[ Page 2077 ]

CONTENTS

Routine Proceedings

Consumer Protection Amendment Act, 1980 (Bill 14). Hon. Mr. Nielsen.

Introduction and first reading –– 2077

Oral Questions.

Interest rates. Mr. Howard –– 2077

Allegations against member for Central Fraser Valley. Mr. Macdonald –– 2078

Cable television merger. Mr. Mitchell –– 2079

B.C. Tel rate increase application. Mr. Lauk –– 2079

"Dirty tricks." Mr. Leggatt –– 2079

Administration of Justice. Hon. Mr. Williams replies –– 2079

Committee of Supply; Premier's Office estimates.

On vote 9.

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2080

Mr. King –– 2080

Mr. Mitchell –– 2083

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2085

Hon. Mr. Phillips –– 2090

Mr. Leggatt –– 2093

Mr. Barber –– 2094

Division on the motion that the Chairman leave the chair –– 2094

Mr. Barber –– 2094

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2098

Mr. Levi –– 2101

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2101

Assessment Appeal Board of British Columbia report for the calendar year 1979.

Hon. Mr. Curtis –– 2101

An Act to Amend the Royal Canadian Legion Act (Bill PR404). Mr. Davis.

Introduction and first reading –– 2101

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

MR. LEGGATT: It's my pleasure to welcome to British Columbia a young man who is seated on the floor of our Legislature today. He is the financial critic for the New Democratic Party and represents the riding of Broadview-Greenwood. Incidentally, this young man was named as one of the ten most eligible bachelors by Weekend magazine and was married the day after. His wife happens to be in the gallery. This is Mr. Robert Rae, Member of Parliament.

HON. MR. WATERLAND: In the gallery today are two gentlemen from Port Alberni, who are members of the executive of the Social Credit Party there. Would the House please welcome Joe Van Bergen and Charlie Haggard.

MR. BARRETT: MR. Speaker, I have two introductions to make. The first is of two colleagues of ours — former members of this House. I only see one in the gallery right now, but I would ask the House to welcome two great veterans in this Legislature, Leo Nimsick and Bill Hartley. Also in the gallery today we have two long-time friends of the New Democratic Party, Lloyd Ellis and Knut Norjberg, and I would ask the House to welcome them.

MR. HANSON: Mr. Speaker, I would like the House to join me in welcoming a former member of this House and a former minister of the Crown, Mr. Sam Bawlf.

MR. MUSSALLEM: I would ask the House to welcome two great British Columbians and family friends over the years, Elizabeth Bell and Doris Andrew, both of Vancouver.

MS. BROWN: Seated in the gallery today are a group of students from McPherson Park Junior Secondary School accompanied by their teacher, Mrs. Kennedy. Would the House join me in bidding them welcome.

MR. SKELLY: As the member for Alberni, I too would like to welcome Mr. Van Bergen and Mr. Haggard to Victoria. I'd also like to have the House welcome Bram Goldwater, who is the husband of one of our caucus researchers, to the Legislature.

MR. LAUK: From Vancouver's Italian community visiting the gallery today, I would ask the House to welcome Mr. Elio Quattrochi.

For the information of the gallery, the seats that are presently unoccupied on the treasury benches are for the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) and the....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: I was hoping to facilitate their entry into the chamber and their settling back to await question period, which is only 15 minutes long, as Mr. Speaker knows. Some of the members of the cabinet aren't here to receive....

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. I would ask the member to take his seat, please.

Interjections.

MR. LAUK: I wasn't planning on asking a question of the member for Prince Rupert (Mr. Lea) at this stage.

Introduction of Bills

CONSUMER PROTECTION AMENDMENT ACT, 1980

Hon. Mr. Nielsen presented a message from His Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Consumer Protection Amendment Act, 1980.

Bill 14, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Oral Questions

INTEREST RATES

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that the government's proposal with respect to appointments to the Bank of Canada has not yet been accepted by the federal government, and in view of the concern about high interest rates and the consequential damage to our economy arising therefrom, can the minister inform the House what steps he has taken to have someone from B.C. appointed to the board of directors of the Bank of Canada, even as an interim measure, pending formal acceptance of the government's constitutional proposals?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question. The government of British Columbia has undertaken a number of steps with respect to high interest rates, which are of concern to everyone in British Columbia and, indeed, all Canadians.

I am pleased to report on the fact that the question was discussed at length at the Western Premiers' Conference. There was a very strong feeling of unanimity on the part of the four Premiers in attendance and their respective ministers who have some involvement. The member knows there is representation from British Columbia on the board of governors of the Bank of Canada. I have drawn the problem of high interest rates directly to the attention of the Minister of Finance, which I believe is the correct approach for a provincial Minister of Finance to take. If I can assist the member further I'll be happy to do so.

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the presence on the board of directors of a Mr. D.M. Goldie from British Columbia, could the minister advise whether he, his predecessor or anyone in his ministry made any representations to the government of Canada, with respect to the vacancy that was created by the death of the late Mr. Walton, as to whom should replace Mr. Walton?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, I have not made any representation. I am not aware of whether, in fact, my predecessor in this portfolio did. However, I think the ques-

[ Page 2078 ]

tion is framed in a very narrow sense by the member opposite because although representation on the board of governors of the Bank of Canada may well be a useful step to take, the question is much broader and far more serious than — I'm sure the member would agree — just to deal with the question of representation on the board of governors. With respect to the Bank of Canada itself, the problem is to be found in the offices of the federal government. Again, I tell the member that that was dealt with at great length by four Premiers and their respective ministers in Lethbridge. A communiqué was issued, and the member would be heartened, I'm sure, to know that the Premier of Saskatchewan and the ministers of Saskatchewan who were present there shared British Columbia's point of view on many parts of the communiqué and the topic with respect to interest rates and the situation which Canada faces at the present time.

