[ Page 1975 ]

CONTENTS

Presenting Petitions

Taxing northern residents on benefits.

Mr. Passarell –– 1975

Reading and Receiving Petitions

Supplemental ferry to Powell River Queen.

Clerk-Assistant 1975

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions

Administration of Tourism ministry. Mrs. Dailly –– 1975

Minimum wage. Ms. Sanford –– 1976

Fluoridation. Mr. Cocke –– 1976

Hospital waiting lists. Mr. Cocke –– 1977

Ecological damage by all-terrain vehicles. Mr. Hanson 1977

Pollution of Penticton beach. Mr. Skelly –– 1977

Ministerial Statement

Increase in old-age pensions.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy –– 1977

Routine Proceedings

Committee of Supply; Premier's Office estimates.

On vote 9.

Mr. Macdonald –– 1978

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1979

Mr. King –– 1979

Mr. Lauk –– 1981

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1981

Mr. Howard –– 1984

Mr. Lea –– 1987

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1990

Mr. Lauk –– 1990

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1990

Mr. Lorimer –– 1990

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 1991

Mr. Cocke –– 1992

Mr. Macdonald –– 1993

Mr. Leggatt –– 1993

Mr. Howard –– 1995

Division that the committee rise and report progress –– 1996

Mr. Howard –– 1996

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 1996

Debate on the motion to set the time of the next sitting.

Mr. Howard –– 1998

Mr. King –– 1999

Mr. Barber –– 1999

Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm –– 2001

Mr. Lea –– 2001

Mr. Lauk –– 2002

Hon. Mr. McClelland –– 2002

Mr. Cocke –– 2004

Hon. Mr. Gardom –– 2004

Tabling Reports

British Columbia Cellulose Company financial statements for the year ending December 31, 1979.

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 2005

TUESDAY, APRIL 15, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

HON. MR. FRASER: Mr. Speaker, I don't very often get the honour to introduce people from my home town. In the public galleries today there are several, all good Social Crediters: my bosses Elaine and Peter Couldwell, Doug Couldwell, Audrey King, Doreen Bourque, Jean Closson, and my wife Gertrude. I'd like the House to welcome them.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I hope they don't stay here too long; they may not continue to be good Social Crediters.

From the Royal City I would like to introduce the Legislative Monitoring Committee. This is a group of 60 people that has come every year since 1970, checking to see how we're doing with the capital that was removed from the Royal City. I hope that the House will welcome that group.

Mr. Speaker, while I'm still on my feet, on behalf of the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), I would like to introduce the Ladysmith Junior Secondary School students, and their teacher, Miss Hargreaves. They'll be in the gallery later.

HON. MR. McGEER: Mr. Speaker, I have great pleasure in informing the House that today we have some students from the riding of Vancouver–Point Grey, Kitsilano Secondary School, and their teacher John Ippen. I hope the House will bid them a warm welcome and be on their best behaviour.

HON. MR. GARDOM: Mr. Speaker, I've been informed that Mrs. Betty Williams, the 1976 Nobel Peace Prize winner, arrived in Vancouver today to keep a speaking engagement in the province. She is the lady who, as all members know, was awarded the prize for her efforts in rallying the mothers of Northern Ireland in a very massive campaign to try to end the fighting in that country. She is in our province, and I think all members would like to bid her a special welcome and thank her very much for the work that she has done.

HON. MR. HEWITT: Mr. Speaker, I have two groups to introduce to the House today: first of all, old friends of mine from my credit union days, Mr. and Mrs. Art Langridge from Vancouver; and with them are guests from England, Mr. and Mrs. Raymond Puddifoot of London and Mr. Dudley Taylor of Dorset.

Also in the gallery today, Mr. Speaker, is Mr. Les Moon, who is heading up a five-man delegation from the B.C. Chamber of Commerce; this is the agricultural committee. I've had a most enjoyable hour and a half with these gentlemen discussing the role of agriculture in this province. I'd like the House to bid these two groups welcome.

MR. BARNES: Mr. Speaker, in the galleries this afternoon is a constituent of mine, Miss Maureen O'Heam. I would like to ask the House to welcome this fine person.

MR. REE: Mr. Speaker, I'd like this House to welcome a constituent of mine who is in the gallery this afternoon, Mr. John Ewens, deputy executive director of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of British Columbia.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: In our gallery today are members of the British Columbia Social Credit Auxiliary — the Mae Bennett auxiliary, our provincial auxiliary. With the members is the president, Mrs. Zonzabell Sather, and I'd like to ask all members of this House to welcome them warmly.

Presenting Petitions

MR. PASSARELL: I ask leave of the House under standing order 73 to present a petition.

Leave granted.

MR. PASSARELL: I have a petition from the northern communities of northwestern British Columbia containing 900-plus signatures. The prayer reads as follows: "We, the undersigned, demand that the federal and provincial governments resist taxing northern residents on our benefits, and we further demand that the government cease and desist on the retroactive taxing of our benefits."

Reading and Receiving Petitions

CLERK-ASSISTANT: Report, Office of the Clerk, April 14, 1980. Pursuant to standing order 73(6), I have to inform the House that the petition presented on April 14 last with leave of the House by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) is irregular in the following respects: the petition is not addressed to the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia and the petition is without a prayer.

All of which is respectfully submitted, 1. M. Home, Clerk of the House.

Oral Questions

ADMINISTRATION OF TOURISM MINISTRY

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Tourism. A report, asked for and commissioned by the provincial government on the state of the tourism industry in the province of British Columbia, severely criticizes the running of the Ministry of Tourism and the government for failing to give tourism the attention that it deserves and for failing to plan ahead. I wonder if the minister could tell the House if she has read this report.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: First of all, the report to which you refer was commissioned by TIDSA, under the federal and provincial governments — which I think would interest you. Secondly, Madam Member, I wonder why you would knock success. The tourism industry in British Columbia has never been better. Development in British Columbia has never been greater, whether it is in Fort St. John, where there is a new Holiday Inn, whether it is in Dawson Creek or in Kelowna, where there has been the rebuilding of hotels.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Have you read the report?

HON. MRS. JORDAN: The report has not been released to the public, but the industry is booming.

[ Page 1976 ]

MRS. DAILLY: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, we seem to have a problem in getting a very definitive answer from the minister. My original question to her was: has she read the report? I presume from her defensive attitude that she has read it. I don't think the people of the province are interested in just short-term gains; we're interested in longterm planning. I wonder if the minister could tell us if she is planning to pay some attention to this report and do some long-term planning for the tourism industry.

HON. MRS. JORDAN: Madam Member, I appreciate your comments and I'm sure everyone in the House does. As you know, the government acted on some of the suggestions that you suggest might be in this report, long before you seem to even have heard of the report or known that it was commissioned. The Premier appointed a separate Ministry of Tour ism and a separate minister. In the Speech from the Throne in this House there was a very definitive statement by His Honour that tourism was recognized and would be recognized in British Columbia as a major resource industry of our province. As such it now, as a ministry, sits on many of the policy-making boards.

I would suggest the comments of the hon. member, while well-intentioned, I'm sure, reflect a concern in tourism right across Canada. The member will find in time that British Columbia under this government picked up a very ailing industry and has brought it to the forefront in Canada and in North America in terms of its attractiveness to other areas, in terms of its development and, yes, Madam Member, in terms of its planning for the future.

MR. HALL: On a supplementary, I wonder if the Minister of Tourism could confirm that the first full-time Minister of Tourism in this province was the Hon. Leo T. Nimsick, member for Cranbrook, and that the first full-time Minister of Tourism in this province was indeed appointed by the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett) when he was Premier of this province.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question suggests its own answer, hon. member. Does the Minister of Tourism wish to answer?

HON. MRS. JORDAN: I appreciate the member's comment. He did pick up on my statement. Yes, indeed, under the NDP there was a lame-duck Minister of Tourism. The figures were 42 percent of what the tourism figures are today, and it was this government, Mr. Member, that took tourism and helped it come together and become the major industry that it is in this province today.

MINIMUM WAGE

MS. SANFORD: My question is to the Minister of Labour. British Columbia's minimum wage rate of $3 per hour for adult workers is the lowest in Canada as a percentage of the average weekly earnings. Given that it is the workers who are forced to work at or near the minimum wage who are particularly hard hit by inflation, and that British Columbia has not raised its minimum wage rate since June 1976, has the minister decided to raise the minimum wage?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the question is out of order as it implies future action and policy.

MS. SANFORD: I'm asking whether or not the minister has made a decision. I'm not asking about future policy. I'm just simply asking whether or not he has made a decision about the minimum wage rate in British Columbia.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, the question does definitely suggest future action of the government and as such is out of order.

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, may I follow this up? I'm not asking what his decision is or what future action he might take. I'm simply asking if on this day he has made a decision with respect to the minimum wage rate. I'm not asking what he intends to do about it.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: To the hon. member, it's interesting that that matter should come up at this time, because I have been reviewing the matter of minimum wage, and I have recommendations before me. It is interesting that the question from the opposition should come at this time because there's a meeting scheduled on this this week, as I recall.

MS. SANFORD: I thank the minister for his answer, Mr. Speaker. I am wondering if one of the topics that the minister would consider with his committee would be the matter of an indexing formula which would ensure that the minimum wage rate goes up as the cost of living increases. Would the minister consider bringing that up at the meeting to be held next week? Has the minister considered bringing it up?

Mr. Speaker, maybe I could word it this way: has the minister circulated a memo suggesting that indexing of the minimum wage rate be on the agenda for the meeting to be held next week?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The question is in order.

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The answer is no.

MR. LEGGATT: My question is directed to the same minister. Under the present Employment Standards Act of British Columbia it is mandatory that there be a recommendation every year with respect to minimum wage. Now since we haven't had an increase in the minimum wage in British Columbia for the years '76, '77 and '78, can the minister advise us as to what the recommendations were that had been made to that minister, or his predecessors, with regard to the minimum wage over the past two years?

HON. MR. HEINRICH: Mr. Speaker, I think I would like to take that particular question on notice. I'm not sure what happened when it was done last, but I gather that it has been done within the period of time to which the hon. member has referred.

FLUORIDATION

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health. Now that the minister has declared his support for fluoridation, would he advise the House as to what steps he has taken to persuade the water districts and the municipalities to implement his proposals?

[ Page 1977 ]

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, first of all I have no proposals. Secondly, the member — I'm sure unwittingly — has quoted me just a little bit out of context. However, I think I'll be able to get a tape of the interview so I'll be able to give him the precise words I used, if that's what he wants to hear.

I did say that my staff informed me that the dental costs in British Columbia would be about half what they presently are if there were universal fluoridation. I also made it clear that the law is — and probably will remain — that that's a matter for individual people in areas to make up their minds on, not for this government.

HOSPITAL WAITING LISTS

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the same minister. Would the minister inform the House what steps he has taken to alleviate the waiting lists of one year and more in extended care? They have been government for four years, and I'm asking the question.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, it would be helpful to me, in giving an answer to that question, if the member would tell me what particular hospitals he's referring to.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, there is a universal waiting list for extended care. It's been broken down now into regions. In the Greater Vancouver Regional District the extended-care list, for instance at Queens Park Hospital, has increased from eight months to over a year in the past three months. The minister was asking; it was question period for him.

Mr. Speaker, I ask again: what steps has he taken? They have been government a long time. Nothing was done by the former minister, and I wonder whether this minister is going to do something.

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be helpful and provide an answer to the member opposite. However, I haven't got a very specific question to answer. I will, however, look into the question, read the Blues, and see if I can detect something capable of some sort of answer. If there is, I'll give it to him.

ECOLOGICAL DAMAGE BY ALL-TERRAIN
VEHICLES

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing. Has the minister received a report from the Similkameen-Okanagan Park Society regarding the use of off-highway vehicles in ecologically sensitive areas around Okanagan Lake?

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I read their press release in the newspapers first, and then I did receive some kind of report from them.

MR. HANSON: I'm going to assume, Mr. Speaker, that the minister has not read the report. I have a supplementary question. The report outlines the damage done each year by off-highway vehicle drivers who do not follow the responsible example of their fellows. Since there are now very few areas which cannot be reached by all-terrain vehicles — alpine areas, wetlands, and areas and so on — has the minister decided to take any action to discourage the continuing abuse of the landscape? It becomes more and more imperative as the summer tourist season approaches.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Yes — before you ask the question.

MR. HANSON: Would the minister please advise the House what specific action he has in mind for discouraging the abuse of the landscape by all-terrain vehicles? What specifically has he decided to do?

HON. MR. CHABOT: It's a matter of public record.

POLLUTION OF PENTICTON BEACH

MR. SKELLY: My question is directed to the Minister of Environment. Water samples taken at one of the most popular family beaches in Penticton in March of this year indicate fecal coliform levels up to 23 times the accepted health standards. What action has his ministry taken to locate the source of pollution in order to evaluate the situation and remedy this appalling and dangerous development?

Interjections.

HON. MR. ROGERS: I'm getting all sorts of assistance, Mr. Speaker, but I'll take the question as notice.

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make a short statement, if I may.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Proceed.

INCREASE IN OLD-AGE PENSIONS

HON. MRS. McCARTHY: The throne speech in the federal House has indicated that there will be an increase of $35 in the federal guarantee for Canadians who are 65 and older. All persons who are 65 and older are entitled to old-age security, which is presently set at $186.80. In addition, the federal government guarantees that no eligible senior citizen shall have an income of less than $340.15 from all sources. In British Columbia the provincial government provides for a higher guarantee level, which is presently $379.03 for single persons who are 65 and older, and $720.28 for married couples. This is achieved by paying up to $38.88 to bring a single person's income up to the provincial guarantee, and $99.66 to do likewise for a couple.

It is the intention of my government to pass along the federal increase to senior citizens in British Columbia, as we have always done in the past. This will be achieved by increasing the provincial guarantee level to accommodate the $35 increase to the federal GIS when it occurs.

My office receives many letters of concern from senior citizens and from anxious and concerned families every time there's a change in the payments announced in the press — by any level of government, and particularly in a federal initiative. In order to allay any fears that may arise or may be initiated in some way — either intentionally or otherwise — I wanted to make clear at this time that this government, as has always been done by this government, will pass the federal amount on to the senior citizens.

[ Page 1978 ]

MS. BROWN: May I take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister of Human Resources and her government for passing on in full the $35 which the federal government have indicated they will be giving to senior citizens, and to say that I regret that the former Liberal member, Mr. Gordon Gibson, who prodded the government into doing this in the first place, is not here to join me in congratulating this government in carrying on this practice.

Orders of the Day

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

HON. MR. GARDOM: Before calling the vote, it's just come to my attention, Mr. Chairman, that today is the twenty-sixth wedding anniversary of the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer). I'm sure this assembly would like to extend every congratulation and compliment to his wife, and certainly commend her upon her tolerance and her remarkable powers of understanding.

ESTIMATES: PREMIER'S OFFICE

(continued)

On vote 9: minister's office, $551,612.

MR. MACDONALD: Everybody wants to be businesslike today, and we're on the Premier's salary vote. We have some questions that are still in Hansard that have not been answered by the Premier  in fact, all of them that have been asked by the opposition. But let's not get into an argument about that, but be businesslike today.

I want to remind the Premier that about a week ago I asked him about serious public business that nobody else can answer for but the Premier — and at no other time should it be answered for but night now — and that's the existence of the trust funds that were garnered around the Premier's office — three of them, I believe. The questions I asked the Premier I'm sure he has a note of — at least a mental note. They were very simple. I asked him who the co-signer — whom Ian Adam referred to — of these trust funds was. Was it the Premier? Was it a member of his office staff, such as Dave Brown or Dan Campbell — somebody on the public payroll?

The Premier at one point — and I don't know whether it was a shake of his head or a nod; I suppose we should be glad that at least he recognized the question.... I think it was a shake of the head. It couldn't have been a nod. What do they say? A nod is as much use to you as a wink from a blind horse, and that wouldn't have helped us at all. That's the only answer we've got from the Premier in ten days of questioning. What I detected to be a shake of the head when he was asked directly, "Were you a co-signer of one or the other of the trust accounts that were raised for campaign purposes around your office...?" At least the Premier recognizes a legitimate question when he hears one. But he didn't get to his feet, and I don't know whether it was a nod or a shake.

I think he should stand in his place in the Legislature and tell us whether he was a co-signer of one of those trust accounts. I think the House wants to know from the Premier whether any of the people who contributed to these special funds that were gathered through his office — not through the Social Credit Party.... Did any of the money come from outside of Canada? That's a fair question and a question of importance to the people of this province. I want to know whether any of the people who contributed money through the Premier's office were doing business with the government. It appears that they were. The Premier owes the people of B.C. an explanation, because Austin Taylor Jr. is involved in the brokerage firm, as everyone knows, that arranged the financing for two of the ferries at considerable profit and safety as far as that brokerage firm, McLeod, Young, Weir, in Toronto is concerned. So that is a legitimate question that only the Premier can answer.

We want to know whether any of the employees in the Premier's office were engaged in the collection or disbursement of campaign funds, particularly the funds that were not collected by the party. We want to know why the funds that were collected around the Premier's office were not reported in the election total declared by the Social Credit Party. A false return was filed, as everybody in the province of British Columbia knows, and we have had no explanation from the Premier. We have not had the explanation as to whether this was the result of the activities of Dan Campbell, who was employed by the government and the people, or Dave Brown, Ron Grieg or other people in his office. Was the Premier himself directly involved in authorizing the collection of these separate funds around his office so that he would have control over the Social Credit Party and be able to spend them on his own?

