very vocal way, fighting against the imposition of high central bank charges on the people of this country. It's in the history of our party to fight those charges. and we will continue to fight those charges.

If anyone has lately discovered it, then perhaps it's been the official opposition who, while they discover everything to criticize during this session, have not found any way to offer any constructive programs or help. We're still waiting and we're willing to consider such constructive suggestions. I also know that the member, while I was out of the House, brought up the B.C. Resources Investment Corporation, but, Mr. Chairman, that should be better canvassed....

MR. LEVI: Oh, yes, we know that.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well. I'd like to talk on BCRIC.

MR. LEVI: Well, comment on it; don't stand there sloughing off.

HON. MR. BENNETT: And the same member who was wrong before says he doesn't like BCRIC. I say that's the difference, because philosophically you believe in government ownership and we believe in individual ownership. I'm willing to debate that with the member any day. The member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi) very clearly demonstrated his ability to run the people's business in a financial way when he was in government.

Mr. Chairman, because it appears late and the members are becoming a little vocal, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

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

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

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:45 p.m.