Beyond that I don't believe that I can assist the member more. But during the course of my estimates, when they are presented in August or September or October — sometime this calendar year, I trust — I would be happy to discuss the matter further with the hon. member and to express my views with respect to interest rates. I think that the other point which should be made, and it is perhaps more specifically directed to the member's question, is the fact that, regrettably, the governor of the Bank of Canada was either unable or unwilling to attend the Western Premiers' Conference just concluded in Lethbridge. Our Premier followed up with a request for reconsideration, and that request was also denied. That would have been an ideal starting point for the discussion and review of the kind of problem which the member has identified for the House today.

MR. HOWARD: It's precisely because of the broad impact of the Bank of Canada that questions are being posed. They're not posed in any narrow sense, even though they may have related to one individual.

Would the minister commit himself to examine activities within his department before he became minister to see whether anybody in his department — or his predecessor in office — made any specific representations with respect to membership on the board of directors of the Bank of Canada from British Columbia?

HON. MR. CURTIS: I sense that that is a request for me to reply to the member at some time in the future. I take the question as notice.

MR. LEGGATT: My supplementary is again to the Minister of Finance.

The Minister of Finance has indicated to the House that he was aware that Mr. D.M. Goldie was appointed to the board of governors — quite recently, as a matter of fact. The two terms of office have corresponded. Can the minister advise the House whether or not he has put forth to Mr. D. M. Goldie the policy of the government of British Columbia with respect to the Bank of Canada's management of interest rates? Can he confirm that he, in fact, has put that policy before B.C.'s representative on that board of governors?

HON. MR. CURTIS: Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member — no, I have not. Because, as I indicated a few moments ago in response to the question from the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), I saw it — as I believe it would be seen by any Minister of Finance in any province — as more appropriate to communicate directly with the federal Minister of Finance, Mr. MacEachen, to outline at some length the concern which we have in British Columbia, which we know is not unique to British Columbia, with respect to interest rates.

I think that it should also be seen in the context, Mr. Speaker, of the fact that there was this hope — a very real hope at the time — that indeed the governor of the Bank of Canada would be available for discussion with the four Premiers of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba. I can't give the member the precise date of my Telex to Mr. MacEachen, but when you see the context of the expectation, or at least the hope, that the federal Minister of Finance would respond to my telegram and that the governor of the Bank of Canada would be present for those discussions, it did not appear necessary to take further action with respect to a single member of the board of governors of the Bank of Canada.

ALLEGATIONS AGAINST MEMBER FOR CENTRAL
FRASER VALLEY

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Attorney-General. In view of the statement on April 8 of Staff Sergeant Rosebury of the RCMP, can the Attorney-General advise the House whether or not he is aware that the investigation relating to the member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie) is still continuing?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I could respond to the question more directly if the member would please inform me what statement the staff sergeant has made.

MR. MACDONALD: A supplementary. The staff sergeant is reported to have made the statement that the investigation into the allegations against Ritchie....

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Don't you want to hear it?

AN HON. MEMBER: Are you quoting?

MR. MACDONALD: Yes, I'm quoting a statement that the investigation into the allegations against Mr. Ritchie is not concluded.

Interjection.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, I thought the Attorney-General wanted me to tell him what the staff sergeant said. Now you're objecting to me saying it.

Will the Attorney-Gencral now confirm that the investigation is continuing?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I saw the newspaper article to which the second member for Vancouver East has referred. He is quoting the article, not the staff sergeant.

MR. MACDONALD: That's very bad, to answer "quoting the newspaper. " It gives the Attorney-General a nice little out, doesn't it?

My second question is: can the Attorney-General confirm that there is another affidavit — not that of Henry Friesen —

[ Page 2079 ]

which is also related to the conduct of the said member, and which is now under investigation by his department?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: I have no knowledge of such further affidavit, Mr. Speaker.

CABLE TELEVISION MERGER

MR. MITCHELL: My question is to the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications. On April 10 the minister advised the House that his government will not intervene in the Canadian Cablesystems takeover or merger with Premier Cablevision. Has the minister received any representation from a director or persons associated with Rogers Cable Communications Ltd., Premier Cablevision or Canadian Cablesystems?

HON. MR. McGEER: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have had two meetings with representatives of Premier Cablevision and of Canadian Cablesystems. These two companies have presented to the ministry the complete proposal which will be presented to the CRTC, and officials of my ministry have had an opportunity to give me advice with respect to the details of that submission.

MR. MITCHELL: Could the minister advise the House when these meetings took place?

HON. MR. McGEER: I'd have to look up my log, Mr. Speaker. I'd be happy to take that question as notice, but in a general way. The details of their proposal would have been given to the ministry perhaps a month ago.

MR. MITCHELL: Has the minister had any discussions with the second member for Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman) on the question of this merger?

HON. MR. McGEER: No, Mr. Speaker. I've had discussions with the principals concerned.

MR. MITCHELL: Is the minister aware that the second member for Vancouver South is a director of Canadian Cablesystems and holds shares in Premier Cablevision?

HON. MR. McGEER: No, Mr. Speaker, but it wouldn't make any difference whether he did or didn't.

B.C. TEL RATE INCREASE APPLICATION

MR. LAUK: I have a new question for the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications — the man in charge of the longest exhaust pipe in history. Now that the date for intervention with the CRTC by the government of British Columbia to oppose the B.C. Telephone Company's application for a rate increase has passed, could the minister state the reasons for the government's lack of intervention?

HON. MR. McGEER: It may be that the government will intervene.

MR. LAUK: Is it possible, now that the date for notice of intervention has passed, that the government will be allowed to intervene?

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

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I'd like to add one more supplementary. Now that the minister may intervene in the telephone matter, would he file intervention in the cablevision takeover?

HON. MR. McGEER: I'll take that question under consideration.

MR. MITCHELL: I have one further supplementary. The intervention has to be in by Wednesday, April 30 of this year.

HON. MR. McGEER: I thank the member for that information, Mr. Speaker.