We have asked, Mr. Chairman, why election bills for pamphlets and things of that kind should, in this province of British Columbia, be addressed as they were. They were sent to the Social Credit Party headquarters, directly to the Premier's office and to the attention of Dave Brown. Now that's a matter that is established on the record, and the people have a right to know what the Premier knew about this, what he has done about it and who the co-signers of these funds were. How much did the Premier know about this illegal collection of campaign funds in his office, and was he directly involved or were any of his employees who were on the public payroll of the province of British Columbia involved? Why should a false election return have been prepared when, in good faith, the Social Credit Party declared all that they knew had been collected and spent under the law? But other funds, including thousand-dollar bills that were floating around, were emanating directly from the collection of funds in the Premier's office. These are questions of supreme public interest, because if people seeking favours can give money directly to slush funds collected around the Premier's office, then democracy is being undermined.

As I ask these questions, Mr. Chairman, I would remind the Premier and all of the members of this House that these funds would never have come to light but for an innocent statement on another subject made by Tony Tozer in answering another question. As a result of that, their existence became known. So I'm asking the Premier about these funds and what he has done about them. Who was the co-signer? The House should not be content with what was either a shake of the head or a nod by the Premier, which, while it recognizes in that little motion that the question is legitimate.... It does not satisfy legislative requirements of ministerial responsibility to stand up in your place when you are a minister and answer questions that affect your conduct in the high office that you hold.

Mr. Chairman, is the Premier not going to answer these questions after seven or eight days?

[ Page 1979 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: The second member for Vancouver East has the floor.

MR. MACDONALD: Really, Mr. Chairman, I still have the floor, I suppose. The disdain that the Premier is showing is not really for the opposition. It's for the people of the province when he refuses to answer direct questions about his conduct. I guess you can call it stonewalling, or whatever the word is. Mr. Premier, the people have a right to answers when your salary vote is up. No one else can answer these questions. We want, in effect, a full explanation as to whether your office has been bought by wealthy people unknown to the Legislature or the people of this province. We want to know whether your office has been bought and whether people can buy the Premier's office by making their campaign contributions directly there. Now I think the Premier should answer.

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

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the Premier's going to answer.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Before the Premier answers, hon. member, I must ask whether, when you made the statement of "buying the Premier's office," you were in no way referring to any hon. member of this House. I ask the member, please, to withdraw any such imputation.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, the people have a right to....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, I must, at this time, ask that you withdraw that imputation.

MR. MACDONALD: I'll say who I was referring to. I'm saying that one of the main fund-raisers who was bringing money directly into the Premier's office was Austin Taylor Jr., and he was doing business to his profit with the government of British Columbia. Now that's what I'm saying. Why should I withdraw that?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, in the traditions of parliamentary procedure, I ask, please, that you withdraw any imputation that the Premier's office was subject to purchase.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the statement because I see the Premier rising to give an explanation. We've been asking questions on this and I insist upon a full and proper explanation. That's what we're after.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I thank the hon. member for his withdrawal.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I would like a very explicit withdrawal and then I would like to proceed to deal with some of the incorrect statements that have been made during this debate.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. Premier, the Chair has accepted the withdrawal of the statement by the member.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, my statements are a matter of public record, but never one as the Premier, leader of our party. Number 1: no public funds are used in the financing of political parties, and as such, no funds are allocated from public funds to either our party or the New Democratic Party, nor are cheques signed by myself. Although it falls outside the responsibilities of the Premier, the allegation made, among other irresponsible allegations by the member for Vancouver East, that the Premier of the province involves himself in the collection of campaign funds is incorrect. The campaign funds of our party are designated to responsible people who collect funds in a legitimate way to fight elections, and I presume so are those of the NDP. Those funds are neither collected nor issued by me, nor have I ever signed any cheques, either public or private.

I'd like to point out, Mr. Chairman, that legitimate party expenses are made during campaigns for legitimate expenses incurred. They are the responsibility of the party and those assigned the task. At no time have I involved myself in collection, nor do I think leaders or prospective leaders of parties should be involved in what may be....

AN HON. MEMBER: You're looking at him, eh?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, I'm actually looking for your leader, whom I understand may have acted as bagman for the New Democratic Party at one time and carried the implication of those collections into office. Because I don't believe anyone who is a leader or who professes to want to be a leader should involve himself or herself in that implication of collection of campaign funds.

Nor do I believe that the disclosure of those funds should be requested by those leaders who may again have information that would affect their judgment as government as such. I have never asked nor requested a source of funds, nor would I want to be compromised in judgments of government on funds that may be donated in a legitimate way to elect, first of all, good and fair government, and to prevent from being elected what many people would consider to be, from both the record and their statements, bad government.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, my colleague, the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald), did not raise a question regarding public funds; rather he raised a question which is public knowledge regarding the administrative responsibility for election slush funds which were administered from the Premier's office. By the admission of the Premier's executive assistant, Mr. Tony Tozer, and by the admission of another assistant to the Premier, Dan Campbell, who admitted dispensing thousand-dollar bills.... Both of these individuals worked in the Premier's office under the Premier's jurisdiction and direction. He was their employer and, as such, responsible in a ministerial way to give direction to them, and, I submit, to accept responsibility for their conduct while they functioned under his administration. It should not be forgotten, Mr. Chairman, that they indeed were on the public payroll.

The sequence of events, as I recall it, is that Tony Tozer did reveal there were a number of bank accounts administered from the Premier's office; he did not indicate who had the final signing authority for those funds; Mr. Campbell admitted that he dispensed thousand-dollar bills. The Premier, as I say, presided over the process. Whether he wants

[ Page 1980 ]

to admit it, whether he wants to acknowledge it or not, he must accept the responsibility by the essence of the fact that he was not only the employer of the two individuals involved, but he as the Premier has a duty and an obligation to uphold the law in the province of British Columbia.

The fact of the matter is that the law was not upheld. Those funds dispensed for election campaign purposes were not declared under the British Columbia Provincial Elections Act — requiring some patchwork investigation from a former Attorney-General of this House, Mr. Les Peterson, and the subject of what was promised as an investigation by the current Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) when he said that he would investigate the matter to determine whether a breach of the provincial Election Act in fact took place and whether or not prosecution should follow. For the Premier of the province, in the face of that, to attempt to brush aside any involvement or responsibility is absolutely appalling. It's shameful, it's scandalous, and it's a complete denial of any responsibility which he must assume as the first minister for the government of the province of British Columbia.

I want to ask the Premier why we have an Election Act in the province of British Columbia if he says there is nothing wrong with Austin Taylor Jr. acting as the bagman, the procurer of funds for the Social Credit Party, but he as the Premier stands back and is not tainted by it — he's as clean as a whistle. Why do we have an Election Act that says all funds spent in the province of British Columbia by political parties competing in a campaign must be declared and accounted for? If the highest office in the province, the Premier's office, and those employees under his jurisdiction and direction are not prepared to recognize that statute and abide by it, how in the world can we expect the rest of the citizens of the province of British Columbia to have any respect for the provincial Election Act?

There is an old saying that he who pays the piper calls the tune. I don't know what Austin Taylor Jr. had in mind when he procured funds for the Social Credit Party, but I would certainly feet much better if all of those funds collected and expended in that campaign were declared and accounted for, as is required by law in the province of British Columbia. For the Premier to get up and suggest, "I am untainted by this; the party accounts for the campaign funds," is a sham and a mockery. The former president of the Social Credit Party, Mr. Les Keen, denies the Premier's proposition. He said: "It's about time that the party did account for all of the funds. It's about time that the secret slush funds were taken out of the purview of the Premier and restored to the proper accountability of the party." That did not take place and the Premier now expects to sit here and stonewall his way through this matter.

The Election Act, I presume, exists to make sure that there is no question of influence-peddling in terms of elections and in terms of public policy. The Election Act requires the declaration of spending for the precise reason that the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) raised: to ensure that no improper financial manipulation, no implication of bribe, no implication of purchase of a ministerial office or a government office in terms of setting public policy can be undertaken. That's the very reason for the statute.

What we have here is an allegation made some four months ago — indeed, public proof — that about one-quarter of a million dollars was not declared by the Social Credit Party, that a substantial amount of that fund was administered from the Premier's office by direct employees of the Premier, and still we have no accounting. We were promised an investigation and still there has been no report to the Legislature. The Attorney-General of the province of British Columbia stated that he would undertake an investigation to determine whether or not charges should be laid. It is my understanding that he then called upon his colleague, the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), the individual responsible for the administration of the Election Act, to have him investigate the matter.

The people of the province of British Columbia have a right to know expeditiously whether there was an abuse of the provincial Election Act; whether there was abuse of power; whether there was an abuse of the Premier's office in terms of the direction and the responsibility for the failure to report a quarter of a million dollars in the last provincial election. The people of the province of British Columbia have a right to know now; they have a right to know expeditiously rather than waiting four months so that some internal investigation, another secret investigation conducted behind closed cabinet doors, is undertaken with the impression going abroad to the public that it's yet another whitewash of government mismanagement, misbehaviour and misconduct.

It's about time that the Premier of this province gave some leadership and direction to this Legislature and certainly to his own party. He has the obligation to stand above that kind of allegation, that unseemly charge — and yes, that illegal and very, very serious charge — that has been made against the Social Credit Party.

AN HON. MEMBER: Moral leadership.

MR. KING: There has been no political leadership and indeed no moral leadership on this issue.

I want to suggest to the Premier, Mr. Chairman, that it's not good enough for him to go to his party convention and suggest that a committee on ethics be established. Where we need the ethical leadership is right in the Premier's chair and from his office. That's where it has to start coming from, and that calls for some open and frank response from the Premier. He has an obligation to stand up in this House and level with the people of the province of British Columbia on these particular questions, on other questions that my colleagues have asked regarding his meeting with people over the j etfoil service to Seattle, regarding the question that I raised the other day about his intervention in the justice system when it came to a police investigation of Social Credit caucus research staff.

I do not suggest that in that instance, Mr. Chairman, there was anything illegal, but I do think that it's curious, and I do think it's somewhat of a double standard for the Premier of the province of British Columbia to feel obliged to intervene on behalf of Social Credit employees who are being questioned by the police force regarding dirty tricks. Now when the Premier did this, he admitted publicly that he was afraid that the police might frighten and unduly cause stress to the Social Credit caucus research staff. That's rather symbolic. It means that as far as the Premier is concerned, his staff is entitled to one standard of protection in a legal investigation that the rest of the citizens of the province are not entitled to; it means that the Premier must have some concern regarding the way in which police conduct their investigations in this province. Certainly that's an inference that can be drawn. All I ask from the Premier in that respect is that he stand up and give me his rationale for so interceding.

[ Page 1981 ]

I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that as far as I am concerned, I have a public duty to the citizens of my riding to ensure that there is one standard of justice for all British Columbians. I certainly cannot guarantee to people in my riding who may be subject to police questioning and investigation that the Premier will intervene and alert them to the fact that the police are going to question them. That's what he did; that's what he did for the Social Credit caucus research staff. Why is that, Mr. Chairman? I don't like those implications. They're inequitable. It creates double standards in the province of British Columbia.

If there is anything that must be preserved, regardless of the political philosophy of the party in government at this time or any other time, it is the arm's length relationship between government and the justice system; it is the arm's length relationship between the government, the executive branch and the judiciary. There must be no inference or implication whatsoever that political influence is creeping into that process. If anyone has the obligation to defend and preserve that system as pure, regardless of partisan politics, it is the chief executive officer of the province of British Columbia, and we find him sitting in silence, refusing to answer any question. He sits in Nixonesque style and stonewalls, Mr. Chairman; he sits in Nixonesque style and refuses to respond in any way. I suggest that is shameful and appalling.

Interjection.

MR. KING: Well, perhaps the Social Credit backbenchers think it's comical, Mr. Chairman; I do not find it humorous at all. I find this whole question strikes to the very root of our system of democracy in this province, and I think that the people of the province, whether they're NDPers, whether they're Liberals or Social Crediters, in their heart of hearts recognize that there must be complete separation of the political process and the judicial process. By his silence the Premier has called that separation into question.

The Election Act exists today to protect against the illicit use of campaign funds. When a quarter of a million dollars administered by employees of the Premier's office has not been duly reported and accounted for, the Premier both morally and legally owes this House a full explanation, not flippant answers, not deviation from addressing the issue, not stonewalling and petulance. We are supposed to be mature people. We are supposed to be responsible for our public conduct and that of our office. It is incumbent upon the Premier to get up and address himself to these questions like an adult and like a senior leader of the province of British Columbia.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The answers are: no; no; your statement is incorrect; you're incorrect and your rhetoric is predictable.

MR. LAUK: The Premier has made a number of statements today, in contrast to other days.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: For a person who has been demoted you are certainly a little bit....

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

MR. LAUK: You failed in one portfolio; now you're going to attempt to fail in another.

The Premier stated that no public funds were used to finance political parties; those were his words in answer to remarks by the hon. second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) and by the hon. member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King). He said "no public funds." Yet it's readily admitted that Mr. Tozer of his office was handling Social Credit Party slush funds. Mr. Tozer of the Premier's office is on public salary. Perhaps the Premier could explain what he means by "no public funds." Do you want to answer that question?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Number one, those members of my staff or those connected with government who wished to participate in the election campaign took the same steps relating to the issuance of the election writ as did those who surrounded the New Democratic Party government when they went to the election, and as such were on leave of absence during that period.

I find it strange that the first member for Vancouver Centre would try to put some suggestion of illegality on legitimate party expenses which go on between election campaigns. As well as being Premier and travelling....

There are times when we travel to political events and the cost is paid for by the party; those funds are handled by my executive assistant, to make sure the government doesn't pay for those travelling expenses. It's a legitimate disbursement.

MR. LAUK: I thank the Premier for clarifying that point, but I'm afraid it raises more questions than it answers. With respect to Mr. Tozer, we're talking about the period prior to the election. He was handling Social Credit Party slush funds while he was being paid by the government. The second point should be made: the Premier has not assured the committee that anyone in his office had a leave of absence without pay during the election campaign. Would he kindly assure the committee that that was so? Can he assure the committee that these four persons working on the election campaign on behalf of the Social Credit Party — Mr. Tozer, Dave Brown, Ron Grieg and John Arnett — were not being paid through public funds while they were working on the campaign?

HON. MR. BENNETT: To my knowledge, only Mr. Campbell and Mr. Tozer were working on any campaign. The suggestion of the other name would be incorrect.

MR. LAUK: Can the Premier indicate why, then, Mr. Arnett, Mr. Tozer and Mr. Brown were working out of Social Credit Party election campaign headquarters in Richmond during the course of the election campaign in May?

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Arnett, former press secretary in the office, did not take part in the political campaign. He participated only in functions booked by government and government in nature prior to the election campaign.

MR. LAUK: Why were Mr. Brown, Mr. Tozer and Mr. Arnett working out of the Social Credit Party campaign headquarters, providing advice to campaign workers along

[ Page 1982 ]

with other Social Credit Party workers and volunteers, in Richmond during the last campaign?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, those involved in the campaign took the same procedures to take leave of absence as did those who worked for the New Democratic Party government when they went to the election campaign in 1975.

MR. LAUK: I'm sure that the Premier will say that it's not the first time, but I'm confused.

HON. MR. BENNETT: It's not the first time.

MR. LAUK: Thank you.

Here we have a situation where we have admissions that Mr. Brown, Mr. Grieg and Mr. Arnett were being paid by the government during the election campaign. The Premier explains that they were only doing work concerning government activities. I challenge that remark on the following basis. Mr. Tozer, Mr. Brown, Mr. Grieg and Mr. Arnett were working out of the Richmond Inn for the Social Credit Party during the course of the election campaign. Now is that true, or not true?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I've made the statement that those members who took part in the political campaign took the same procedure as did those who worked for the New Democratic Party government when they went to election in 1975. Anyone I have knowledge of who worked in the campaign took the same procedure.

MR. LAUK: I wonder how far the Premier's knowledge travels, Mr. Chairman, because we're talking about people who were directly working for the Premier. We're not talking about people who were working in some other ministry, or, let's say somewhere down the line, in the Social Credit Party. We're talking about Mr. Tozer, Mr. Brown, Mr. Grieg and Mr. Arnett — close personal interoffice advisers of the first minister of the province. He's admitted they were being paid during the election campaign.

HON. MR. BENNETT: No.

MR. LAUK: Yes, you have.

HON. MR. BENNETT: We took the same procedure you did.

MR. LAUK: All right, the Premier says that he took the same procedure as the NDP, when we were government. The "same procedure" is as follows. All executive assistants who worked in the election campaign in 1975 took a leave of absence without pay. Now we know that Mr. Tozer did not take a leave of absence without pay. Or was he the one who you said did take a leave of absence? We know that Mr. Brown was being paid by the government, we know that Mr. Grieg was being paid by the government, and we know that Mr. Arnett was being paid by the government. All those persons were working in and around the Richmond Inn from time to time during the election campaign — all being paid by the government. So the Premier is wrong when he says that his government took the same procedures as the New Democratic Party government in years past.

He's also wrong when he tells the committee that no public funds financed political parties. May I point out to you, Mr. Chairman, that not only was Mr. Campbell involved directly on behalf of the Social Credit Party — almost on a constituency to constituency basis — but other persons who were not on leave without pay were also involved, to the point of organizing in constituency organizations, to the point of organizing canvassers and raising money for the Social Credit Party, while they were being paid by the British Columbia government, by the taxpayers. Such persons as the research staff for the Social Credit caucus — in those days — while they were being paid by the government, were working in constituency organizations on behalf of the Social Credit campaign in the spring election.

I say that the Premier's remarks to this committee have been — to be charitable — careless. He is extremely careless when he says that no public funds were used to finance political parties. The legitimate question asked by the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) is the following. Can we be sure, with such a careless Premier, careless with the facts, that the commission from the taxpayer — the provincial treasury — paid out for the lease of the ferries did not in some way find its way back into the Social Credit Party slush fund? Can the people of this province and this committee be assured, with a Premier who is so careless with the facts that he said no public funds have been used for financing political parties? We know now that that's not true.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Don't try and direct the Chairman. I'm saying the statement's not true. You have an opportunity to get up and correct my statement if you like.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Member, you cannot impute a falsehood or any allegations of falsehood....

MR. LAUK: No, no. Falsehood would mean that the Premier deliberately deceived the committee; I'm not suggesting that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The Chair is only commenting to the member that the member can....