"DIRTY TRICKS"

MR. LEGGATT: My question is directed to the Premier. It was reported last week that an executive member of the Social Credit Party had written a letter to the Premier shortly after — I understand it was just a few days after — the Bayshore Inn conference during which certain dirty tricks were apparently recommended by Social Credit staff. Could the Premier confirm that such a letter was received by his office?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I can't comment on any letters alleged to have been sent which were not received.

MR. HYNDMAN: I rise, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, to correct a statement made in question period. I own shares in neither Canadian Cablesystems Ltd. nor Premier Cablevision Ltd.

ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, last month I took some questions on notice, and I would ask leave to respond.

Leave granted.

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: On March 10, 1980, the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) asked: "Did the RCMP report on this matter either recommend or" — it's in two parts —  "set out grounds whereby it could be concluded that there was an infraction of law that should be dealt with or proceeded with?" It deals with the hon. member for Central Fraser Valley (Mr. Ritchie). The answer to the first part is yes, and the answer to the second part is no.

A question on March 12: "In terms of the allegations surrounding the hon. member for Central Fraser Valley, the RCMP were requested to make a report. Were they requested by an official of the Attorney-General's office to make such a report — by the Attorney-General or his predecessor?" The answer is that Assistant Deputy Attorney- General Neil McDiarmid requested the RCMP to conduct an investigation.

On March 20 there was a question from the hon. first member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Lauk): "Did John Hall take statements from Bruce Donald, Brian Weddell, or Dick Vogel, or all three?" The answer is no.

[ Page 2080 ]

On March 24 there was a question from the second member for Vancouver East: "Would the Attorney-General then check as to whether, following that statement of the Deputy Attorney-General, he at any time indicated that if somebody else issued a subpoena he would see that it was withdrawn or cancelled or something of that kind?" The answer is no.

On March 27 there was a question from the second member for Vancouver East: "Has anyone in the RCMP contacted the hon. Attorney-General or someone in his department asking that the RCMP report and the evidence therein referred to be revealed by independent counsel? This would be following December 18, after the decision had been announced." The answer is no.

On April 2 there was a question from the second member for Vancouver East: "I have a question to the Attorney-General relating to one of his internal investigations. I ask the Attorney-General whether he, his officials or Mr. John Hall received any evidence whatsoever about Mr. Brian Weddell complaining about interference on the part of the Deputy Attorney-General in the conduct of the Michael Moran case." The answer is no.

On the same day, the same member asked: "Did the Attorney-General or his officials receive a letter from a Crown counsel of the province of British Columbia complaining about such interference and setting it out?" The answer is no.

MR. LEGGATT: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, under the normal business for Thursday, public bills in the hands of private members are called for debate. I understand this may not be the case today. What I am asking is leave of the House to go to public bills in the hands of private members and to call the bill in my name. This would call for television of the proceedings, since I listened very carefully to the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) call for the televising of the House. I thought perhaps we could have unanimous consent to call that particular bill and we'll get on to televising the proceedings.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. There is a precedence motion, hon. member, and that is....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: He's asking for leave.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Leave has been asked for. Shall leave be granted?

Interjections.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: I hear several noes, hon. member. Leave is not granted.

Interjections.

HON. MR. GARDOM: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member formerly from Ottawa is fully aware of a precedence motion. I would also like to assure members of the official opposition and certain members on the government side that we have every intention of calling private member's day, as the former government did not do.

Orders of the Day

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

ESTIMATES: PREMIER'S OFFICE

(continued)

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

HON. MR. BENNETT: First of all, Mr. Chairman, although he needs no introduction, I would like to introduce to the House a deputy minister in the Premier's office, Mr. Lawrie Wallace, who will be sitting in here providing information and helping with the answers in my estimates. I would hope the members would welcome him, particularly as this is Mr. Wallace's birthday. I also state, Mr. Chairman, that some questions may come up on the Western Premiers' Conference which was recently concluded in Lethbridge. A number of major statements have been agreed to and made by the four western Premiers, and I will be asking for leave to table communiqués 1 through 9 when we get out of committee.

MR. KING: I want to congratulate the Premier first of all on the appointment of his new deputy. Lawrie Wallace has served a number of governments in the province's political arena for many, many years. He's been a dedicated public servant. We on this side of the House congratulate him on his appointment and welcome him home.

I was intrigued by the Premier's few comments when he indicated on introducing his deputy that he might now have some help in answering questions pertaining to his office. That started to develop great expectations within my breast because we have been here for almost a month, it seems, considering the Premier's estimates, and the opposition has been singularly unsuccessful in eliciting any direct responses from the Premier. Perhaps now he feels somewhat more confident when he has a well-experienced, well-respected public servant to assist him. I hope that that's reflected in the candour with which he addresses himself to legitimate questions put to him by the opposition.

I would like to get back to where we left off prior to the Premier's hasty departure for Alberta to meet with the other western Premiers. I'd like to refresh his memory respecting the questions that the opposition would very respectfully like answered. I want to zero in particularly on the meeting that was held in the Premier's office to discuss the jetfoil operation to Seattle as some kind of a replacement for the torpedoing of the Princess Marguerite.

I think the Premier is aware that we in the province of British Columbia have a real crisis in terms of unemployment. That's manifested particularly throughout the forest industry today, because of high interest rates and a number of other economic factors — some lethargy on the part of this government, I believe. I think it's perfectly valid to ask the Premier, who attended that meeting in his office, what kind of commitments were made, in terms of taxpayers' money, to a group of businessmen to operate this jetfoil, which we have subsequently learned is to be manned entirely by American crew members. For the life of me, I cannot understand the Premier's reticence about these questions. It involves the expenditure of public funds, and I don't think it's impertinent for the opposition to seek candid answers to questions regarding the expenditure of taxpayers' money. Indeed, I think

[ Page 2081 ]

that's our obligation and our responsibility in this chamber of debate. So given the fact that the unemployment situation in the province is becoming more bleak every day, given the fact that the Premier has had a bit of a holiday in Alberta....