MR. LAUK: I'm suggesting that I have now brought this information to the attention of the Premier, because we have to believe the Premier when he says that he didn't know that Tozer, Brown, Grieg and Arnett were working in the Social Credit Party headquarters during the campaign. What I'm suggesting is that he is very careless in, first of all, not knowing what his close personal advisers were doing during the campaign and, secondly, careless with the facts with respect to the public funds that were used to pay these people who were working almost exclusively on behalf of the Social Credit Party and their re-election in the spring of 1979. I challenge the Premier's statements in that regard. Tozer, Brown, Grieg, Arnett, Kelly and McKay were all paid for by the government and were all actively engaged in the election campaign. They did not take leaves of absence without pay. They were being paid, with the possible exception of Mr. Campbell and/or Mr. Tozer. Brown, Grieg, Arnett, Kelly and McKay were being paid while they were in the field working on behalf of the Social Credit Party during the campaign.

[ Page 1983 ]

HON. MR. BENNETT: The first member for Vancouver Centre again misleads the House. Three members from my office were involved in the campaign. They were Mr. Brown, Mr. Tozer and Mr. Campbell, and none was paid during the period of the election writ from the time of the declaration of the nomination day. It was the same procedure as the New Democratic Party. The member for Vancouver Centre made a definite statement that Mr. Brown was paid. I wish to advise that he has provided misinformation, perhaps unwittingly, in his eagerness to try and present a situation which was not as he presented it. The answers to his other questions are no, no, no and no.

MR. LAUK: I'm amazed. Does the Premier suggest that Mr. Brown was not paid a salary from the government for the period of time that the campaign was going on? Is that what the Premier is suggesting?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The three members who worked out of the Premier's office, or Intergovernmental Affairs, were instructed not to be paid from the same time period as that taken by the New Democratic Party. That was from the period of the date nominations closed, I believe — whatever the similar period was. I am advised by message into the House that all of them took the instructions and the three were not paid in the campaign. Other names that worked in areas of either Intergovernmental Affairs or Mr. Arnett.... Mr. Arnett was not involved in the campaign.

MR. LAUK: The Premier suggests that Mr. Arnett, for example, was not involved in the campaign. What was he doing at the Richmond Inn? The Richmond Inn is not a government establishment. There's no department of government that was involved there. Is he going to suggest, perhaps, the Ministry of Tourism? It's nonsense. Mr. Arnett was there. What was he doing there? He was consulting with party officials during the period of time when the election was on. Is he suggesting that Mr. Arnett was working on government affairs at that time?

What about the research staff of the Social Credit caucus who were actively engaged in the constituency level of politics? Their wages continued. Can the Premier clear that matter up for the committee so we can be sure that the Premier, who said no public funds went into financing political parties, made a true statement?

The other point that the Premier has raised is that he says: "It would be improper for me to be aware of the funds. It shouldn't be disclosed to me where campaign funds come from, so I won't be put under pressure." This is a very confusing statement on behalf of the Premier. If it, let's say, came a year ago and we had certain procedures whereby the committee and the public could be assured that that indeed was the case — that the first minister and his government were protected from influence — that's one thing. But we have found out since that over a quarter of a million dollars had been covered up in Social Credit Party expenditures during the May 10 election period. Is he, with a straight face, seriously suggesting to the people of the province of British Columbia that he should not involve himself even at this stage to determine the source of those funds as well as the expenditure of them? Is he not concerned with the moral strength of his office, his leadership of the party and the party itself? If things went wrong, shouldn't he do absolutely everything in his power to immediately bring to the public's attention what steps he has taken personally as the leader of his party to correct them?

We have this feeble exercise of an ethics committee out of the Social Credit Party convention. All the people of that convention, who may or may not support the leader of their party, were of the view that the action had to come from the leader's chair to solve these problems and not some twofaced committee. Let's get serious! An ethics committee. There's no problem with the ethics of the ordinary members of the Social Credit Party. The problem with the ethics is in the Premier's office and in the leadership of that party. You don't need a committee at that level.

There's no point in the Premier avoiding these important ethical and moral questions surrounding his leadership and the conduct of the high officials of his party and government. He cannot avoid the answers, because the New Democratic Party, on behalf of the public — not on its own — is embarked on a solemn task to bring the Premier and his government to justice no matter how long it takes this committee and no matter how long it takes this party on this side of the House. The public of British Columbia are well aware of the cloud that's surrounding the administration of justice in this province. They're well aware of the false report of campaign funds originally filed on behalf of the Premier's party. They're well aware of the letter-writing campaign that went on under the direction and leadership of him and his party, all the way through the province, which got themselves involved in the dirty so-called Lettergate affair. And he says now that he feels it's important that he not know the source and application of Social Credit campaign funds — millions and millions and millions of dollars, in some cases coming from outside the country, outside of Canada. You have not adequately explained where that source of those funds is for the Social Credit party slush funds.

This government — this Premier — is the most investigated and impugned leadership of any government party across the country. There was an investigation into the Lettergate scandal going right to the Premier's office, with absolutely no explanation why Mr. Grieg resigned. There was an investigation into campaign funds: a quarter of a million dollars which they forget to report; thousand-dollar bills floating around out of Mr. Campbell's satchel. Are the funds American or Canadian? If they are American, who's given them to the Social Credit Party and what strings are there attached? Did any of the funds come from government funded organizations indirectly?

There's only one way to solve these tremendous questions which are facing the people of British Columbia and that's for the Premier to undertake a full disclosure of the source and application of Social Credit Party funds — that's the first point. The second point to support that is that all across this country, in several jurisdictions, it is required by law that the disclosure of application of funds going to political parties be completed and that it be published to let the people know who's paying the Socreds and who's calling the tune. It must be clearly demonstrated in a public way, because the public have a right to know who's paying the Social Credit way in this province. Let them make the judgment, Mr. Chairman; they're the best arbiters of all. Then the Premier will not have to worry about the pressures on him from campaign donors, because it'll be there for everybody to see. If a decision is made favourable to a certain company, let him explain that it wasn't because of the $5,000, $10,000,

[ Page 1984 ]

$35,000 or $100,000 donation from that company. Let him tell us how much money British Columbia Telephone Co. gives to the Social Credit Party and why that takeover by General Telephone of a further 5 percent of the dividends of B.C. Tel was approved so readily by the Premier, who only a month before so forcibly resisted the attempts of Canadian Pacific Railway to purchase the shares of MacMillan Bloedel Ltd., saying B.C. was not for sale. Let him explain if the difference in policy was because of a campaign donation from British Columbia Telephone Co. to the Social Credit Party. He would not be under those pressures, Mr. Chairman, if there was a full public disclosure of campaign funds to the Social Credit Party.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Perhaps I should remind the hon. member at this point that during committee we do discuss the administrative actions of the minister whose estimates are before us. However, we do not discuss the need for future legislation, if that is what the member is telling the Chair.

MR. LAUK: Well, Mr. Chairman, I merely point out to the committee and hon. members here and to the public that there are other provincial jurisdictions which have courageously — because they have nothing to hide — passed legislation requiring a full disclosure of the source and application of campaign funds. What could be fairer? There may be a perfect explanation for government action that may or may not be favourable to a certain company or group of persons. There may be a perfect explanation in spite of the fact that there may have been a heavy campaign donation from that company to the government party, but the public should be allowed to make that judgment — not the back rooms of a political party, not in secrecy, but in full light of day. As I say, this is an important task for us, and we don't want to delay the proceedings of the Legislature.

I repeat the questions to the Premier. Can he explain to the committee why the research staff of the Social Credit caucus were engaged in campaigning on behalf of the Social Credit Party while on full pay from the public treasury? That's the first point. Secondly, can he explain to the committee why John Arnett spent so much time at the Richmond Inn if he wasn't working on Social Credit Party activity but on government business? Thirdly, can he assure the House that one David Brown received no payment during the campaign period when the writ was dropped, which is the usual course of events, until at least the day after election day?

HON. MR. BENNETT: You made the statement.

MR. LAUK: I am asking if you would assure the House that he received no payment from public funds from the time the writ was issued for the election call until at least one day after voting day.

Fourthly, could he describe the activities of one Ron Grieg during that period of time? He suggests that Mr. Grieg of the Premier's office was not engaged in any campaign activity. Could he assure the House that is true and that he is satisfied himself that that is true? Those are the questions I have for the Premier that are unanswered.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, most of those questions have been answered, but I will seek to bring further information to the House and perhaps correct the impression left by the member for Vancouver Centre. The member talked about great courage in the government in bringing in types of legislation. I would ask where the courage was when you were government if that's what you attribute it to? Because I don't remember, on a number of major issues, seeing any of what the member for Vancouver Centre calls "courage" in a number of areas of public policy. Again, as much as I can detect the questions, the answers are no, no and no.

MR. LAUK: The Premier said: "As much as I can detect the questions, the answers are no, no and no." I asked whether he could assure the House that Ron Grieg was not active in political activity during the campaign. He said no, he can't assure the House. I asked whether he could explain to the House why the research staff of the Social Credit Party were involved in campaign activity while being paid by public funds. He says no, he can't make an explanation. The last question was whether he could assure the House that Dave Brown did not receive any payment between the time that the writ was dropped and the voting day. He said no, he can't assure the committee. I take it when he says he can't assure the committee that he is suggesting the opposite is true.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, the member is incorrect in the sequence of questions I was answering.

MR. LAUK: Perhaps the Premier could give us the proper sequence so that he could give us the answers connected to the questions. Or is he going to play cute games with the committee?

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, when the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) commenced this afternoon's conversation, the Chair drew his attention to what the Chair thought might have been an imputation of motive or wrongdoing on the part of the Premier. I just want to indicate that in the commencement part I listened carefully to what the second member for Vancouver East said, and there was no imputation and no intention of imputation. But he did, as requested by the Chair, withdraw — removing any thought that might have been in the Chair's mind of imputation. I'm not saying this by way of criticizing the Chair, because I know the way to do that is by a substantive motion. That is not my purpose or intention this afternoon.

When the Premier rose to reply, at one stage he made reference to the first member for Vancouver East (Mr. Barrett) possibly having been at one time what the Premier called a "bagman" for the NDP. I wrote down his words. The Premier went on to say: "He" — indicating the first member for Vancouver East — "may have carried implications of campaign funds into office." The Chair was wont at that time to let that piece of innuendo and slur on the part of the Premier pass by. I think it's worth saying that the Premier doesn't mind tossing out little snide remarks from time to time in the hopes that they'll stick, whether or not there's any truth to them. Perhaps that statement of the Premier's — the innuendo in his reference to the first member for Vancouver Centre — is indicative of the way the Premier conducts all affairs in his office — namely, not straight out, not right up front, not full, complete and open.

The Premier, in reply, tried to dissemble the whole question by saying there were no public funds for political parties out of his office, that he didn't collect any campaign

[ Page 1985 ]

funds, he didn't spend any money, either campaign or public funds, on political parties or political activities. That's acceptable; that's in fact, I'm sure, what happened. He said the other day, with respect to some slush fund that was operated out of his office, that, no, he didn't sign the cheques. He wasn't a co-signer on any of those cheques. That's quite accepted; the word of the Premier is taken as stated. But what we are involved in here, Mr. Chairman, and what we are examining — what the general public wants to have examined — is not whether or not the Premier spent public funds for party purposes, not whether or not the Premier collected any campaign funds or spent campaign funds, but the mixing of party functions and the Premier's office into one bag, the merging of the Social Credit Party campaign fund machinery and people in the Premier's office.

How did the general public discover that there was a secret fund outside normal Social Credit Party operations? How did the public come to realize that there was this slush fund existing over here in Victoria, or back east in Toronto, or that there was some bank account the party didn't know about? The public discovered that as a result of inquiries, generally by the press, as to who paid for certain tapes that were supposed to have been made, advocating certain activities by Social Credit in the conduct of an election campaign. Mr. Tozer, working in the Premier's office and paid by the people of British Columbia, let it slip. He is the one who said: "Oh, they were paid out of the special fund." Then the inquiry began to be: "Well, what is this special fund? Where is it? How does it exist? Does the party know anything about it?" That's how this whole matter of campaign funds of a secret nature and origin, spent in a secret direction and not reported — contrary to the provisions of the law — that's how the whole knowledge of this secret slush fund came into being. It wasn't until after the Premier had been found out as knowing that this secret fund operated out of his office that he came to make bits and pieces of disclosures, and say, "Well, yes, well, maybe it is," and so on. Before that the Premier was content to keep it under cover, to deny the general public any knowledge of it.

Mr. Chairman, we're beginning a quarter of a million dollars of secretly acquired campaign funds, secret even to the Social Credit Party, campaign funds spent, for who knows what purpose during the course of the campaign, and unreported in a violation of the Election Act — all involving people in the Premier's office. It involves the fundamental ethical question which the Premier has failed to respond to — mixing his party's campaign fund activities with the operation of his office as Premier, merging the two together, and then seeking to wash his hands of the whole thing and claim purity and honesty and say he knew nothing about it. I say the Premier did know something about it. He knew what was happening in his office. He hired the people to work for him and to work for the people of B.C. He knew who Dan Campbell was. He knew what Dan Campbell was like.

For the Premier to refuse to come clean with the general public about this matter is going to leave this Legislature and the general public with the continuing suspicion that something nefarious was going on there. Whether or not he likes it, the Premier is going to be tabbed with that nefarious activity and the suspicion of underhanded and unprincipled activity in the conduct of public affairs and in the conduct of his office. As long as he continues to dissimulate, to brush questions aside, and refuses to level with the general public, then the more he brings onto himself confirmation of the suspicion that already exists. Suspicion exists not only in the minds of people outside of this chamber, but also in the minds of government backbenchers. They are wondering what it's all about; and they are just as concerned, because they have to answer to their constituents when questions are raised as to why this quarter of a million buck secret slush fund operated out of the Premier's office. I thought you guys were all Christians true and honourable. They have to answer those questions as well.

Perhaps the Premier is supporting the position enunciated by Dan Campbell. When Dan Campbell was discovered to have dealt in thousand-dollar bills, his response to the general public — I saw it, as did thousands of people in this province — when asked about that matter by the media, was: "It's none of the public's business." That ' s what the Premier is saying today: it's none of the public's business what he does in his office with respect to secret slush funds; it's none of the public's business that out of the Premier's office a quarter of a million dollars of private funds were spent, and that the Election Act was violated in the process, because they sought to cover up that expenditure and not disclose it as required by law. The Premier is saying to the general public: — It's none of your business about that sort of activity." The Premier is saying: "It's none of your business insofar as the thousand-dollar bills are concerned." The Premier is denying his role as a participant in responsible government. Responsible government is simply this: government is responsible to the Legislature and, more important, through the Legislature to the general public for the conduct of affairs for which the public has paid.

Justice not only must be done, it must seem to be done. The people of this province must not only see that it's justice that is happening; they must feel in their hearts that it's justice. As long as the Premier is going to endorse the concept of mixing secret party activities with the functioning of his office and refuse to say anything about it except to wash his hands of it all and say, "I didn't touch any of those funds; I don't know anything about it," then he's going to substantiate the suspicion that there's something wrong.

On December 4 there was a BCTV broadcast with respect to some of these matters. The transcript of that particular telecast is here. Certain questions are asked and certain answers given in that. A question is asked of a gentleman by the name of John Gilchrist, the party's former executive director, whom the Premier was responsible for bouncing out on his ear in order that the Premier could get one of his close buddies into that office. That's neither here nor there; that's their business and his internal business within the party. However, Mr. Gilchrist, the Social Credit Party executive director at the period of time relating to the examination of these subject matters, was asked what happened to certain expenditures and certain bills that came in. He's quoted as saying this:

"The bills came in originally to head office and they were addressed to the Social Credit Party at 4219 Main Street. From there, when I opened it up — it was my job to open the mail — I noticed that it was addressed to Dave Brown on the other side of the invoice. So I took it to the president" — that's the president of Social Credit — "and the president said: 'Well, you'd better ship it across to the Premier's office and make it attention to Dave Brown.' So I sent the bills over."

Here's the executive director of the party, with bills that

[ Page 1986 ]

come into the party headquarters, being told by the president of the party to ship them over to the Premier's office — that's where they're going to pay it from. That's the nuts and bolts of this very serious question of mixing secret party funds with the function and the operation of the Premier's office.

Further questions were asked involving, in this case, people who collected money. In that regard I think it's worthwhile inquiring something else of the Premier. One of the persons was one Austin Taylor Jr. A few years ago the government sold two ferries owned by the people of B.C. through the B.C. Ferry Corporation. They sold the ferries — or at least one of them, because I understand there were two companies involved — to a stockbroker firm by the name of McLeod, Young, Weir, and then leased the ferries back again. The purpose of selling the ferries was to do two things. One was to have some cash flow come into the public treasury so that they could say they were on the profit side of the ledger without having to borrow the money — it's an easy way of borrowing money, to sell some capital asset you own, then lease it back. It was also designed to advance the interest of McLeod, Young, Weir in a tax dodge, so far as the federal government was concerned. Austin Taylor Jr., identified as a person answerable to Premier Bennett himself, if not a principal plays a key role in McLeod, Young, Weir. Austin Taylor Jr. is a bagman for Social Credit, and here we have transactions between the government of B.C. and McLeod, Young, Weir with McLeod, Young, Weir employing the bagman for Social Credit.

Two things are involved. One is that the people of British Columbia are paying lease fees to McLeod, Young, Weir to lease back the ferries that the people of B.C. owned and sold to McLeod, Young, Weir. Is Austin Taylor Jr. moving some of the lease fee money that we are paying as citizens of British Columbia back across the land and putting it in this secret fund that the Premier had? Is that how some of that quarter million dollars got here? Public funds going to lease our own ferries back so a portion of it can come back into the secret slush fund — is that part of what's involved? By the Premier refusing to open up and level with the general public about these matters, these are the suspicions that develop. Was there a finder's fee involved for Austin Taylor Jr.? Did his company say to him: "Hey, that was a good deal you made, buying a ferry and leasing it back. We'll pay you a finder's fee." Did part of that finder's fee find its way back into the slush fund operated out of the Premier's office — that secret quarter of a million dollars? These are questions that need to be answered, very serious questions that strike at the very roots of what responsible government is.