Interjections.

MR. KING: I'm sorry. I apologize to the Premier, Mr. Chairman. I never meant that in a derogatory way. I meant a holiday from this institution. I appreciate and acknowledge that he was down there working on behalf of the province. Nevertheless he had a bit of a respite from this institution; that was my point. Now that he's had a chance to stand back from the Legislature a while and have a look at it and has retained a new deputy minister, I wonder if he would consider answering those questions and briefing the House fully on who attended that meeting in his office, what commitments were made in terms of public money, what contracts were entered into and on what basis it was decided that this new jetfoil marine passenger service would be manned entirely by crews from the United States of America rather than by workers from the province of British Columbia, whose taxpayers are funding that particular service. I would appreciate it very much if the Premier would respond now.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, once again I must point out that questions relating to transportation should be brought up during the estimates of the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser). Also, any suggestion of private sector or society-operated transportation having received financial backing from the British Columbia Development Corporation should be brought up in the estimates of the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips).

It is difficult for me to comment on employment practices by either societies or the private sector, but I can say that those transportation systems operated under the government of British Columbia do employ Canadian and British Columbian crews.

MR. KING: I appreciate the Premier's advice, and I acknowledge that under normal circumstances the particular area I am discussing would be within the jurisdiction of the Minister of Transportation and Highways, I believe. But the facts of the matter are, Mr. Chairman, that the Premier himself convened a meeting in his office. He convened the meeting and in that way, as president of the executive council and chief executive officer of the government of the province, accepted and undertook the responsibility for any agreement made at that meeting. That being the case, I presume that since the Premier convened the meeting he had control over who attended it. I presume that the Premier designated which of his cabinet colleagues would be in attendance. I have to presume that he indeed invited some select people from the business community — I don't know on what basis, but I would appreciate learning that from the Premier.

He undertook the responsibility. The meeting was held under his auspices anyway, Mr. Chairman, and I can't for the life of me understand his reluctance to provide the House with a lucid, candid statement. That's all we're asking. We have a legitimate right to know, on behalf of the people of the province of British Columbia. Surely the Premier, if he convened the meeting, was the senior minister in attendance, and therefore he must have controlled the commitments that the province of British Columbia was prepared to make in terms of financial guarantees or contracts involving public money. He must have been in charge and responsible for the mechanics of those agreements and contracts in terms of who would be employed, the duration of the contract and who would be the supplier of the hardware. All I ask from the Premier is that he tell the House what went on at that meeting, how he decided who should be invited, and whether it was his initiative or whether it came from the business community. How much public money was expended and guaranteed, either on a contractual basis or on some verbal guarantee or on whatever basis it was made upon?

Mr. Chairman, that is public money. Once again I have to appeal to the Premier and say that we, in all good conscience and in all humility, have a right to know the answers to these questions. If we have to be put off by the Premier in the hope that the Minister of Transportation and Highways would be prepared or authorized to answer these questions, that places the opposition in a dilemma. Surely if the Premier was responsible for the conduct of that meeting it does not fall to an underling in the cabinet to reveal the precise terms of contracts that were entered into under the auspices of the Premier. I don't think that it's good enough for the Premier to suggest that we put aside our questioning until some vague point down the road where the Minister of Transportation and Highways may well tell us — and he may be justified, I don't know — "Look, I wasn't responsible for the agreement. The Premier undertook that responsibility. He convened the meeting. He was the one authorized to allocate public funds, not I." So we ask the Premier's cooperation in levelling with the House and in being honest, forthright and open.

I would commend to the Premier the remarks of his colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm), who made some statements last weekend when the Premier had left the province and was in Lethbridge. I want to identify with the observations of the hon. Minister of Municipal Affairs. He said: "The Premier doesn't run the kind of government I would run; he's not open enough." His own cabinet colleague said, "I wish the Premier would run a more open style of government," or words to that effect. He indicated that he felt it would be useful; the House would function better and the Premier's credibility might be improved if he ran a more open style of government. I don't know whether there is any significance to the fact that the minister waited until the Premier was out of the province to make those remarks but I certainly agree with them.

I see the Minister of Municipal Affairs now has a visitor. He too commented last weekend on the poor credibility of his leader, the Premier. He also commented on the credibility of some of the aspirants for that leadership position over there. I suppose the member for North Vancouver–Capilano (Mr. Ree) has some credentials in terms of making those judgments — I don't know. Nevertheless, it made the news, Mr. Chairman, and I have to say to you, when members of the Premier's own benches start to comment on his lack of credibility....

The Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) put it in very euphemistic terms: "The Premier is rather stiff — he doesn't shine in debate." Well, that may be the minister's view. I'm not sure about that. I'm not asking the Premier to get up and shine in debate. I'm not asking him to relax and be a bit less stiff, as his

[ Page 2082 ]

colleague feels he should. I wouldn't demand that of the Premier. All the opposition is demanding is some forthrightness, some candour, some openness, some accountability to the people of British Columbia. That's not unreasonable, is it, Mr. Premier? We haven't said the kind of harsh things that your own colleagues have said about you. We don't want your colleagues attacking you, Mr. Premier. Head them off at the pass, be a bit more open, a bit more candid, a little less stiff. Get up and answer the questions, Mr. Premier, which the opposition has put to you in very legitimate fashion.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, first of all, through you, I want to remind the members opposite that we have a very, very capable Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser). That minister can be fully accountable, both for transportation development within the government system and for those areas that may belong in part of the private sector, whether a non-profit society or profit-oriented, as long as they are service-oriented. I know that minister will be able to provide the type of accountability.... should such answers be required. It's not always possible to give the answers to some of the questions that are asked, but I do know that minister has shown great leadership in dealing with transportation matters in this province. I know that his record, not only to do with transportation which involves water, ships and ferries, is unsurpassed. I also know that he has brought a new level of excitement and competence to a ministry which apparently did not have a high priority in relationship to highways — new highway construction and highway maintenance. You only have to travel through the province to recognize the great job this minister is doing.