Both Ian Adam, another bagman, and Austin Taylor Jr. are being identified as being answerable to Premier Bennett himself. Ian Adam is quoted in his telecast as having told one Clive Jackson.... I quote from the telecast: "Ian Adam told me there was a co-signer to both accounts" — apparently there was more than one secret account — "whom he won't identify publicly." Now the Premier has said he wasn't a co-signer of those cheques, and his word is accepted and not questioned one bit.

Somebody in the Premier's office was a co-signer; that's where the bills were sent for payment. Who was the other person in the Premier's office who was a co-signer of those cheques? Was it Dan Campbell — a person paid by the general public of this province to work on behalf of the people of B.C.? Was he a co-signer? Was the general public of British Columbia, the taxpayer of B.C., paying a political party functionary of the Social Credit Party whose sole purpose was to deal with secret funds and hand out thousand dollar bills? Was Dan Campbell a co-signer? The Premier needs to answer those questions openly and honestly. If he doesn't know the answer, he's obligated under our parliamentary system to find out what the answer is. Otherwise he is tainted with the same brush. Was Tony Tozer, the person who revealed in the first instance that there was a secret fund that had paid for the tapes that the research group in Social Credit had put together advocating that certain things should happen during the course of the campaign, a co-signer of those accounts?

AN HON. MEMBER: Yes, he was.

MR. HOWARD: He was? If Mr. Tozer was in fact a co-signer of those funds, along with either Ian Adam or Taylor, then the public should know that, because the general public paid Mr. Tozer out of its pocket, from the tax dollars of the people of this province. They provided the funds to the Premier's office, and one of the functionaries in the Premier's office used those funds so that he could activate himself as a co-signer to et least a quarter of a million dollar secret slush fund. Those questions need to be answered openly and clearly. The Premier can't hide behind any declaration that he didn't know; he didn't pay any funds; he didn't handle any funds; he didn't spend any funds. That's not the question. We're sure the Premier wouldn't do that, wouldn't involve himself directly in handling those affairs. But he knew they were going on, and he knew they were going on out of his office. He knew that people who were close to him, people whom he hired, were engaged in that sort of activity. The silence about it on his part when he knew that was going on is almost the same as participating in it.

I think it is a sad day, Mr. Chairman, for the activities of the Legislature when so many important unanswered questions revolve around the Premier and his office. The fact that he went to Europe in 1977 and tried to sell uranium and told this House that he didn't — that's a minor matter. It's not minor that the Premier said something to the House which is not, in fact, so, but it's minor compared with this.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, you cannot impute falsehood. If you made any imputation of falsehood against another hon. member, then I would ask you to withdraw it.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, there was no intention....

HON. MR. BENNETT: That's wrong.

MR. HOWARD: Just hold your horses. You may get a little upset, Mr. Premier, about your being out on the griddle here....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, I'm dealing with the question that you raised, and I was trying to deal with it without interruption from the Premier. He is the person you should be banging the gavel at, not me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Don't lecture the Chair, hon. member. I have asked you simply: if there was any imputation of falsehood then I would ask you to withdraw it.

[ Page 1987 ]

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, I didn't even get through the sentence before, and the sentence I started to say was: there was no intention of imputing any falsehood to the Premier. If he thinks or if you think, even by the greatest stretch of imagination, that there was, then I'll withdraw any possibility that there might have been.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. We'll continue with debate on vote 9.

MR. HOWARD: I also would appreciate it if you would protect me from time to time from the interruptions of the Premier.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. members. We are discussing vote 9, and a member has the floor.

MR. HOWARD: I noticed also, Mr. Chairman, that when the Premier in his opening remarks this afternoon by innuendo cast aspersions upon the activities of the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), you didn't intervene at that stage. The Premier was permitted to get away with casting a slur upon an hon. member on this side of the House, and the Chair sat there in dumb silence and didn't do anything about it.

All I'm saying, Mr. Chairman, is that I would ask you to keep order on that other side of the House and enforce the rules over there just as assiduously as you attempt to enforce them over here. If you'll continue to do that, we'll have an orderly debate here. But if the Chair does not continue to do that, we're going to be in trouble.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, please. We could all remember that we should be courteous in debate and not impute falsehood. We are in the estimates, discussing the administrative action of the Premier.

MR. HOWARD: I still wish the Chair had been as careful when the Premier was speaking as it was just a moment ago.

The question of uranium is insignificant compared to this question of placing the Premier's office.... Let me rephrase that, lest the Premier with his great sensitivity get into a state where he loses control of himself again. The question of the Premier's having gone to Europe and having talked there with respect to uranium in itself is not a very significant matter. The reply the Premier gave to the House, when all the logical rationale on the other side indicated that his reply appeared not to be in accordance with the facts, is not a very significant question.

We are looking at this moment at the mixing of the operation of secret source campaign funds out of the Premier's office, with functionaries in the Premier's office, paid by the general public, handling those funds. Those people have got the temerity and the unmitigated gall, as Dan Campbell did, to stand and say to the general public: "It's none of your business what we do with these campaign funds that are being spent and operated and handled out of the Premier's office." That's the important question that's got to be answered. The Premier consciously, deliberately, knowingly, with foresight and forethought, engineered the process that got his office and functionaries in his office with their hands on the control of a great deal of the Social Credit Party machinery. The Premier, once having done that, cannot now wash his hands of the whole thing and say, "Oh, it's nothing to do with me," like a little child at his father's knees saying: "Don't blame me; I didn't have anything to do with it."

It's far, far more important than that. So long as the Premier glibly replies to that subject matter with short phrases like "no, no, no," and "the rhetoric is out of order," and keeps chattering from his chair, trying to give direction to you, Mr. Chairman, about the conduct of this Legislature, he will leave in the minds of the general public the suspicion and I think a well-founded suspicion — that there is something wrong in the Premier's office with the operation of those secret campaign funds.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Prince Rupert.

MR. HOWARD: Is the Premier going to answer the question I posed to him?

MR. CHAIRMAN: The member for Prince Rupert has risen and has the attention of the Chair.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I listened very carefully to the speech by the member for Skeena, and he outlined how there has to be a suspicion that possibly some tax dollars were involved in the slush funds that were run out of the Premier's office. Because the bagman, Austin Taylor Jr., works for the company that the government has done business with and has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars with. And lo and behold, what happens? It turns out that one of the senior people in that firm, McLeod, Young, Weir, ends up being a bagman for the Social Credit Party and the money going to the Premier's office.

Isn't it a coincidence that the other bagman stationed here, Ian Adam, works for Clarkson, Gordon, the firm that was hired by the Social Credit government to find out whether or not there had been a deficit when this party left government? Isn't that just a little bit of a coincidence? And isn't it a little bit of a coincidence to understand that probably there was government money — taxpayers' dollars — that went to Clarkson, Gordon for that report? Did any of that money find its way back into the Premier's office? Did Tony Tozer and the other person in the Premier's office who signed those cheques know that? Did the Premier know that? The Premier says he doesn't want to know, because if he did know, Mr. Chairman, he says he'd be compromised. What the Premier is saying is that if he knew, for sure, who was paying Social Credit they'd get a damned good deal from this government. That's what he's saying: "If I knew who was giving me slush funds to run out of my office they'd sure get a better deal than those people who aren't putting slush funds in my office."

MR. HOWARD: McLeod, Young, Weir got a good deal.

MR. LEA: They got a good deal. Imagine what kind of a deal they would have got if he knew. Clarkson, Gordon got a good deal. Imagine the good deal they would have got if he knew. The Premier can't expect the people on this side of the House to be so naive to assume he didn't know in the first place that the slush funds were being run out of his office.

[ Page 1988 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, if I could have your attention, you might notice the red light. It is not functioning at this moment, and I will just inform you of that. I will not have this announcement detract from your time. Your time is not up, so please continue.

MR. KING: The Premier is not functioning either, today.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order.

MR. LEA.: I'll take your superior knowledge about red lights.

What we have is a government doing business with private companies when people who work for those private companies are bagmen for that Social Credit Party and the money is ending up coming directly — don't stop at go, don't go to jail — into the Premier's office.

The hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) pointed out that bills that were to be paid by the Social Credit Party didn't stop at the headquarters of the Social Credit Party, they were forwarded to the Premier's office. The Premier said earlier today, Mr. Chairman, that no one in his office was paid to do Social Credit business. What about the bill that came from Gilchrist to Brown that the member for Skeena talked about? Surely when that envelope came into the Premier's office, Dave Brown, to whom it was addressed, opened it. It took some time. He was being paid by the taxpayers for that time. Surely he took it over to Tony Tozer, the admitted signer of the slush fund, and said: "Tony, you're working for the taxpayers of this province, too, as I am; both of us are taking a little time right now. We're both being paid out of taxpayers' money to carry out Social Credit business." Surely that happened. Or was Brown the other signer? Did he have to go and see Tozer?

Mr. Chairman, obviously the Premier was mistaken. People in his office were being paid by the taxpayers of this province to do Social Credit business, not just during election time but year round. In fact, it's hard to tell who they worked for. Did they work on behalf of the people of this province, or did they work on behalf of only people in this province who belong to Social Credit? We have to be charitable and say they probably split their time. They worked some of the time for the people of the province, and they worked some of the time for the members of Social Credit. But they were paid all of the time by the taxpayers of this province.

The Premier has not explained why members of the Social Credit Party, who are being paid by the province, were working on behalf of the Social Credit Party during the election time itself. He hasn't explained why Ron Grieg, who worked in his office, resigned when the whole Lettergate smell started to come out through the province. He hasn't explained why Dan Campbell, even after Lettergate, even after the campaign funds were announced, was appointed to go to Ottawa to represent this province, and why Dan Campbell resigned. He hasn't explained why senior aides in his office resigned. The President of the United States resigned for less than what's happened in this Premier's office. Yet this Premier, Mr. Chairman, has the gall to sit here and say he doesn't even have to answer any questions about it.

At this point the republican system, where you have impeachment processes, looks pretty good. It looks pretty good, because this Premier wouldn't be in office today if we had an impeachment process within our system. The only reason he's there is because he does not have what it takes to stand up and resign. He won't answer questions, resign or tell us why he told this House that he had people in his office — being paid by the taxpayers — who were hired, it seems, to do Social Credit business. Why did the Premier tell this House that Brown and Tozer did not get paid by the taxpayers to do Social Credit business? Isn't that a question which the Premier should answer? So I put that question to the Premier. Why did the Premier tell this Legislature — and therefore the people of this province — that Brown and Tozer did not work on behalf of Social Credit while being paid by the people of British Columbia? That's a question which should be answered. Why did the Premier deny that others, like the research staff of caucus, were paid by the people of this province while working during the election campaign itself?

Mr. Chairman, what we have, it seems, is a Premier who has to look at this whole thing with an overview. He must have said to himself: "I'm going to be in some sort of trouble if I answer these questions — and I think I'm going to be in a lot of trouble. I'm going to be in some kind of trouble if I don't answer the questions — but I think I'll be in less trouble." So he has chosen, like electricity, the path of least resistance. He's decided to be mum and not to answer questions, and he hopes that it will all go away. It probably won't go away.

You know, for years and years, if you grew up in this province, like I did, you heard about the Social Credit slush fund, But the other Social Credit Premier — the one before this one — was at least smart enough not to get caught with it. We didn't find any Social Credit slush funds going through that office when he was Premier, but we sure find it now.

I've got some questions other than the ones I've asked. The ones that I've asked are as follows. Why did the Premier tell this House that Tozer and Brown weren't paid by the people of this province to do Social Credit work, when the member for Skeena has proved beyond a doubt that they did? During the campaign and during the whole year they were paid to do Social Credit work in the Premier's office. Why did the Premier tell us they didn't? I'd like that question answered. I'd like to have the Premier also answer as to why he told this House that the research staff of the Social Credit Party didn't get paid during the campaign for doing Social Credit work, when they did.

I'd also like to ask the Premier to tell this House why he thinks we should be so naive as to believe that taxpayers' money spent to pay off McLeod, Young, Weir and Clarkson, Gordon didn't find its way back into the Premier's office — or at least a portion of it. Who is that other person who signs the cheques of the slush fund? Is it the Premier? Are there more than two signers? We know Tony Tozer was a signer, and maybe still is. Did Dave Brown sign the cheques? We've a good suspicion that it was somebody in the Premier's office. Otherwise, what would Tozer do when he got the bill from Gilchrist through Dave Brown? Would he jump in his car and drive across town to get these cheques co-signed? Would he go to the mainland to get the cheques signed? Would he go to Kelowna? I mean, where would he go? Wouldn't it just make good administrative sense to have the other signer within easy reach?

Let's assume that it may not have been the Premier's office that this other signer was in. Let's say, sensibly, that it had to be somebody in these buildings. Was it in the Deputy Premier's (Hon. Mrs. McCarthy's) office that the co-signing on the slush funds happened?

[ Page 1989 ]

The Premier cannot tell us: "Please go to another minister to ask these questions; it's not within my purview." It is within the Premier's purview. Slush funds, illegal slush funds, illegal money — nobody knows where it's from. Was it from McLeod, Young, Weir? Was it from Clarkson, Gordon? Was it from organized crime? We have no idea. Did part of the money going into the Premier's office come from organized crime? How would we know? Did it come from organized crime? That's another question I'd like to have answered.

I'd like to know what proportion of the illegal money that went through the Premier's office was American. Better still: what proportion of it wasn't Canadian? Where did that money that went through the Premier's office come from?

AN HON. MEMBER: A quarter of a million dollars.

MR. LEA: There was hundreds of thousands of dollars. There was a quarter of a million dollars not reported, Mr. Member. There could have been millions of dollars going through the Premier's office, all illegal, from God knows where — from out of this country, from organized crime, from people wanting favours, from people wanting the resources of this province, wanting a deal, wanting it on the cheap. How do we know who was bribed? How do we know? The Premier says he didn't know who paid the money in. Did the Deputy Premier know who paid the money in? Did a cabinet minister other than the Premier know who paid the money in? Where did the money come from? The Premier cannot sit there and say: "I don't want to know where the money came from."

We do know that coal royalties in this province haven't been raised for a long time. I'd like to ask the Premier whether he personally ever asked Mr. Kaiser for some money for the Social Credit — personally, not an agent. Did he make the request? Did the money come? Or did it go to the secret slush fund in the Premier's office? Is that why the coal royalties haven't gone up in this province? Did Kaiser pay money into any one of the secret slush funds going through the Premier's office? Did any other resource company which was taking resources — owned by the people of this province — out of this country pay money into that slush fund that went through the Premier's office? Did anybody who makes alcohol pay any money into the secret slush fund that went through the Premier's office? Does the Premier still think — as Mr. Campbell believes — that the people of this province don't have a right to know where that money came from?

If, like the Premier, you don't believe the people of this province own the resources, then they may not have a right to know. But when the government is in the business of selling off the people's resources, I think the people of this province have a right to know whether money from resource companies went into a secret slush fund in the Premier's office. Did that money find its way into the thousand-dollar bills, American or Canadian, that were floated around this province by Mr. Campbell? Does the Premier still believe that the people of this province do not have the right to know whether resource companies paid into secret slush funds — which were spent in secret — in the Premier's office? Is there any member on that side of the House who will stand up and take his place, defend the Premier, and suggest that they don't have the right to know, and that the Premier shouldn't know when his employees, who are paid by the people of this province, are handling slush funds? Did any of the money out of the secret slush fund in the Premier's office go to pay for those ads in 1975 that were supposedly sponsored by the insurance companies? Did any money go to those ads? What was the tune?

AN HON. MEMBER: "Thanks for the Memories."

MR. LEA: "Thanks for the Memories." Did any money from the secret slush fund in the Premier's office go to pay for any part of those advertisements called "Thanks for the Memories," supposedly put out by someone who doesn't exist? Someone who doesn't exist had that account. Did any of the money from the Premier's office go to pay for those "Thanks for the Memories" ads? Just answer the question. Just clear it up. If my questions are completely off base, get up and specifically tell me why, not: "The answer to your question is no, no, yes, yes, no, no." We found out already that that doesn't work when the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) found out that the Premier doesn't know anything.

Did any money from the resource companies go into the slush funds? Did any money from the liquor companies or breweries go into the slush funds in the Premier's office? Did any money from the resource companies who buy resources from the people of this province go into the slush funds in the Premier's office? Did any money from organized crime go into the Premier's office?

AN HON. MEMBER: Any money from bootleggers?

MR. LEA: Good idea. Any money for wiretap equipment, for bribery? Now I'd like to know whether there was any money from resource companies who buy resources from this province, specifically Kaiser. Can the Premier take his place and say for sure that no money from resource companies went into the slush funds through his office? Can the Premier take his place and say for sure that no money from liquor companies or breweries went into the slush funds in his office? Can the Premier say for sure that no money from organized crime went into his office?

Mr. Chairman, is there any money from any of those areas being slushed through the Premier's office illegally? We know the money is illegal; we know it was collected and spent illegally out of the Premier's office. We know that; all we're trying to find out is where the money is from and where it was spent.

The Premier says he doesn't care; he doesn't want to know. I'm asking the Premier to find out. Come back to this chamber, and through this chamber assure the people of this province that our resources aren't being sold out through bribery. Assure the people of this province that we're not buying liquor and beer with taxpayers' money from those companies that may have bribed through a slush fund. What about Boeing? Did Boeing put any money from the United States into the secret slush fund in the Premier's office, or is it on its way by way of Japan?

Mr. Chairman, this Premier and this government have a lot to answer for. It's not good enough to find out that illegal money is passing through the Premier's office, and we don't know where it's from and where it's gone. It's not good enough for the Premier to sit there and say: "I don't want to know who's bribing the government, because if I did I'd be compromised." And that, in essence, is what he's saying: "If there are any bribes going on, I don't want to know about

[ Page 1990 ]

it, because I may be asked. Don't let me know about the bribes, boys. I don't want to know about it, because if I did I might be tempted to pay off."

So let's have the answers. Why did the Premier tell this House that Brown and Tozer weren't being paid by public funds when they worked in his office doing Social Credit work, when we now know they were? Why did the Premier tell us that the researchers from the Social Credit office weren't being paid by public funds to do Social Credit work during the campaign, when we now know they were? Where is the money coming from for the secret slush funds, and how is it being spent? Is the Premier going to level with this House about those illegal moneys that have passed through his office? I suppose they're still passing through his office. That might be a final good question for me: is illegal money still going through the Premier's office?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, the member for Prince Rupert was totally incorrect when he said illegal money goes through the Premier's office. It is consistent with his style. The campaign chairman in the last election, Mr. Les Peterson, and the campaign manager, Mr. Campbell, with others, ran the campaign and directed campaign spending. The $250,000 they talk about was indeed admitted by the party and related to that period during the election campaign, I'm advised by Mr. Peterson. It had nothing to do with any operation of the party or legitimate expenses on party matters that took place during the period prior to the election.

I want to just give an example of how far these members are prepared to go, particularly the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) and the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), in presenting information in a manner to make it appear that events had happened, and then running away. The member for Vancouver Centre stated emphatically in the House that members of the Premier's office were paid during the election campaign. He amended it after I questioned him, but he did speak about Mr. Brown. I would like to table with the chamber later, Mr. Chairman, my letter to Mr. Price, comptroller, dated April 3, saying: "Please be advised that Messrs. D. Campbell, W.A. Tozer and D. Brown are to be taken off the payroll on voluntary leaves of absence effective April 4, 1979, to May 11, 1979. Yours truly, William R. Bennett, Premier " It was a specific request to make sure that those people who worked in the Premier's office, who had a legitimate opportunity to be concerned about the future of their province — and one of the things we campaigned for is the right to hold political opinion — could take leave of absence and actively campaign to elect a government not only that they were proud of but one that they wished to continue to build the province in a very positive way. They, like many other British Columbians, had lived during the period of the New Democratic Party and they had also seen the positive effects of this government.

I don't expect the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) to apologize. If we bothered to correct him every time he made an outrageous statement or an allegation then we'd never get to the real issue of the people's business. I know, though, that the member for Vancouver Centre will be pleased to receive this information and will withdraw any suggestions he made about any of the three members concerned who came from the Premier's office. I present that, Mr. Chairman, to you so that you would know that, not retroactively but before the campaign, the appropriate action was taken with those members advising Mr. H.J. Price, comptroller.

MR. LAUK: I thank the Premier for bringing that information to the committee. I’d still like to have some clarification with respect to the activities of one John Arnett during the election campaign. I accept the Premier's indication that Mr. Arnett was working on government business, but I think an explanation is required as he is reported to have been seen on several occasions actively engaged with members of the Social Credit Party at the Social Credit Party campaign headquarters. The clear impression given was that Mr. Arnett, who was on public salary, was actively participating in the campaign.

The second part of the question had to do with the caucus research staff who we do know for certain were being paid during the course of the election campaign. And we do know that they were active in the election campaign itself. Has the Premier had time to investigate that matter, and can he report to the committee?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'm quite willing to deal with matters related to the Premier's office, but I would think that members would confine their area to the Premier's office. I've dealt with those members who came from the Premier's office, who were appointed when we became government. They wished to participate in the election campaign and were advised that they were to be taken off the payroll during the election campaign from the period of April 4, 1979, to May 11, 1979. That's the Premier's office. Questions about other areas, I'm sure, would not be directed to me as Premier.

I'm concerned about a line of questioning that has run a thread through all of the members opposite. I've attempted to be cooperative but to make the suggestion.... The first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk) said a certain member was reported to have been seen.... I quite frankly said that during the election campaign my media attention was covered by other than Mr. Arnett, who was to work and cover those areas booked before the election campaign as a public servant related to the Premier's office. My functions with him were related to those government functions that were not partisan in nature but related to government. But to use the line of questioning — "reported" — would be for me to say it was reported that the first member for Vancouver Centre sniffs glue or smokes dope or takes cocaine or something like that. That line of questioning.... And why isn't he denying it?

The member, Mr. Chairman, is only exhibiting some of his theatrical legal talent which I understand his clients pay dearly for when this House isn't sitting.

MR. LAUK: That's a slander. They're all on the street.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Anyhow, Mr. Chairman, that's in response to that question.

MR. LORIMER: I'm certainly pleased, Mr. Premier, that you did send a letter advising the comptroller that those people on the government payroll that are going to work in the election campaign are off the payroll. I would take that for granted. I would expect every person throughout the government that was going to work on the election campaign would not be receiving funds from the government at the same time.

We all know that all parties collect campaign funds for election purposes. That goes without saying. That's not what

[ Page 1991 ]

we are discussing here today. They collect the funds, report them and send in their notice as required by the Election Act. The same is filed and reported by the chief electoral officer. The funds we are talking about today are the ones that were sent directly through the Premier's office, the ones from Austin Taylor Jr. that were put into these secret accounts and controlled by the staff or some people within the Premier's office. These are ones that are separate from the Social Credit party funds; these are funds that go to the Premier's office for use in the election campaigns.

We're told there was a quarter of a million dollars in those campaign funds that was spent but was not reported. This came from one of your ex-Attorneys-General, who said that there was roughly in the neighbourhood of a quarter of a million dollars not reported. They were never reported and never would have been reported except for the fact that some months after the election was over Tony Tozer made some reference to them. The only people that knew about these funds were the Premier, his office staff, and some of the cabinet ministers. The funds came to light when Tozer was being questioned about payment to Kelly and MacKay for the costs of producing tapes for the so-called dirty tricks material and for the production of the total dirty tricks episode. That's the stage at which it was reported that the cost of this material, promotion, and the amount of material that was produced all came from these secret funds, and that Tony Tozer had authorized payment from these funds. There's no question that these were the dirty tricks accounts. This had to be kept away from the Social Credit Party. These accounts were basically used for the payment of the sleazy part of the Social Credit campaign.

Remember, when it was finally found out that there were these secret accounts and when it was found out that there were $250,000 not accounted for, they called in Les Peterson. He was a person who had some prestige, not only in the party but throughout the province. He was asked to see if he could determine what should be done. He arrived in Victoria and, after looking at the accounts, he said: "It's a pretty simple thing. Report them under the act. They should have been reported before. Report them now. It's late, but at least get the reporting in." So that was the fastest internal review that this government has ever put on. He took half an hour and had his report ready. So the report was filed. The report was for $250,000 that they forgot about. It slipped their mind.

Now the question comes: who were the signing officers of these secret funds? I don't know if it was ever stated that Tony Tozer was a signing officer, but he said that he "authorized" the expenditure of those funds. We presume that he was a signing officer, but there were two signing officers. Was the other one Dan Campbell? That's a good question. Do you think Dan would be the signing officer for these accounts?

These are the other questions. From where did these accounts come? How much money was obtained from outside of Canada to go into these accounts? How much money came from Canada? How much came from British Columbia? These are questions to which the public of British Columbia are entitled to know the answers. As a matter of fact, the Social Credit Party is entitled to know. The backbenchers who know nothing about these accounts are entitled to know what was going on in the election campaign that they were left in ignorance of.

In this particular case the executive of the Social Credit Party did not know about and they didn't condone the operations of secret funds. Les Keen, the president at the time, was very upset that the control of the party was being removed from the grass roots of that party to the back doors of the cabinet and to the Premier's office. We want to know, and certainly the people of this province and the executive of the Social Credit want to know, whether these practices are still continuing.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

We would like to know whether there was equal treatment in areas as a result of the expenditure of these funds. I think the Social Credit Party would like to know whether each riding was treated equally from the revenues of these funds. We want to know whether Austin Taylor is still collecting money and transmitting the funds to the Premier's office. We want to know whether the secret slush funds are still in existence. We want to know which members of the cabinet, along with the Premier, had knowledge of the secret funds and were party to it.

The Premier is the only one who can answer these questions. Now is the time for those answers to be given. He can take his place and explain the total situation with reference to the secret accounts, the accounts that were not reported until some number of months after the election campaign. He is the one who should stand up and explain this illegal operation — it was illegal because there was no reporting of the accounts — and show some repentance for his part in the activities. He should ask the people of this province to forgive his operations, and give a commitment to everyone that those practices will be discontinued and will never come about again.

The Premier can explain these matters to us and to the people of this province. Over the last few days a number of questions have been asked: simple questions to do with the conduct and leadership of the Premier. This is the only time in the life of this session that the Premier can be asked questions and be expected to give replies, but there have been very few replies. There have been quite a number of questions but very few replies. He has a lot of power and prestige in his office, but that office also requires a certain amount of responsibility. One of those responsibilities is the answering of questions during his estimates. He has failed miserably in that area.

HON. MR. WOLFE: Mr. Chairman, I've listened very quietly and carefully for some days now to this debate on the Premier's estimates — what is it, 11 days now? I've been in this House for a number of years, gone through many estimates of Premiers past and witnessed a lot of irresponsible questioning. What I'm waiting to hear is questions to the Premier of an objective note, of things that would interest the people of this province, to see what he and his government are doing.

I don't hear questions about the economy. I don't hear questions about unemployment. I don't hear questions about inflation. Those are the real nuts-and-bolts issues that people in this province worry about. I don't hear questions about energy pricing, which is one of the things the opposition, if it were responsible, should be challenging this government to address. I hear not a thing about the new mortgage policy introduced by our Premier to offer some abatement of high interest rates. British Columbia was the first province to

[ Page 1992 ]

introduce any relief in this regard and at the same time to try to stimulate some increase in housing construction. I haven't heard a word about that, Mr. Chairman, or about B.C. Place — this Premier's innovative, energetic effort to address matters which allow this province to progress, to build. I don't hear anything but negative carping criticism, a personal character assassination. It goes on and on. But I guess you get immune to it after a while.

I've heard that type of opposition — I won't admit for how many years now — for a number of years. When they fail in other regards to come up with a really aggressive, objective opposition, which is their responsibility, they resort to character assassination, personal innuendo, and suggestions of impropriety. Nothing is laid on the line but left out there is a big cloud of suspicion about a man whom we all know and respect. Do you think he puts himself forward to office with that in mind? That is anything but the truth, and the members opposite know this to be a fact. But what do they do? They come back with character assassination and personal attacks, and if it wasn't for the fact that we've all heard it before, I guess you could say that we've all become rather disgusted with this type of approach.

So, Mr. Chairman, I've listened carefully and I didn't hear any questions about the economy. If there's one person in this province who has addressed himself to this economy, it is our Premier. Look at his efforts before the national government in presentations to Ottawa. Many times the word comes back of the effective nature of those presentations. I don't hear challenges to this government on those issues which are the important issues of today, but muck-raking, mud-slinging innuendo passed out by the new triumvirate mud line of the NDP. That's what I call them. Our new hero, the new Leader of the Opposition, is outside, with a halo over his head, playing this character role of being the responsible person whom we can all admire, and he leaves in the House the mud line — the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea), the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk), the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King), and the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). They know how to do it; they know how to dish it out. I guess the truth hurts a little, but the only thing is we've all heard it before.

They've had their character assassinators of the past. I've sat here and known and enjoyed them, but they all come up with their part to play. I'm thinking of the former member for Vancouver East, Bob Williams. He always dished out a fair amount of this type of approach during every session of past legislatures; I can remember those occasions. The members opposite smile, for they remember them as well. But that's the kind of opposition we are faced with in the province of British Columbia — not addressing the issues of the day which people want to hear about and challenge this government on, but making a character assassination.

So now we've had stories laid out here, innuendos about improper election procedures, and not a word about the fact that this government has just appointed a new chief electoral officer for the province of British Columbia, Mr. Harry Goldberg. I want to tell this House that's a very positive move which this government has made to attract the most capable person who could be obtained. He happens to come from the province of Alberta with a very creditable record; he is very knowledgeable in the field of the Election Act right across Canada, and we know he is going to address himself to improving our registration system and other aspects of the Election Act operation in British Columbia. This is a positive action by this government in terms of an appointment, and we have announced that very proudly in recent weeks.

We've also heard the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke throwing out their usual little gem about Clarkson, Gordon. I think they put it in different ways, that we asked Clarkson, Gordon to tell us we had a deficit. To tell us we had a deficit! The fact that we had a debt to the bank, that we had audited statements that we had a deficit of $400 million, that's not something to ask an auditor to tell us. There's another character assassination, Mr. Chairman. To take a responsible firm of chartered accountants, auditors who have a certificate to answer to, and to suggest that they came in here and twisted the report to satisfy the needs of this government is just utter poppycock.

That was another positive action of this government when it first came to office. One of the first things this Premier did was appoint that firm to very quickly provide an independent assessment of the state of the accounts in this province. And believe you me, I have some knowledge that they were disastrous. That report did not overstate the facts. The fact that we had a deficit for that year of $400 million was not overstated. The fact that we had an accumulated deficit of $261 million for their years of office — not exactly small potatoes — was not the result of any directed action to an independent firm whom this government and this Premier asked — as a positive measure, upon taking office — to provide a report.

So I just say I've heard it all before — the same type of opposition, the innuendo, the suggestion of impropriety, without being specific, and no effort to address the important issues of the day, I say the people of this province are getting very tired of this kind of opposition. They can stand up here and say that this Premier is not answering questions. But how many times, with all due respect, is he expected to answer questions? Eight, ten, twelve times? I mean, he's been asked questions and he's answered them. So on we go with the same old questions, and other questions, like when did you stop beating your wife? In the name of common sense, Mr. Chairman, there should be an end put to this. I think the people of this province get very tired of this kind of approach. Let's address the issues of today — the economy, inflation, unemployment. What is this government doing about them? Now that's what we should be talking about here — energy pricing, mortgage policy, and what we're doing about them and what we're not doing about them. Instead of that, we have the character assassination which we are so used to, which we've become accustomed to. But I say, let's get on with the business of this House and the people of this province.

MR. HOWARD: I just have a point of order with respect to the reference to innuendo, slurs and character assassinations made by the Provincial Secretary, and would point out, sir, with respect, that the only innuendo, the only slur, the only character assassination cast this afternoon — and not withdrawn, not hinted at by the Chair — was that cast by the Premier against the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk).

MR. COCKE: I rise in this debate with almost a sense of wonderment. The now Provincial Secretary, the former Minister of Finance, got up and talked about character assassination and advised us of what questions the opposition should be asking the Premier, and listed them. Now I must

[ Page 1993 ]

confess that it's marvellous that the Provincial Secretary tells us the questions that we should be asking the government and, particularly, that we should be asking the Premier. Well, we don't know whether or not those questions would be in order. In any event, Mr. Chairman, that minister trying deftly to cover up by suggesting that the Premier is answering the questions is himself begging the question. When has the Premier answered the questions? We keep looking at the Blues each day. We keep wondering whether or not he's going to take responsibility, not only as leader of the government but also as leader of the party, for some of the areas of his responsibility. That's all he's been asked.

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: Yvonne's on her way back from Ottawa. And when she gets here I'll tell her to give you a call, and maybe she can talk some sense to you, Mr. Premier.

But in any event, Mr. Chairman, I don't think that as an opposition we need any advice from the hon. Provincial Secretary. I sat in this House during the days when the hon. Provincial Secretary first did as a government supporter, and then I sat here for three years when he was out of the House. I watched the savage ways of the opposition in those days, and there will never be a time that this province will live down those savage days in this very chamber. That is not what is happening today. All that this opposition is asking are a few simple questions of the Premier, and when those questions are answered we can proceed with the business of the people of this province.

But, Mr. Chairman, there is no way I'm going to be part of an opposition that's going to stand back and say: "We're to be directed by the government as to what we can ask and what we can't ask." Simple questions, Mr. Chairman. They'll take us back to the Clarkson, Gordon business, and the minister telling us that it was $400 million. You know, the first grope that they did was $800 million. Even with their rules they couldn't get Clarkson, Gordon to buy that, and so it went down to $400 million. And that was when they set all the rules. Nonsense. No, what we would like from the Premier are answers to questions about the campaign funds. Those are important. We're talking about the credibility of a government, we're talking about the credibility of a party, and we're talking about the credibility of the leader of both government and party.

If we're to ask these other questions, not having satisfied ourselves on the credibility, what's the point? And we have significant numbers of questions to ask all ministers, and we hope we can ask some questions of the member for North Vancouver–Seymour (Mr. Davis). He has plenty to say. Maybe he would like to ask a few questions of other ministers, as we would. But, Mr. Chairman, I don't like the facade that's set up — that aura of beauty and light — by the Provincial Secretary, who knows full well the responsibility of the leader of government, and who knows full well the responsibility of a leader of a party in this province. Simple questions.

Mr. Chairman, this is the primary issue today in this House. We can get back to a number of issues — as the people in this province will demand — but the primary issue right now is credibility, and that's what we want answered. Whatever the Provincial Secretary has to say would be better said if he could get up and maybe give us a little bit of light on the most primary issue, and that's the issue of the credibility of this government.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I want to echo the words of the member for New Westminster.

AN HON. MEMBER: That's what you've been doing all week — echoing.

MR. MACDONALD: With no reply. It's the only echo that you don't get any echo back from — no reverberating echo in reply.

I also want to agree with the Provincial Secretary and say that we wish Mr. Goldberg well. In this province we've been fortunate in our public service. We've had some of the most capable and dedicated public servants in the world working for the government of the province of British Columbia and for all of the people. But I have to disagree with the rest of what he said, for the same reasons as the member for New Westminster gave. When we ask about the jetfoil service, where the Premier obviously put some kind of a plan together, and he doesn't say anything about it to the Legislature, we're in trouble.