It may be that the opposition members don't want to open up areas on the floor of this Legislature where his accomplishments make their efforts as government pale by comparison. But this minister is going to be on the floor of this Legislature and he will have a chance to speak about transportation accomplishments, and such legitimate questions as can be responded to can be answered then. I have provided as much information on transportation matters.... I leave the glowing successes to the Minister of Transportation and Highways, who is eagerly awaiting his opportunity to deal not only with those questions of the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King), but also to do a little bragging about the accomplishments of his ministry and himself as minister. He has not only rationalized the transportation system but has brought some hope and some feeling of belonging to those communities that were neglected during the earlier administration because they did not have adequate, proper or acceptable access. I know he is eager to get on with his estimates and he will provide those answers then.

MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm inclined to agree with the Premier that the Minister of Transportation and Communications is a rather lovable old individual. I'm sure we all love him. In terms of just how effective he is, we intend to fully explore that when his estimates are before the House, as is our responsibility. We'll be exploring his policies at that time. Certainly I have questions to put to him. But the Premier begs the question all the time: he dodges and he darts, and he just indulges in all kinds of gyrations to get out of answering direct questions. That's becoming a trait that worries me a great deal. I think some of his ministers are starting to catch the disease. They all snake around from side to side — anything to avoid answering direct questions. That's hardly accountable; that's hardly full respect for the process we're indulging in, which is to elicit information from the government, and to make them justify their policies and their expenditures of public funds. That's why there's an opposition in the British parliamentary system of government.

When the government stonewalls and refuses to recognize legitimate questions put to them by the people's representatives in the opposition, they deny the historic role of parliament, which is accountability. The Premier, by setting the bad example that he is doing, is setting the benchmark for the rest of his cabinet colleagues. I have little faith that if they pay heed to him they are going to be any more accountable or willing to answer questions when their estimates come before the House. That's very unfortunate. It's a matter of concern to the public all over British Columbia. Therein lies the problem with the Premier's credibility, as outlined by his colleagues so eloquently.

I agree with the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm): it's time to be more open and less reticent in terms of answering questions, even if you get into a little bit of trouble with your answers. We may disagree with your answers, but we would respect the Premier's forthrightness if he would get up and answer questions directly. The whole crux of the matter is that we want one question answered so that we might get at this issue of that meeting in his office. Did the Premier convene that meeting? Did he convene and call that meeting himself? Perhaps he would answer that simple question directly and then, by the nature of his reply, we can determine whether it would be more appropriate to deal with these matters of the jetfoil under the other minister's estimates. But so far we've failed to elicit one direct answer from the Premier. So can he now answer that simple, brief, concise, cogent question? Did the Premier convene that meeting in his office, or in the parliamentary precinct, with a group of businessmen to discuss the initiation of a jetfoil service between the city of Victoria and the city of Seattle?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke may not like some of the answers; I may not like some of the questions. But we have provided the opportunity for full accountability in the Legislature for any of the actions of this government, or actions of government agencies, through the appropriate ministries. The type of questioning may not provide the type of answers the people want, but I believe that the Minister of Transportation and Highways and the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development will be able to provide the type of accountability if the questions are put to them when their estimates are before the House.

The member may pose rhetorical questions or a lot of questions, but I think the people would want to have the Minister of Transportation and Highways talk about the transportation system in this province, and he will. However, I have given what answers I can give, and I can advise the member that no information will be kept from the public of the province of British Columbia on the actions we've taken. We'll be accountable for those transportation systems and all other policies of the government. The appropriate ministers will deal with them during their estimates.

MR. KING: Well, Mr. Chairman, the question I asked

[ Page 2083 ]

was: did the Premier convene the meeting I referred to? I want to ask how many people in the House — how many people in the gallery — understood the Premier's answer to that simple question.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, it seems to be a growing trend to refer to the galleries, and it is strictly and totally out of order so to do. I would advise all members that this is the case.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I didn't know it was out of order to refer to the gallery. They are people. They happen to be taxpayers in the province of British Columbia that pay the bills for the government and all members of this House. Now I was not inviting any involvement by the gallery, Mr. Chairman, which I believe would be out of order; I was simply posing a rhetorical question. That kind of reference, I respectfully submit, is not out of order.

Anyway, I appreciate the Chair's advice.

I ask my colleague, the leader of my party: did you understand the Premier's answer?

MR. BARRETT: No.

MR. KING: Do you think the Premier is being open and frank with this House?

MR. BARRETT: No.

MR. KING: Well, how about that? There is a nonpartisan answer, Mr. Chairman. That is honesty. I want the Premier to pay heed and recognize that. Perhaps now I should ask the Minister of Municipal Affairs whether he feels the Premier is open enough. Is that the style of government you would run, Mr. Minister of Municipal Affairs? Or were you misquoted by the Vancouver Sun as well?

Mr. Chairman, the Premier gets up and says: "Well, maybe it's not the kind of answer the member wants." Well, Mr. Premier, the fact of the matter is that there was no answer at all. You didn't answer the question; you dived, ducked, bobbed and weaved. You might even be a good man in the ring, because you can sure get out of the way of questions. You're quite a fancy dancer.

All I want is a simple answer. Was it you that convened that meeting? To get up and ramble on about what a wonderful, cuddly, little guy good old Alex is begs the question. We know how cuddly and lovable that minister is, and we'll be dealing with him in due course, Mr. Chairman. But if only the Premier could be forthright and honest enough to say yes or no; either he convened the meeting or he did not. He's the chief of the whole government in the province of British Columbia — the number one executive officer — and he sits there in stunned silence regarding this very easy question. If he can't address himself to a simple question like that, my goodness, how does he deal with the more complex questions of government? I fear for the province of British Columbia.

All kidding aside, the real issue here is one of accountability. That's why the Legislature is convened. That's why 57 members are elected — to come down here and do the people's business, to ask questions, to elicit information, to understand government policy, and for the opposition to criticize it and offer alternatives. We clash in most policy discussions, and that's fine; but for the government, and particularly the Premier, to introduce a tactic of completely stonewalling for weeks on end regarding the most simple questions about the conduct of his office is a new approach and, I submit, a rather dangerous one. It's a threat to the traditional role of parliament. It's a denial of the taxpayers' right to know the questions underlying policies related to the expenditure of their tax dollars.

The government over there is fond of clichés. How often have you heard Social Credit speakers say: "The government doesn't have any money of its own; it's all the taxpayers' money"? Well, that's true. The government does not earn any money per se; they gain their revenue from taxation of individuals and resources. If they believe that those clichés which they mouth are valid and true, then why are they afraid to respond and justify their expenditure of the taxpayers' money? That's the question.

As I indicated before, I'm more patient with the Premier than his own colleagues are. I would like him to answer very much, but if he insists on stonewalling, then I guess I can be as patient as the next man. I suppose I'm more patient than the Minister of Municipal Affairs, who says the Premier should be more open. I guess I'm more patient than the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer), who says the Premier is stiff and does not shine and sparkle in debate. I don't make those demands on him. I think I'm more patient than the other guy down the benches there, the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair). He says: "Well, I stick with the Premier. In fact, sometimes when the Premier is speaking I pound my bench so hard, but that's to overcompensate and let everyone know that I think his credibility is okay." The Minister of Health must be the greatest overcompensater in this whole House. I don't know whether he believes it or not.

But seriously, Mr. Chairman, when the government's own backbenchers and executive ranks start calling into question the Premier's credibility — the Premier's unwillingness to answer rudimentary questions in debate — then I think it's time for the Premier to reassess his position and be less rigid and less stubborn and to get up and answer the questions as well and honestly as he can; not to dodge the questions. Either he convened the meeting or he did not. If he tells me one way or the other I'll be completely satisfied. I don't think that's an unreasonable proposition.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is the Premier not going to answer?

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, I was just waiting to see if the Premier wished to rise again.

As one of the newer members of this House I feel that when we rise to participate in the debate on the Premier's estimates. the main job of the opposition members is to establish within this House the credibility of the government to give answers that we, the members of the opposition, can accept. I think that when the questions that have been pointed out or brought to the Premier's attention — questions conceming the meeting of the jetfoil committee in his office, or who put their signatures to the campaign funds that came out of the Premier's office.... These are answers that only the Premier can give. You can look down at the various members of the cabinet who sit here in stony silence, but the Premier is the only one who can tell us who the signing officers for the campaign funds from his office were.

I know that vou ruled me out of order when I asked that a committee be set up to study the quality of justice in B.C.,

[ Page 2084 ]

but these are important questions that the public is interested in. The public out there — and I wouldn't go against your ruling and refer to those who sit in the galleries — the grass roots of B.C., demands answers to these important questions. The firing of the research staff of the Social Credit government.... We can't sit here, Mr. Chairman, and ask the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf) why he took certain actions, but the Premier, the leader of this government, must rise and answer direct straightforward questions that you have ruled as being proper and legal and part of the parliamentary system. We listen to you. We follow every piece of advice that you give, and when you rule something is proper and just, I feel that we are on sound ground and I feel that democracy is on the right track.

I think it was at the beginning of the Premier's estimates that we asked: did the government attempt to sell uranium in Europe or in Korea? These are straight questions. I think the Premier has an obligation to answer them. And why I ask that is because we — and I know I myself, as a member from this wonderful province — have many questions that we want to ask the Premier. I want to question the Premier about youth unemployment in this province. I want to ask the Premier what type of leadership we are going to have in developing industry to create employment for the youth of this province. These are the questions we want to ask and have answered. But before we can get up and ask these questions, we have to establish — and I think the Premier has an obligation to establish — the credibility of his office. I found that when the Premier stood in this House the other day and he stated, either naively or with sincerity.... Or was he stonewalling or trying to confuse the issue when someone asked about the source of campaign funds that came out of his office? The Premier of this province stated that he never asks for nor requests the source of his political funds. I repeat that, Mr. Speaker: he never asks for nor requests the source of his political funds.

I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, that prior to coming into this House, I was involved in the criminal justice system as a police officer, and I know the Attorney-General (Hon. Mr. Williams) has many, many files in his records where there have been investigations in many police departments — Vancouver, Edmonton, Toronto, Montreal, Detroit, New York — where police officers had been before a committee and they had been asked: how come you could deposit or why were there deposits of such sums as $25,000 or $50,000 into your accounts? When money that could not be explained came into the hands of police officers — they could be constables, NCOs, inspectors or chiefs — when this money that could not be explained from normal sources arrived in bank accounts and there was a rise in bank accounts, those officers, on examination — very much like we are here — stated that they did not look to the sources of those funds.

I know that the Attorney-General would assure you that no judge would accept that bland, stonewalling answer. If money is changing hands, it is because people expect service. When police officers accept money — and in that area there is a lot of crime and prostitution — people look at the police officers and they doubt their credibility. When the Premier of this province accepts money and states that he never asks for the source of these funds, I cannot accept that. I cannot accept that there is one standard for one section of society and another standard for another — because they sit to your right. I know that the majority of the public of British Columbia, the grassroots organizations of my party and the Social Credit Party, demand these answers. I say seriously that we are drifting away from those grass roots.

I think it's important that we establish this credibility. I think that credibility of leadership must come from the government. I think that the credibility of the explanations given by the government must be above board. As the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) said, there are many answers we may not be happy with and there are answers that we will not support, but the answers have to be given. If the Premier of the province of British Columbia will not stand up and make these answers, if he is going to look to his back bench or his cabinet members and say, "Well, when we get to their estimates, then they will answer," we cannot accept that. This credibility will not be established until we get an overall picture of what has taken place in British Columbia.