I want to revert to just one simple question and see if we can make some progress here — referring back to the trust funds around the Premier's office that were discussed by Mr. Tozer. They were in existence for a long, long time. The seminar at the Bayshore, I think, was in May, 1978 — long, long before the election. The funds were used by Mr. Tozer on that occasion to pay the expenses — but not the salaries — of the research staff that went over there. I don't think there is a person who would say that the Premier doesn't know who the signing officers of the trust funds were. So I have a simple question. If he didn't know before, he certainly knew after investigating the matter, when the funds came to light; I think he must have known all along. If anybody thinks he doesn't know who those signing officers were, raise your hand. You? Do you think he doesn't know? Okay. I think he does know.

I’ll just ask a simple question, Mr. Premier: was a signing officer of those trust funds on the public payroll of the province of British Columbia at any time? I want to know whether anybody paid as part of the public service of the province of British Columbia was a signing officer for any of the trust funds that we've been talking about this afternoon. It's a simple question, and I'd like that cleared up.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I haven't yielded the floor. That's a very simple, factual question. It amuses the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet). It's kind of funny, isn't it? Somebody employed by the taxpayer, who is spending his time signing campaign expenses out of secret trust funds that were never going to come to light, is working for the public with one hand, and with the other hand working for the party. It's kind of funny when you think about it, isn't it? I don't think you'd find that in any other province of Canada.

Anyway, it's a simple, factual question. I just want to know whether any signing officers were on the public payroll. I put that question directly to the Premier.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Chairman, in terms of the remarks made by the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe) surrounding the new appointment — Mr. Goldberg, I believe, is

[ Page 1994 ]

the name — I think all of us in this chamber wish him the very best in his new responsibilities. However, he is under a terrible handicap, which is that he has to operate with an Election Act that is an anachronism. It should have been abandoned and gotten rid of many, many years ago.

As the Premier knows, that Election Act still has no provision with regard to disclosure of campaign donations, as the Canada Elections Act does. One of the reasons, I think, that we spend a lot of time on this particular question of election funds is that there is no doubt out there: the overwhelming majority of the public wants a change in the Election Act. They want a change so that there is disclosure under the act.

The Premier rises in his place and says, "You fellows are just using innuendo here," and he very cleverly suggests to the first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk): "Are you taking cocaine? Are you sniffing glue?" That is a clever way to deflect the reality of this process. The fact is that the first member for Vancouver Centre knows whether he is on cocaine or sniffs glue and is in a position to categorically deny that he does, but the Premier refuses to inform himself about the questions being asked by the opposition. That is the issue here. Is the Premier willing to inform himself, as the person responsible, as the first minister of the province, to answer the questions of the opposition? He won't do it. It would be very simple for him to do it, but he won't.

The Provincial Secretary continues to raise the question of whether the previous administration had a deficit and whether it was $800 million, $400 million or $500 million. I am interested in an analysis that is almost thoroughly critical of the New Democratic Party's administration. It is a book called The 1,200 Days: A Shattered Dream. I expect every member on that side of the House has read it, since it is such a critical examination of the New Democratic Party government. When it comes to the question of whether there really was a deficit, this is what both authors had to say.

Interjection.

MR. LEGGATT: Let's listen to it. I hope the Premier has read the book, because then we don't have to continue to debate old history and maybe we can clean up the record a little bit. Let's not keep recreating history with the myths that were peddled during that campaign. Let's hear what the authors had to say.

"Thus, while Barrett was no financial genie and did perhaps incur a deficit in the last year in office, he was far from the financial wastrel his Socred successors claimed. Indeed, he could actually have shown an overall surplus for his 1,200 days of glory if he had chosen to make full use of the accounting techniques used at times by either the elder Bennett, converting debts to Crown corporations to contingent liabilities, or the younger Bennett, transferring special-purpose funds to general revenue or transferring general expenditures to newly created Crown corporations. He could accordingly have deleted...."

They went through a whole list of how he could have shown a surplus by simply playing the same games.

The book argues simply for a whole new look at accounting. I am pleased that we may have a new look at that accounting, but I don't think this committee should be deflected by the Provincial Secretary on the ground that the questions asked are somehow character assassination. No one is standing up here and attacking the character of the Premier, not at all. We are only saying that as the Premier he has a responsibility not only to lead the province but to inform himself about reasonable questions that are asked — and these questions are not unreasonable questions, in spite of all of the gasps we hear from the other side.

If the Premier wants to change the Election Act, he should go and inform himself about that particular fund. You'll never be able to answer in this House that the royalty situation is fair until you can assure us that Kaiser doesn't sit with funds in that particular surplus.

It's a serious question. It's not something that you can just deflect and say: "Oh, my gosh, why don't we have a more constructive opposition? These chaps are so negative " We'll get onto the questions of running the province. But I don't think it's unreasonable that we as an opposition expect a few answers to these serious questions around the ministry. Everybody else in the province is asking them. Why the heck shouldn't the members of the opposition ask them in this House? It's our duty to the people we represent to ask these questions, and it is the Premier's duty to provide some reasonable answers.

So, Mr. Chairman, I'd just urge that the Premier rethink one or two.... He was quite cooperative initially, I might say, around the question of his office staff. It seemed to me a mark of some progress in regard to these questions. It was an interesting change, and I could see the atmosphere changing in the House, as a matter of fact, when we had some cooperation around the role Mr. Tozer, Mr. Arnett and Mr. Brown played. It seems to me we could have a little more cooperation around the question of the fund. The Premier could simply inform himself, reassure the House that there were not funds from outside the country. He's already said he was 99 percent sure; all he has to do is pick up the phone and he can be 100 percent sure, and he can provide us with a list of the donors. Then we can find out whether we really need another Election Act. I think he would agree that we do. I think he would agree that maybe the time has come for all of us to clean up our act around election expenses, to make sure that when you donate — and I think the federal figure is a good one — more than $100 you're willing to go on the line and admit you've donated more than $100 to a political party.

There are a great many other areas the Provincial Secretary suggested we should be getting into: interest rates is certainly one. I'm sure we'll come to the point where we'll look at the doubling of the Premier's budget and why he needs that additional expenditure this year. But I would like to ask him one specific question which deals with the kind of investigation that the Premier has himself conducted around the allegations concerning the operations of his office. He's provided some answers with regard to that. Has he now conducted an investigation with respect to the Tozer revelations surrounding the trust fund? Would the Premier advise the committee as to the extent of his investigation into that particular fund? Did he determine for himself who the signing officers were? Did he determine whether the allegation as to the amount is correct? And did he determine who the donors were in respect to the fund? Perhaps because he wishes to respect confidentiality in the event the donations were made on a confidential basis, there may be some commitment there that's a problem. But surely the Premier would be willing to advise the House, in terms of his responsibilities as Premier, what was the nature of the investigation that he made into the matter.

[ Page 1995 ]

MR. HOWARD: This is the essence of what we started off talking about — namely, the marriage of party funds and the Premier's office; the operation of a political campaign; the raising of funds for that campaign; the expenditure of funds — not only for that campaign, but for some unknown period of time prior thereto — and the operation of those two functions out of the Premier's office.

One is in the public interest, the responsibility of the Premier with respect to serving the public of British Columbia — as he's paid to do — and the other is the private interest of Social Credit, a political party with funds received from who knows what sources and expended in who knows what directions. The mixing of those two activities is the crux of what we are dealing with. Any attempt by the Provincial Secretary or anybody else to drag red herrings into the debate and take it off in another direction does not serve the public interest.

We can look at two periods of time. One is a period commencing at an unknown date and ending when Mr. Tozer disclosed to the press that certain tapes advocating certain election campaign activities were paid for out of a secret fund operated out of the Premier's office. The other is a period of time after that.

Assuming that the Premier knew nothing about the prior period, assuming that Mr. Tozer and Mr. Campbell, working in his office, conducted their affairs with respect to the secret campaign funds in such a way that it was secret from the Premier, and that he in fact didn't know anything about it, give him the benefit of the doubt on that one. Even at that, it doesn't indicate a very responsible or correct or affirmative administrative structure if the Premier did not know. But we give him the benefit of the doubt that he, the Premier, did not know, prior to the disclosure by Mr. Tozer, that there was a secret fund existing and that it was operated out of his office and by public servants.

When that information was disclosed, when it was revealed to the public that there was a secret slush fund, that a quarter of a million dollars of that secret slush fund had been spent during an election campaign, with an untold amount spent before that on other activities, surely at that time the Premier should have bestirred himself and asked what was going on in his office. Did he do that? That's one question. Did the Premier, when it was disclosed that there was a secret campaign fund operated out of his office, move to investigate what was happening with respect to that fund?

Did he move to inquire whether people working in his office were spending money from that fund and receiving money into it? Did he seek to inquire who those people were? Were they people paid by the general public to prosecute the activities of the public part of the Premier's office? That's a group of questions which is substantially embraced within one overriding question: did the Premier conduct an investigation? Did he ask people in his office what was happening with respect to those secret bank accounts? I'm sure the Premier hears the question, even though he is talking to the Provincial Secretary. It's a question that needs to be answered. When the Premier rises, could he indicate whether he'll answer that question or not?

In the course of the inquiry that the Premier should have caused, did he determine how long that fund or those secret funds had been in existence? Did he inquire how they came into existence in the first place? Who was it in his office that set the fund up in the first place? Who was it that the taxpayers of this province paid as a public servant to set up a secret fund? What were the names of those individuals? Did he inquire about that? He obviously did not inquire about the source of campaign funds that were coming into those secret accounts. He has said that he didn't; he said that he is not interested in where the money comes from just so long as it rolls in. He said that he is not interested in the source. So obviously, in the course of his investigation, he would not have asked that question.

What he would have asked, when it was established any responsible first minister of this province would have done that.... He would have asked if Mr. Tozer — because Mr. Tozer is the one who publicly disclosed that there was such a fund and that he, Mr. Tozer, had authorized expenditures from it — was actually a signing officer with respect to that fund. We don't know. Did the Premier ask Mr. Tozer about the fund? Did he ask Mr. Tozer if he, Mr. Tozer, was a signing officer? Did he ask Mr. Campbell if he, Mr. Campbell, was a signing officer? If they weren't, how was it that they had authority over the fund to authorize expenditures there from?

Did the Premier conduct that type of inquiry to satisfy himself, and thus gain information that he could use to disclose to the general public and satisfy the general public that nothing wrong was taking place in his office without his knowledge prior to the time that it had been disclosed by Mr. Tozer? Did the Premier conduct that kind of inquiry?

He's busy having a consultation with a woman, Mr. Chairman, and I wanted to try to get some....

HON. MR. GARDOM: Consultation is permitted.

MR. HOWARD: Oh. yes, I'm sure consultation is permitted, as the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations says. I wish the Premier would have had that kind of consultation with Mr. Tozer, and I wish he would disclose to the general public, through this House, what the results of that consultation were. That's the question we're asking; that's the question that needs to be satisfied; the question the general public needs to know about. The public of this province has to be satisfied, Mr. Chairman, that in the conduct of the activities of political parties — no matter what political party — everything is open and above board. They have to be satisfied of that in their own mind; they have to feel satisfaction as well as be advised about it.

When the office of the Premier and its impartiality and its fairness in the conduct of public affairs is brought into question by the disclosure of a public servant, paid by the taxpayers of this province, that there existed a secret fund operating out of the Premier's office, the Premier has the obligation to remove any possibility that something wrong was taking place. Can the Premier answer that uncomplicated question for us today? He answered a lot of other questions today with a short, sharp "no, no," and "that's rhetoric." It is not rhetoric which I am advancing here; it's a simple question to the Premier.

When the Premier discovered that Tony Tozer, working in his office and paid by the taxpayers of this province to perform a public service, was in fact performing a private service on behalf of a political party, and in fact had some control and authority over a secret slush fund which was running at least at the level of a quarter of a million dollars — that was the amount disclosed as spent during a campaign fund; and who knows how much before that — did the

[ Page 1996 ]

Premier satisfy himself and ask Mr. Tozer about that? If so, what did he discover? Can he satisfy the question in the general public's mind that everything was above board insofar as the Premier's office was concerned? Can the Premier answer that question? Can he just nod that he intends to? I'll take my seat if the Premier plans to answer. It's very thoughtful of him.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes.

MR. HOWARD: I understand the Premier to say that, yes, he did inquire.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: The Premier can satisfy anything, because he's one who is noted, by his own words, to make statements which are appropriate to the moment. That's one of those self-serving, facetious, spurious comments.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, please protect me from that yappy Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Mr. Chabot), because if you let him get out of hand.... I can't see what you're holding up to me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Vote 9.

MR. HOWARD: Yes, I'm on vote 9, Mr. Chairman, which is where we've been all afternoon. The Premier refuses to answer the simple question...that he took the responsible course of asking Mr. Tozer what was going on in the Premier's office with respect to secret campaign funds. The simple, uncomplicated refusal on the part of the Premier to answer that question posed by a number of members on this side of the House, and his specious remark of just a moment ago, indicate that the Premier is not interested in dealing with the public's business in a decent, honourable and respectable way. He has now left the chamber, obviously indicating his contempt both for the chamber and the question.

Interjections.

MR. HOWARD: Oh, I'm sorry. I apologize, Mr. Chairman. The Premier has not left the chamber, he just left his seat. I didn't see that he has gone to consult with the government Whip. In any event, he has not deigned to give any consideration to even answering that uncomplicated question about what was taking place within his office, and what he disclosed. It really seems that that contemptible attitude on his part indicates that we probably shouldn't waste a great deal more time this afternoon in dealing with that subject matter. I wonder therefore if I might move that the committee rise, report no progress whatever and ask leave to sit again.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 25

NAYS — 29

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

MR. HOWARD: Without transgressing the rules and casting any reflection upon the vote that just took place, obviously government members voted not to rise in order to ensure that the Premier had an opportunity to answer the questions, because if the committee had risen he wouldn't have had an opportunity to answer them. That's the question, that simple one. At the time, or shortly thereafter, when Mr. Tozer, working in the Premier's office, disclosed that there was in fact a special — theretofore secret — fund of money available for electoral purposes, did the Premier then ask Mr. Tozer what that fund was all about, how it came into existence, how long it had been in existence, what the source of the funds was — he has said that he did not inquire about that — and who the signing officers were of that particular fund?

Were the signing officers public servants? Were the signing officers of that secret bank account, or those secret bank accounts, paid as public servants by the taxpayers of this province? If they were paid by the taxpayers of this province from public funds, their obligation and their duty therefore is to serve the public interest. And if they were, in fact, at the same time signing officers of a secret slush fund account serving a private interest, then there is a conflict involved there that should not be tolerated. Did the Premier ask Mr. Tozer what that account was all about, when it had come into existence, how long it had been operated, who the signing officers were — both at that period of time and in the past — and if the fund had existed in the past? Did the Premier ask this to satisfy himself that the public interest was being served and that there was not a conflict of interest, that the general taxpayers of this province, paying public servants to do public business, were not being short-changed? Could he tell the House — having satisfied himself of that, because obviously he's kept a continuing interest in it — who are the signing officers of that fund now? What amounts of money are in it? Could the Premier answer that?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, the member for Skeena is incorrect when he talks about slush funds and makes suggestions that there are large improper funds. My party, as does their party, has legitimate continuing expenses for those charged with its business, and those are, I under-

[ Page 1997 ]

stand, looked after by the party, and the appropriate responses can come from the party. As government and as Premier, when we travel for the government, obviously then we travel at the expense of government, and that's on behalf of all the people. The member is incorrect and imprecise. He's also totally incorrect in trying to confuse this chamber with talk about those moneys as part of the campaign that the campaign director, Les Peterson, has identified as having to do with continuing party funding. The appropriate responses on party funding could be made by the party president, Bernie Smith, who's responsible for the activities of the party.

Now as far as additional questions to do with government are concerned, they have been very few and far between today. In fact, it has been difficult to get questions on matters of public policy, and I'm sure members are now being pressed by their constituents as to why they have not asked them. I was in Vancouver this morning going through a number of appointments on behalf of the government, and the common question was: "Why does the New Democratic Party not only fail to discuss the public's business, but also fail to offer any alternatives." They said: "We're quite familiar with their tactic, Mr. Premier. We've seen it over a number of years. Don't they know we're tired of the same old NDP tactic? Perhaps you could get on with the public's business, because, Mr. Premier, we don't agree with everything your government is doing, and we think they should be offering some criticism and some logical alternatives when they don't agree with your program." And I agree. We do not have all of the answers. We're in a time....

In fact, I was asked on the way into the Legislature today whether the government of British Columbia — myself, as Premier — would be making any contribution now that the referendum date has been set for the province of Quebec. I would like to take some opportunity to make a statement. However, I have a responsibility to the Legislature. Our government is on record — and I would like to reinforce the position of this government — as encouraging the people of Quebec to stay in Canada and encouraging them to work with us in proposals such as we have made in a way, we believe, that can meet the constitutional opportunities which the people in the province of Quebec, as a province, want, and which the people of British Columbia, Alberta and the Atlantic provinces want. We would want to reinforce....

We are not opposing the referendum in a negative way — their wish to separate; sovereignty-association is just that — but rather, we would like to talk to them about the positive aspects of what Canada can be. What a Canada we'd have with their participation. I would hope that we will have an opportunity during this sitting of the Legislature for all members to put clearly on the record the sentiments we all feel of wishing to keep our country together and encouraging the people of Quebec to vote yes in a positive way to build a stronger country. I don't know of anyone who agrees with the status quo. I don't know of any provincial government that says we must continue under the same old roles. Mr. Chairman, the people of Quebec should have outlined for them the ways in which we believe this country can work.

I'd like, as the Premier of British Columbia, to outline for them those ways in which we see a stronger Canada, a Canada that will give a type of input at the centre that British Columbia has felt we have lacked in the west. It is the representation we feel we have not had that has caused a feeling of alienation. The term "western alienation" has not just been invented in the last few years, Mr. Chairman. It is a term that has expressed the disquiet and the lack of representation that people in the west have felt for many, many years in this country.