This afternoon the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis) said in an offhand manner that when we get around to his estimates in July, September, October, or sometime this calendar year.... If we must go that long to get the answers we need, he should amend that from calendar year to fiscal year. If we can get these answers from the Minister of Transportation and Highways (Hon. Mr. Fraser) or the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips), let us go on to their estimates and get these answers. If this credibility is given in their estimates, then let us withdraw the Premier's estimates.

As I said before, in maybe 23 years I have questioned many suspects in various crimes. But if I asked a question of a person who was a suspect in a crime, and he started talking about something else and said, "Well, let's talk about your trip to Hawaii or your trip to the beach or your fishing trip," and I started talking about my fishing trip, my credibility as an investigative officer would have gone down to the bottom. It's our job to keep asking questions, promoting questions and refreshing the Premier's memory until we get answers. Our job is to bring the answers to the public.

Because of your instructions, Mr. Chairman, I would not refer to the gallery; but that voice entered from somewhere up above from the young lady who said: "We have a right to know." I think that if ever there was a statement that we should campaign on, it's that statement that we have a right to know the answers to these questions. It was something that came from the heart of one person. It didn't come from the political knowledge of party people; it came from the heart of one young lady who, after listening and watching this House in session, made a very simple statement: "We have a right to know. " Your orders that the questions are in order and her statement that we have a right to know are still justified and they should still be answered.

If we can't get the answers from the Premier, then I ask him to withdraw his estimates. Let us go to the Attorney-General. Let him bring in his police report on the dirty tricks scandal of British Columbia. Let him bring it in so that committees from both sides of the House can study it. We can go over the facts and testimony that has been collected. Let us bring the background of the dirty tricks scandal to the attention of the public. What were the statements made on oath to police officers that are filed in the office of the Attorney-General? Let's bring those reports out into the open, Mr. Chairman. Let us put them into parliamentary committees. Let each one of us as members of both the government and opposition and as representatives of the taxpayers of British Columbia study and discuss these reports. Let us bring them out. It was done in the past parliaments when they elected the

[ Page 2085 ]

ombudsman and the auditor-general. They brought in unanimous reports after studying and studying and reviewing. Let us ask and let the government give us the leadership to bring these important issues to the people. As the voice from the gallery said: "We have a right to know." Mr. Chairman, we do have a right to know.

When we go into the estimates of the Attorney-General, the Speaker, the Ministry of Transportation and Highways or the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development, these are the questions that we want answered. Do we have to go to their estimates to find out how much money was guaranteed to provide services to an American-manned jetfoil system that is creating jobs? It's not creating jobs for Canadians or for people from British Columbia, but providing jobs, funds and profits to an American industry when we in British Columbia, with all our unemployment....

The Premier keeps on saying: "Let us talk about unemployment and economic development. " Mr. Chairman, we want to talk about economic development and employment. We want answers and we intend to get these answers. If the Premier would like to answer some of the questions I will be more than happy to sit down and accept some of his answers now.

HON. MR. BENNETT: First of all I would like to point out to the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew — and it may have been a slip, but I know that member does not make slips of the tongue in this Legislature — that he made a statement saying that the Premier accepted or accepts money. I would like to tell him that isn't true, and I would ask him to withdraw that statement before I proceed.

MR. MITCHELL: If the withdrawal is that he accepted funds then I withdraw it. But what I'm saying is that he did not. I'll again read the statement that he made....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. A withdrawal has been asked for and the withdrawal has been given. The member will have a further opportunity to speak.

MR. MITCHELL: I withdraw that statement.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Fine.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank the member for his gracious withdrawal. I know he did not intend to make that statement and leave an incorrect impression in this chamber.

The member canvassed ground that has been covered. Many of the answers were provided before this Legislature sat, although I do not blame the member for wishing to make some political marks in the House at the expense of our party. I accept that; it's good politics. I know the member has a good history of politics in this province. I remember him well when he won a very major and key by-election in this province years ago in which we had some interest. That was the famous by-election over in Esquimalt that signalled the defeat of the coalition government. I can remember the meetings and the strong showing of an independent candidate, which was the start of the groundswell that led to the election of a Social Credit government in 1952. The member has a long history of politics, and it was a key election in which he showed and it was part of the events which led to a major change in government at a period in our history. It was a long time between elections for that member to sit in the House, but we welcome him back.

The member did, during his questions, mention that he did want to ask about unemployment, and he expressed a concern to myself as the Premier about unemployment in the province. Actually the concern and the question should be addressed not to unemployment but to employment, and what government can do to encourage a favourable climate in which the private sector can respond. It's a legitimate question, because the role that government plays in the employment picture is not that of a direct employer. The philosophy of this government is for government to be there to serve the people — the people being those who work for wages, those who are single proprietors, those who may have small companies and be employers, those who participate in ownership of larger corporations that may provide a larger employment base.

It is to these people, these 2.5 million British Columbians, that we try to direct a climate of security, a climate of confidence such that when they make an investment in this province they feel that their investment is secure — secure from government intervention and secure from government regulation. Yes, they have the difficulties of the marketplace and yes, there will always be some businesses coming and some businesses going. But what they do need is the assurance that the rules and regulations by which they're allowed to operate — I shouldn't say "allowed to operate," because it's their province....

Really the rules and regulations are there to provide guidelines. The right to go into business and to be part of the economic development of this great province of British Columbia is indeed a right of all our people. Government shouldn't be there to thwart it or inhibit it but to encourage it. That's why I say the policies of this government have been, and are, important to that growing employment base. I'm sure the member, as part of British Columbia during the last five years has been able to see — because it's apparent to everyone — the growth in the number of new businesses establishing in British Columbia. I know the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) is also aware of the increasing numbers of those who are employed in British Columbia. I know that member sees that employment and that activity taking place in the private sector. It's not government gobbling up more and more tax dollars to provide some fictitious short-term employment that will not provide permanent employment opportunity. Rather the record is one of success, where those seeking employment are part of a growing economic and industrial structure that offers them not short-term relief but long-term security. That is why we have hundreds of thousands more people working in this province of British Columbia today. Yes, there are still unemployed, but I want to say that during the last four and a half years the number of employed has increased dramatically. Unemployment as a statistic has decreased marginally. Those can only be put in perspective when you weigh them against that which is happening in the rest of Canada.