We feel that the constitutional talks that we've had, the first ministers' conferences.... Now in this situation we have a unique opportunity to reinforce those of us who have made positive suggestions on how we believe this country can better operate and what we feel should be done.

We already have made the present Premier of Quebec aware of those proposals. We have already shared them, not only in sending the proposals but in discussions between some of our officials and the leader of the Liberal Party in Quebec, Claude Ryan. We have been interested in receiving the proposals of Mr. Ryan, as we have the proposals from the governments of other provinces, as well as those provinces where opposition parties, such as Mr. Ryan's in Quebec, have made a stand on the ways in which they see the country having a better working relationship in the future. Really, that's all constitutional amendment is. It's a proper, orderly division of powers between the provinces and the government of Canada. It removes the overlap and competition of jurisdiction which now preoccupies government and prevents positive action.

We believe that if the British Columbia proposals are not accepted in their entirety.... They were put forward at a time when innovative proposals were not forthcoming, and they have been a base from which other provincial governments could start. We've moved a long way from the type of atmosphere in which our proposals, innovative as they were, were questioned a few years ago. Today we can see the thread of the British Columbia proposals in the proposals of other provinces. That means that we're getting closer together. It means that things that were considered impossible in this country a few years ago are now being accepted — and it's the sincerest form of flattery — and made a part of others' proposals, as if it were their own idea. That's good, because we seem to be moving towards a common ground.

It's going to be important for not only the government but the opposition as well to stand up for Canada in the coming months in a positive way, particularly until the referendum deadline. It's going to be important, then, not only for the people of Quebec but also for the rest of Canada to know how the present government and the opposition party in British Columbia feel. In most cases the opposition have been silent; in many cases they have been derisive of the efforts of the government of British Columbia, the Social Credit Party. In some cases the opposition have been downright frivolous in their approach, as in case of the Pépin-Robarts task force, for example...and other opportunities for their voice to be heard. The people of Quebec, as well as the people of Atlantic Canada, want to hear from the west. We should take every opportunity to make our position clearly understood in the other parts of the country.

During this debate we've had an opportunity for members of the New Democratic Party — who are perhaps more sensitive to Quebec than are some of their colleagues — to take their place....

The member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) looks up as though he is interested — no, he's not. He shares the same lack of concern as his colleagues. He shook his head when I said he was interested.

The position of the government of British Columbia, of this party, is very clearly detailed in a number of booklets

[ Page 1998 ]

which I will be pleased to once more send to the member for Coquitlam-Moody. I'll tell the member, just as I know he disagrees with his leader on the Waffle Manifesto, some members may not share the same total view of our party and its proposals, but they were endorsed by our government before being presented. They are the policies of this party and of the government. Yes, we will have the flexibility to deal with other governments; we invite you to make a contribution, because we'll all live with the results of any constitutional talks. Obviously the New Democratic Party is unwilling or unready to deal in this area, but when the estimates of the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) come up, they will have ample opportunity to make up for the lack of concern they've shown in this area during the past three weeks.

To allow them further time, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The first member for Vancouver Centre on a point of order.

MR. LAUK: There was no intervening business. I don't see how the hon. Premier can move a dilatory motion without intervening business.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. For the information of members, it has been customary to accept that the Chair will accept that motion when we are close to the regular hour of adjournment. Hon. member, that is why at this particular time of approximately 12 minutes to 6 p.m. the motion was accepted, notwithstanding the lack of intervening business.

MR. LAUK: But we have 12 minutes to go.

MR. CHAIRMAN: It is a common practice of the House, hon. member.

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

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

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

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

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, I would like your advice on a point of order. I want to raise the question as to how the Deputy Speaker is appointed — not yourself. I know that when the Deputy Speaker is appointed by the House, we elect the Deputy Speaker. But I'd like to know how the Deputy Deputy Speaker is chosen to sit in in the absence of our Speaker. I'd like your advice as to how that happens.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, I would be happy to take that under advisement or to discuss the matter with you at a later date. It is provided for — Beauchesne, for example, is one.... I will undertake to bring that back to the member or discuss it with him.

MR. LEA: Okay. Could you, at the same time, Mr. Speaker, take into consideration, when you're looking into it, that I strongly protest the one who has been chosen, the hon. member for Prince George South (Mr. Strachan)?

MR. HOWARD: I rise to debate the adjournment motion just very briefly, Mr. Speaker. Earlier today we had received information which we took at face value and were pleased to hear, namely that there would be a night sitting tonight. The source of the information was close to government, and we assumed that the information provided was factual. It appears that is not the case — that we had perhaps been listening to rumour rather than true information, which is neither here nor there at this moment, except that we had been pleased to hear what turned out to be not falsehood, Mr. Speaker — because I wouldn't want to say that — but what turned out to be inaccurate or improper information.

We object again, as we did the other evening, to the idea that the House is not going to sit this evening, a traditional evening — at least, up until the last few weeks, anyway — for night sittings, as is Thursday, so I am told and advised. I understand, though, from conversations with a few government members — and I do have conversations with government members — that the ban on night sittings is only to apply during the Premier's estimates, and that after those are out of the way we'll be back on the night sitting course again and all of the government departments will be here night and day for days on end. I'm sure members of the cabinet will enjoy that — having to make the sacrifice in favour of the Premier having a gentle day out of it all.

We've lost a tremendous amount of time. I haven't computed it in hours, but a fair amount of time has been lost in the normal ordinary opportunity to conduct the business of the general public. We have a government that looks upon this question in a very negative way; a government that's opposed to working a full shift; a government that's negative to the idea of work in the normal ordinary sense of the word as we appreciate it here; a government that's negative to answering legitimate honest questions, as we've just experienced this afternoon; a government that's negative to the concept of night sittings. The only thing it's positive to in this regard, Mr. Speaker, is the casual life. It's positive to the free lap-it-up evenings, or whatever they do during the evenings.

Interjections.

MR. HOWARD: We could be here working. We could be here this evening working for the general public.

Interjections.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, listen to the chatter on the other side objecting to the idea of working this evening on behalf of the general public of this province. That's what they're objecting to. The only thing they're positive to is indolence. They're positive towards indolence, positive towards laziness, positive towards having the nights off.

Now we know the Premier is a workaholic. We're not talking about the Premier. We know the Premier works long hours every day, every afternoon, every evening. We're not talking about the Premier. We're talking about that crowd of lazy people around him.

Interjection.

[ Page 1999 ]

MR. HOWARD: Around you, Mr. Premier. Turn around and look at them, and never mind....

MR. LEA: We thought at least Garde Gardom would know what hard work is.

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, the member for Skeena has the floor.

Interjections.

MR. HOWARD: I'm tempted to smile in reply to the asininity of that comment by the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) but this is too serious a question to laugh about.

Interjection.

MR. HOWARD: Yes, it is! It's a question of work. Mr. Speaker, here's a government that has all the characteristics and all the mobility and all the speed of a receding glacier when it comes to public business. For heaven's sake, through you, Mr. Speaker, pull up your socks and get to work on behalf of the people you are being paid by.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, I just want to assure the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development that this is indeed not "The Gong Show." Were it "The Gong Show," that minister would have been chased out of this institution many months ago. It can't be "The Gong Show," because if ever there were a candidate for the Chuck Barris hammer, that minister has to be it.

Mr. Speaker, I don't know what's wrong with this government. It's a government fraught with inertia in terms of any positive programs for the province. It's a government which has lost any sense of direction in terms of proposals and stewardship of the province's affairs. We don't hear very much from the government in terms of what the order of business in the House is going to be. As my colleague from Skeena said, we received word earlier today that indeed there would be a night sitting. I believe we received word from some obscure source just yesterday that the House, indeed, will recess for three days next week.

We have a government which is not prepared to put in a full day's work in the customary parliamentary sense where we sit two evenings a week. We have a government which is now going to recess — we don't know what for — for three days next week so they can apparently rest and try and pull their thoughts together. Heaven help us. I can only assume that the people of the province are looking on with horror at the lack of performance of this government since the Legislature convened over a month ago.

I have never seen such a shambles in terms of an excuse for an administration in all of my life. We've had no direction, no answers and no accountability from the first minister. We've had no continuity in terms of the business of the Legislature. We've only had a singular unwillingness either to account to the public and answer questions or indeed to meet the normal and traditional rules of parliament. We've had contempt on every side for this as an institution.

When my colleague suggested that we should come back and work tonight, there were guffaws and hoots of derision on the other side, as if to imply that no work on behalf of the people of the province is done in this institution.

Interjections.

MR. KING: Mr. Speaker, as far as I am concerned, I was not elected by the press gallery; I was elected by the people in my constituency and I believe that I am here on their behalf to represent them.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: How come you're so red in the face?

MR. KING: Because I'm ashamed, Mr. Member, to sit in the same institution with you — that's why I'm red in the face. And I'm embarrassed for you.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the government finds it amusing; I do not. I think that they should be prepared to put out an honest day's work for an honest day's pay. We hear ministers of the Crown admonish the workforce of this province to be prepared to put out an honest day's work for a day's pay. We have no indication whatsoever that this government is prepared to practise themselves what they preach and what they exhort the workforce of the province to do, and I think that's a shabby standard for the legislators of the province of British Columbia to set. We received no indication from the government of where they intend to go from here, and when they intend to start dealing with the problems of this province. We received no indication that they are prepared to be accountable to the Legislature, and now they are treating even the fundamental task of working and debating public business in this institution as a joke, something that should be the object of scorn and derision. I can only say that if they wish to languish in their ministerial suites, if they are not prepared to undertake intelligent debate about the issues facing this province, we want it clearly understood that the opposition is not prepared to willingly go along with the lethargic route that this government has demonstrated and become the epitome of in this province.

MR. MUSSALLEM: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, the unkindest cut of all was when the hon. member for Shuswap-Revelstoke referred to me as an obscure source.

MR LEA: On the same point of order, I'm glad to hear the obscure source admit that he was indeed the obscure source that told us we'd be sitting tonight.

MR. BARBER: There are only two possible motives behind the government's refusal to work tonight. Either they're afraid of losing a vote or they're lazy. We were told by the Whip this morning that the House would be sitting tonight. Do you deny it, Mr. Whip?

MR. MUSSALLEM: No, I did not say that.

MR. BARBER: You do deny it.

Interjection.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, hon. member. The House has no knowledge of any Whip arrangement. That is

[ Page 2000 ]

outside the parameter of the House. May we again get back to the adjournment debate.

MR. BARBER: Fair enough, Mr. Speaker. We have knowledge. The House doesn't, but we do.

There are only two reasons why the government refuses to work: they're afraid of losing a vote, or they're afraid of working. It's one of the two. There's no other rational explanation. It's been the tradition in this House that we work, ordinarily, on Tuesday and Thursday evenings. When the House is deliberately called late to session and when the House is not provided reasonable answers by the Premier, it's then reasonable that we be expected to work evenings in order to make up for the time lost by the behaviour of the government.

There are only two possible conclusions one can draw as to why the government — once again this week, as last week and the week before, and presumably the weeks to come as well — refuses to work nights. Presumably they can't keep their own troops in line. They can't guarantee that they would win a snap vote if one should be called. They can't guarantee that those who did attend would be prepared to support the government on every initiative and be prepared to vote in the government's favour on every occasion. If that were not so, then what plausible excuse do they have for refusing to work nights? What plausible reason do they have for not dealing, in the ordinary and parliamentary way, with the business of this House?

AN HON. MEMBER: Where were you all afternoon?

MR. BARBER: Working, as I do every afternoon, and as I do most nights.

The government offers no excuse, offers no rationale, provides no account for this laziness. The government makes no attempt whatever to do anything other than barefacedly admit that it's not prepared to work, because they've got either nothing to say or nothing to do here. If that were not so then I expect they would be following today the tradition that Social Credit followed for nearly 20 years in this province, with certain excesses. They worked nights. They worked nights until the job was done. This opposition has done that; our government did it when we were in power.

This government now, for the first time, has adopted a new policy and is trying to create a new tradition. There must be a reason, Mr. Speaker, why any government would wilfully and deliberately ignore or contradict a tradition in this House. They don't do it lightly, I presume, and they don't do it without any reason whatsoever. They must be doing it for some reason and some purpose. I think it's appropriate to ask what person and what purpose is served by this refusal to work nights. Well, there can only be a couple of reasons. They will, of course, deny them, and that's their prerogative. Never would any government admit that it was in trouble with its own backbenchers; never would they admit that they were worried about losing a vote, or that they were concerned tonight, in particular, about not being able to deliver on a snap vote on the Premier's estimates, for instance.

AN HON. MEMBER: Where are all your people?

MR. BARBER: They're getting their speech notes ready. We'll be here for some time yet.

Mr. Speaker, if the government is prepared to work, let them say so and let them work tonight, as we expected them to do. If they're not prepared to work, let them make at least the semblance of an excuse to the public for their laziness. It's one reason or the other. It's fear of losing a vote or an unwillingness to work that accounts for their behaviour. For 20 years that party had every opportunity in government and forced this Legislature to work nights. I recall 10 and 15 years ago sitting in the gallery late at nights. I used to come down here. This was my idea of entertainment — I couldn't afford to go to a movie — watching this group, then in power, debating estimates at 2 a.m. and 3 a.m. Well, fortunately, that stupid practice was stopped by the New Democrat government and is a thing of the past. But it has been a thing of the near past — and, until recently, the present — that people worked here between 8 p.m. and 11 p.m. — or 8:30 p.m. sometimes, if the government thought it was being generous to its backbenchers. Only since this government realized that it could not absolutely control the loyalty of its backbenchers have they now been forced into the position of refusing to work nights. Why is that? Because they're in trouble. They can't keep their own house in order; they can't get their act together; it would appear they can't even guarantee that enough people of their own show up at night in order to win a vote. Either they're afraid of losing a vote or they're afraid to work. There are only two possible excuses for this laziness, and for this breach of tradition.

AN HON. MEMBER: You think you can beat us?

MR. BARBER: We know we can't beat you, because you have the greater numbers, although you have the lesser argument. However, you know, Mr. Speaker, and we know, that the government was terrified of losing a snap vote two and a half weeks ago. We know the looks on the faces opposite as they were desperately counting heads and wondering who would show up for the unexpected vote.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're making that up.

MR. BARBER: We're not making it up at all. We read the faces and saw the consternation on them.

MR. BRUMMET: Stick to the facts.

MR. BARBER: The facts are that you refuse to work. The reason is either you're afraid to work or you're afraid of the consequences of a vote that you're not sure you could win. On the basis of that fear, you have to ask what other fears such a government has as it attempts to govern British Columbia. Apparently they're sufficiently afraid that they're going to shut the House down altogether next week. But, of course, the House has no knowledge of that, Mr. Speaker. I'm sure you've never heard the rumour, just as I'm sure you never heard the story this morning that we would be sitting tonight. You're not supposed to know these things, but we know them. The people know as well that when Social Credit proposes to abandon a tradition that Social Credit formerly honoured for 20 years, there must be a reason.

AN HON. MEMBER: You're it.

MR. BARBER: Maybe you don't like to come and work, but I don't mind it much. I don't even mind seeing you opposite. That's okay with me. The people elected you, and I expect you have a right to be here.

[ Page 2001 ]

The people elected all of us, and they expect we're all to be here doing the people's business. But the government seems not to know about that. The government seems not to know, Mr. Speaker, what their obligations are. They are to be accountable for their actions. They are to answer questions that the opposition puts, and they are to work the hours necessary in order to get the job done. They've ignored the first two, and apparently they're not prepared to debate the third.

I haven't heard a single member opposite give any reason, any explanation, or any rationale whatever for this Socred laziness, the tradition for which we haven't seen in this province. The old Socreds worked and weren't afraid of work. The New Democrats worked and weren't afraid of work either. But the coalition Socreds are afraid of something, Mr. Speaker, and you have to ask what it is.

Again, I can only observe that there are two reasons that speak for themselves: they're afraid of work, because suddenly they've turned lazy; or they're afraid of losing a vote. In either case, that's not an adequate reason. Neither answer is adequate to the reasonable demand of the people that both sides of the House be here, prepared to work, doing the business of the people according to the traditions that this Legislature has always observed, which are, among others, that from time to time we work nights — usually Tuesdays and Thursdays. I remember it, and I've been here less than five years. If it's a tradition, it was there for a reason. If the reason no longer applies, let the government tell us so.

Let the government tell us so with more candour and more honesty than they have so far, because with all respect, Mr. Speaker, they've not been candid and honest in the least about their real motives for refusing to work nights. Let them tell us what those real reasons are. Let them tell us what, in fact, they mean by breaking 20 years of their own tradition in order to avoid work at nights, in order to avoid work under circumstances in which it would appear that they're more afraid than anything else of this: that they might lose a vote by mistake, that they won't have all of their people in place at the right time, and that, particularly in regard to the Premier's own estimates, they're not absolutely certain they can command the complete loyalty of every member opposite.

What are the reasons for their refusal to work, Mr. Speaker? If they've got good reasons, we'd be interested in hearing them. If they say nothing, we can deduce for ourselves what they must be. Either way, it simply isn't good enough to move adjournment till 2 o'clock tomorrow, because if that's all they do, then they will stand criticized as being afraid — if I may say it again — of two things: either they're afraid to work, or they're afraid of losing a vote. Or there's a third possibility: they're afraid of both. Any government that governs in a condition of such fear isn't fit to be government at all.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I want to be very brief; but some things have been said that I would like to respond to. The member who just spoke, the first member for Victoria, said a great deal about work and laziness. Quite frankly, I'm a little upset, because, having known a little of the background of that particular member, I don't think he's really ever had to work at all. Before he became a backbencher on the NDP side, he was in receipt of grant after grant after grant, and in receipt of some form of government assistance. It upsets me a little to hear this member talk about work and laziness, when he doesn't really understand the word.

However, we also heard from the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). And the member for Skeena, I thought, having worked for a minister in the previous NDP government, would have some knowledge of what a minister might be involved with in the evening and in the early hours of the day. But perhaps the minister he worked for didn't keep those hours — all indications are that he didn't. However, that member for Skeena was in the employ of the government and was having his cheques sent to some place on the St. Lawrence River where he lived a good deal of the time while in the employ of that government. Again, he appears to know all about work, talks about work and about laziness, when really all the while that he worked for that government back during the NDP years, he spent most of his time, I would suggest, in the province of Quebec.

Talk about evening sittings! For five years we've had evening sittings. But where were most of your members most of that time? How many times did you have more than about a 50 percent attendance? Very few, I would suggest. This afternoon at 4:15, you had 9 members present; at 4:30, you had 12; at 4:45, 12; at 5 o'clock, 13; at 5:27, 9; at 5:32, 12. And how many have you got now? About 9. There are two more coming in.

Talk about work! You seldom attend the House in the evenings, or at least you certainly don't appear to have good attendance in the evenings. I think, if you made up your mind to deal with the business in the effective manner the people expect of us, then certainly you could accomplish a whole lot more during the afternoon hours — and the government business could be carried on as well during those hours in the evenings when the ministers do their work.

MR. LEA: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Municipal Affairs has just made one of the craziest attacks of his life, actually accusing the first member for Victoria of not working hard. Who works harder than the first member for Victoria? Everybody in the province knows nobody does.

I have noticed that this dry rot has set in since the Liberals joined the Social Credit Party. Until then we had a number of hard-working Social Credit members. It's sort of like osmosis. It travels on imperceptibly. Remember when the two members for Vancouver–Point Grey (Hon. Mr. Gardom and Hon. Mr. McGeer) and the member for West Vancouver–Howe Sound (Hon. Mr. Williams) were Liberals and sat over there? They had their bags beside their desks, waiting for the plane to get out of here. Every day the member who is now the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) had his bag and running shoes right beside his desk so he could get the heck out of here and down to catch AirWest to get back over.... Look at the old Social Crediter laughing.

AN HON. MEMBER: He knows it.

MR. LEA: He knows it.

The Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom) is a guy who knows what a hard day's work is all about. He has done that all his life. There's a guy who wasn't born with a silver spoon in his mouth. He worked for everything he's got. They should take their example from him; then they'd have a hard-working group.

It wasn't until the Liberals joined that group that you started to see the laziness set in — the decadence. They lead a fast, easy life.

[ Page 2002 ]

MR. KING: It pervades the whole core.

MR. LEA: That's right, it has pervaded the whole core of Social Credit until now they have been absolutely ruined. They are never going to work hard again, probably, because of those Liberals.

Who are those Liberals who have joined them? Well, we've got one over there who ran for the Liberal leadership, the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm).

AN HON. MEMBER: Decadent!

MR. LEA: Decadent. Look at that. He'll only look through half of his glasses; he left the other half at home.

As a matter of fact, we have another ex-Liberal leader over there. Wasn't the Minister of Labour (Hon. Mr. Heinrich) a bagman for the Liberals? That's right, he was a bagman for the Liberals. You'll notice that since he has come in they are working even less.

The Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) — there's a Socred who knows what work is all about. It must disgust him.

There's another Socred down there who knows what a hard day's work is all about: the member for North Peace River (Mr. Brummet). He knows what a hard day's work is all about. He must be disgusted with the Liberal influence in that cabinet that is bringing laziness into this House. I tell you, Fred knows what hard work is all about. If he doesn't know, Barney will tell him. Right, Bam-Bam?

Mr. Speaker, we know that this whole thing is a ruse. The reason they're not working is that the Premier can't stand the heat. If he can't stand the heat he should get out of the kitchen. That's why we're not working. The Premier's estimates are up, and the Premier can't stand the heat. Everybody here knows it. We can joke and laugh and talk about Liberal influences. We can talk about all of those things. That's fun. But the reason we're not working is because the Premier can't take the heat in the kitchen, and he's got to get out.

MR. LAUK: While the House is taking the time, Mr. Speaker, to carefully consider the reasons we're not sitting at nights these days, I think it's important that we take a sympathetic view to the Social Credit side. Some of them have aged rather radically over the last few months and over the years. It was the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing who shouted over the other day: "Legislation by exhaustion." We had worked from 2 o'clock until 5:30, and that's what he shouted over. Well, I suppose in his twilight years a four-hour day has tuckered the old fellow out.

As I look across at the benches over there I see the old geriatric set. This is a government in retirement, Mr. Speaker. They've lost the next election; they know that. Everybody’s all tired out. They can't do a full day's work, and that's why they don't want to sit nights. They've got to go home, have a cup of hot milk and a digestive cookie and have their saintly wives tuck them into bed. In the morning they can have a report of the 11 o'clock news.

Joking aside, it seems to me that we should all become a little more reasonable about this. We all come from ridings outside the city of Victoria, except for two or three of us.... [Laughter.] I'm having great success with the Minister of Intergovernmental Relations (Hon. Mr. Gardom). I hope he responds as well to the Premier's jokes.

Many of us come from outside districts, and we move to Victoria for the session. To work four hours in the afternoon is ridiculous. We've set up separate households — I'm talking about all hon. members here. It costs us a lot of money to stay in Victoria for the session. We are all willing to do it; it's our duty. But day after day working four hours a day is ridiculous. Let's be reasonable about this. Why can't we work the extra three hours? Two nights a week is all we're asking, so that at least we can get some of the work underway, we can get some of the questions and answers flowing back and forth and create some of the activity that the Legislature is supposed to create. But we don't even get warmed up on this side of the House after four hours.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Cold fish, that's all.

MR. LAUK: Many are cold but few are frozen. [Laughter.] I'm going to ignore the member for South Peace River because he's always joking about everything. He'll joke about everything. If there's a nuclear war tomorrow he'll have a joke for it.

Interjection.

MR. LAUK: Well, I see that the hon. minister is trying to raise the level of debate, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that he's trying to import the debate of secret cabinet meetings onto the floor of the chamber.

In all seriousness, if we're reasonable, and if the government is reasonable, they would see the merit in what I'm saying. Each one of us is staying here at great expense. We've come here to do a job — all of us on both sides of the House. Let's get on with it. Let's sit two nights a week.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Mr. Speaker, I wasn't going to enter into this debate, but a couple of the things that have been said on the opposite side of the House offended me greatly. I thought that I would take the opportunity to set the record straight about a couple of the things that were said, particularly by that first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber), with the pompous attitude that he took in terms of lifestyles and aversion to work — the man who has, in fact, Mr. Speaker, spent most of his life living off government grants while most of us have been working for a living most of our lives. That offends me. It offends me when I look around at the members on this side of the House and watch their work habits on behalf of the people of British Columbia and compare those with the work habits that I see happening on behalf of the people of British Columbia by those opposite members. The member for Vancouver East who comes strolling in, when he comes in at all, at 9:45, 10:30 or 10:45 a.m. and does not attend to the....

AN HON. MEMBER: Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I wish you'd ask that member not to dribble those pebbles across the floor of the House at me, Mr. Speaker.

MR. LEA: I liked you better when you owned a country and western newspaper.

[ Page 2003 ]

MR. LAUK: I never liked you at all.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: Speaking of like and not like, the best speech that was made in this House by a member opposite was one by the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) when he said he didn't like me and didn't like any of us on this side. I thought we were in good shape. As long as we'd achieved that, we'd achieved something. But then he came back a little later and said he wanted to go out for cocktails with some of our members. I don't know what happened there, what gave him a change of attitude in the short period of time in which he had to think about it.

But, Mr. Speaker, I do want to talk about work and the attitudes toward work among elected members of the Legislature. The first member for Victoria talked about tradition in this House. There has been a tradition in this Legislature over the years establishing the ways in which members do their duty to their electors, and it has changed somewhat over the years. There was a time when members were very badly paid, had no help in their offices, no help in terms of caucus researchers and, in fact, probably no offices at all. They got whatever it was — $3,000 or $5,000 a year — for attempting to do a job on behalf of their constituents, and they came to Victoria for periods of probably never more than six weeks. By a mutual agreement among those members, on most occasions, anyway, it was decided that there would be a period of time beyond which the Legislature would not sit. Generally that period was achieved, and it was generally somewhere around Easter time, after six weeks of work for very bad pay under pretty bad conditions. But today we are very well paid in society, and that goes for both sides of the House. The members opposite get a good salary, they have good offices, and they have lots of help to have them do their jobs and to serve their constituents well, both inside and outside the House.

Mr. Speaker, there is, however, a responsibility for every MLA to act today like a full-time MLA. A full-time MLA does not need to put that full time only in this Legislature, particularly when the debate over the very important estimates of the Premier of British Columbia has sunk to such an all-time low by the members on the opposite side of this House. I haven't been here long either, Mr. Member for Victoria (Mr. Barber), through you, Mr. Speaker, but I've been here for a few years and I can't recall a time in which so much frivolity, time-wasting and deliberate stalling of the activities of this House have gone on by the opposite members.

From time to time there is an attempt to bring some civilization to the job which all of us have on both sides of the House. Perhaps that civilization can take on the aspects of more sensible working hours within this Legislature, but never think for a moment that the working hours within this Legislature are the only job that you have as members of this House in order to earn your handsome salary. I watch my colleagues in cabinet work minimums of 10, generally 12, hours a day....

AN HON. MEMBER: What are you doing?

AN HON. MEMBER: Watching them.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I sit and listen to two hon. members on the other side of the House talking about work ethics and I'd just like to tell them that they had the opportunity to serve in cabinet positions, both of them at one time, and I'm not so sure how they approached their jobs when they were there. Obviously not very well, because they left a heck of a mess when they went away, which this government had to clean up. I could probably fairly say that they brought a pretty casual attitude to the job. Well, I can tell you that nobody on this side of the House does, and I feel very offended when somebody from that side of the House attempts to accuse me of either being lazy or not interested in work. I'll tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I'll stack up my work record with anyone on that side of the House at any time of the year in any year.

I want to say that in addition to the responsibilities of cabinet. I watch my colleagues in the caucus as well coming into their caucus offices at 7 a.m. and 8 a.m. and doing the business of their constituents. They do that business not from 2 p.m. to 6 p.m. every day but from probably 7 a.m. till 10 p.m. almost every day and every weekend too, when they go home to give more personal service to their constituencies. Again, Mr. Speaker, I know that the members opposite in this House don't really care about that kind of record, because most of them don’t go home anyway and certainly don't live in their constituencies any longer but have a full-time residence and a full-time salary here in Victoria. So really I wonder why they're in such a hurry to get out of these buildings. They don't have anything to lose by staying here and doing the people's business in a more civilized manner.

I'd just like to go down the list that I took out in the House and talk about the way in which jobs get done by MLAs for their constituents. About the only way a person on this side of the House could have any idea of how the members opposite do their job in terms of their service to their constituents would be to sort of go over the record of how many times I had heard, for instance — as a minister, responsible in this House for four years for a ministry which touches everyone and for the last few months for one which perhaps does not have as much personal feeling for each member.... I was Minister of Health for over four years, Mr. Speaker, and I can tell you that I heard on a very regular basis, through the mails, by telephone calls and through personal contact in my office, from every one of the members on this side of the House. But I can tell you that I seldom ever heard, or do I ever hear, from any of the members opposite about matters relating to my ministry which pertain to their constituencies. I have a feeling that if I took a poll of my colleagues around this building, they'd have to echo those sentiments. They seldom hear from those members about the problems of their constituents. So it's not much wonder that they think that this job only lasts from 2 to 6, because that's all the time they put in on it.

The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) has never approached me about a constituency problem. The member for Burnaby-Edmonds (Ms. Brown) has never approached me about a constituency problem. The second member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Barnes) has never approached me about a constituency problem.

MR. MITCHELL: I rise on a point of order. I have letters in my file that I have sent to the minister, and I demand that he retract that statement.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, as opposed to being a point of order, I think you will find that that is probably a correction.

[ Page 2004 ]

MR. MITCHELL: It is a lie!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: In any case, hon. member, the time for a correction — this is to the member for Esquimalt Port Renfrew — is at the conclusion of the speech of a member. A point of order can be raised, but a correction is raised at the latter part of the speech. Order, please.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew is not raising a point with respect to a speech which he is supposed to have made and about which he wants to make a correction. He is raising a point of order that the minister has said something to this House which is not correct and not accurate. The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew is raising that point of order; namely that what the minister said is not correct. He wants the minister to withdraw the imputation.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. member, with all due respect, that is not a point of order. Right now the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources has the floor.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: The member for Mackenzie (Mr. Lockstead) does contact me from time to time, but when I've attempted to arrange for him to attend meetings with me, he generally can't make it because I usually have the meetings in the morning. They only work from 2 o'clock to 6 o'clock.

Mr. Speaker, the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi), who isn't in the House now, has also never contacted me about problems in his constituency. The member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) has never contacted me about problems in his constituency. The member for Burnaby-Willingdon (Mr. Lorimer) has never contacted me about problems in his constituency. The member for Burnaby North (Mrs. Dailly) has never contacted me about problems in her constituency. If I have overlooked a time or two that they might have contacted me, I'm sure that they will file all the correspondence they've had with me now that they have that opportunity, because they'll want to make sure that the House understands that I may have missed once or twice. The point is, that group over there only works from 2 till 6 every day and doesn't understand what work ethics are all about or what government is all about.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Could I now recognize the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew?

MR. MITCHELL: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would ask the previous speaker to withdraw the accusation that he made against me. It is a lie; he knows it's a lie. I have contacted him, because he ran the worst Ministry of Health we've ever had in this province. I contacted him.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. The member has made his point. He has asked that the record be corrected insofar as his statement is concerned, and that's where the matter at this moment stands, hon. member. You have made your correction. We are not at a debate point at this stage.

MR. MITCHELL: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: The next point of order from the first member for Vancouver Centre.

MR. LAUK: ...made by the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair), I know that with respect to myself, for example, the letters which I wrote to the minister on health questions on issues sometimes were answered within two months. On issues facing areas in my district....

AN HON. MEMBER: Table them.

MR. LAUK: If I table them in this House will you resign your seat for lying to the chamber? Will you do that?

[Deputy Speaker rose.]

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. Hon. members, regardless of what stage of the proceedings we are at, we are still trying to preserve parliamentary debate and decorum in this House. The first member for Vancouver Centre rose on a point of order in an attempt to gain the floor, and then began a debate which is totally out of order on a point of order.

[Deputy Speaker resumed his seat.]

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

MR. LAUK: I wish to correct the record, insofar as the Minister of Health is concerned. He suggested that I file the correspondence and I'm asking him to stake his seat on it. That's the honourable thing for any member to do.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: With all due respect, that is not in the point of order.

MRS. DAILLY: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the minister lied when he stated that I have never come over to discuss any matter, and I want that on record. He lied!

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I must ask the hon. member for Burnaby North to withdraw the statement that the minister lied. There are many parliamentary ways that this matter can be addressed, but that language cannot be tolerated by your Chair. The Chair must ask for a withdrawal of that statement. Hon. member, I would ask you to withdraw the statement.

MRS. DAILLY: In deference to you, Mr. Speaker — only you — I will withdraw.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I thank the hon. member for her withdrawal.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, on the motion, I have very few words, but the few words that I have to say are this: it would have done the province a real service if this Legislative Assembly had met 24 hours a day during the course of that minister's ministry. He did more to wreak havoc in this province during his tenure than any person ever could possibly imagine. That's one of the reasons we want them here working in the House.

HON. MR. GARDOM: I must say that we've really had

[ Page 2005 ]

the whole load from the opposition this evening. It has certainly been an attitude of abject sanctimony and a great deal of hypocrisy on the part of the official opposition, but I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that there's no question that the people of this province can see through this type of flim-flam. It's a political ploy on your part — you're entitled to do that. It's a bit of political gandy dancing, and you're entitled to do that. But we noticed, Mr. Speaker, that when they were making these comments they weren't really speaking — I have to say — truthfully. It was just a little bit of fun on your part. There wasn't sincerity behind those remarks. Mr. Speaker, even the official opposition....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please, the first member for Vancouver Centre rises on a point of order.

MR. LAUK: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the hon. minister withdraw the statements that the speakers on this side of the House were not speaking truthfully.

HON. MR. GARDOM: If there was any suggestion to the hon. members that I am accusing them of lying, I am not doing that. But I tell you, there was an awful lot of tongues in an awful lot of cheeks when you were making that statement. If the member feels that I offended him or offended any members of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, I indeed do withdraw. But I would like to say that the opposition know full well in their own hearts — as everybody in B.C. knows — that this government is providing full value to the taxpayer for his tax dollar.

I'd also like to mention — which everybody in the province knows as well — that it was not this government that plunged B.C. into almost the worst economic ruin it has ever been in in its history. If they say they worked I give them full credit for working hard at one thing: they worked hard at nearly ruining the province of British Columbia. That is what they nearly accomplished.

We have been in this Legislature for approximately 40 sittings. The throne speech went the full limit, as was to be anticipated, which was six sittings and the evenings for a total of ten settings. The budget address went for ten days and four nights, which is another 14 sittings. Since then, and this again is part of the parliamentary process, the official opposition has not really raised any constructive proposals or even any constructive opposition to the government's proposals in its statements and in its questions to the Premier during his estimates. They have decided they are going to have one bill go on almost forever.

There is lots of work in front of this Legislature yet to be accomplished. There are ten bills sitting on the order paper still awaiting second reading. One has almost stagnated in adjourned debate on second reading.

I want to say that the opposition knows the work is being carried on by this government. This government is working at night, in the morning and in the afternoon, and it's performing great service for the people of B.C. I indeed hope the opposition will in all good humour — which they started off this debate with tonight — recant and join the government in this vote tonight. Call the question.

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Phillips tabled the financial statements of the British Columbia Cellulose Company for the year ending December 31, 1979.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 6:48 p.m.