The member for Esquimalt is smiling, and I know he's smiling because he's happy with those figures. He's happy with the record of this government. He's smiling and nodding his head and I know that he agrees that those things have happened, because although politically it might be good politics in a partisan sense to try and present a different record to the public, even the member for Esquimalt knows that he can't change the facts that are apparent to all the people, even

[ Page 2086 ]

if he would wish to in order to gain some partisan political advantage.

Let me say, Mr. Chairman, that I just left a conference of my colleagues, the western Premiers, in which this topic — that of economic stability, that of dealing with Canada's economic problems — was very much on the agenda. We recognize that while we can have successes in our own provincial areas and while provincial policies can encourage development — or discourage it in the case of the record of some governments that have played a role in this province's history — we must have a cohesive national economic policy that protects the people as much as it encourages them and gives them an opportunity not only to be employed but to provide employment for others.

That policy not only involves a number of steps that must be taken by our federal government, but would call for discussions and some additional action by governments at the provincial level, the type of cooperation in developing national economic policy — through you, Mr. Chairman, to the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew — that this country has not had. We have had ad hoc policies, unilaterally developed by the federal government; we've had provincial governments trying to compensate for measures that have been taken, not taken or reversed by the federal government.

The things that the western Premiers agreed to these last few days are not new. The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew keeps himself abreast of the major proposals this government has made to Ottawa and to our colleagues in other provinces at first ministers' conferences, and he will probably, given an opportunity in this debate, refer to them verbatim, because he has detailed knowledge of them. He will recognize that the things Premier Blakeney, Premier Lyon, Premier Lougheed and I agreed to are really the basic proposals that we took to the first ministers' conference on the economy a few years ago. Those detailed proposals were as valid and as necessary then as they are today.

But I want to say we've come a long way in a few years. Those proposals dealing with employment opportunity, with a measure of protection in this country, with interest rates, with the Bank of Canada and with a number of other agencies of the federal government or national economic policy, first put forward by British Columbia, have now been agreed to and formally endorsed in a communiqué by our colleagues from western Canada.

Mr. Chairman, those are the things we can do in a broad way as governments. Because there has been a problem in the country. As much as all governments have the best of intentions to provide opportunities for the people that elect them, quite innocently, unwittingly, through introducing the wrong programs or through no action at all, quite often the thrust of governments in certain programs has left the type of action that should have been taken — economic action.... The actions they have or have not taken have weakened the economic structure of the country. Certainly the excessive borrowing by the government of Canada has placed a debt burden on the taxpayers of this country that we are called upon to repay at increasing interest rates — a dead-weight debt and dead-weight interest charges that have taken more from the budget that should be going to build the economy and help the people at this time. We're now paying the piper; we're now paying for the excesses of the past.

The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew may, by relationship, be part of the excessive spending that took place, because the worst period of excessive public expenditure and the development of the economic troubles with which our country lives today was when the federal minority government.... By admission, the New Democratic Party said they were able to hold them up for ransom by propping them up in power and encouraged them to carry out the policies that compounded the debt problem of this country. That is part of the problem we are now trying to rectify. That is part of the communiqué that Premiers Blakeney, Lougheed and Lyon and I all have stated. Excessive government spending for current account has left the people of Canada in debt to those who provided the funds and were willing to lend the money as they went on their merry spending way. They are now calling the tune by repayment of the capital at higher interest charges.

We now see debt being compounded on debt, just in increasing interest charges. In 1972 and 1973, during that minority government period, the New Democratic Party took great credit nationally for the increased spending. Today those policies and that spending have been called — as others were pointing out then — part of the problem we live with.

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

The Premier of Saskatchewan has joined the other western Premiers in declaring that not only was the excessive government spending and borrowing wrong, but it has left a legacy of economic woes which we are trying to deal with today. Those economic woes, Mr. Chairman — through you to the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew; I almost called him the minister, and that's because it has been rumoured that he's going to be the minister for multiculturalism in the shadow cabinet of the New Democratic Party — are the types of thing that we live with today.

Now what do we say about employment? Well, Mr. Chairman — through you to the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew, who brought it up — we say that we must reduce the federal deficits. We must reduce government deficits, where we still have unenlightened governments building up public debt for current account. We must reduce the amount by which the people of Canada have been bound to the money-lenders by free-spending governments. We must reduce the amount of large-scale borrowing and equity ownership from outside this country, where interest charges flowing along with debt repayment have caused the disruption in our balance of payments, because that is tied mainly to the problem of unacceptable interest rates. That is mortgaging our country to those willing to lend money from outside. Those governments and those politicians talk about Canadians owning their country but are only too willing to mount a public debt in which they mortgage the people to those from outside, leave a debt and interest charges to provide a cash drain on our resources that cannot be compensated for by the balance of trade surplus we have in our current account. All the efforts of governments — such as those of the government of British Columbia, which has built up not only a major industrial expansion in the province but increased international trade — have failed to compensate for the mistakes of the past with the encouragement of free-spending politicians. We have to balance that cash flow.

The Premier of Saskatchewan realizes that; he is seriously concerned about the future of this country. To him it's more than glib statements or misstatements. To him the future of the country is more important. He recognizes the mistakes of the past and is trying to prevent them in the future

[ Page 2087 ]

by saying: "We cannot continue that course." I would hope the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew would stand up, when he gets the opportunity, and make the same type of statement. We must balance that cash flow; we must bring down interest rates; we must end our dependency on that type of outside borrowing, so that we can truly have a made-in-Canada economic policy, Mr. Chairman, rather than being the tail of the dog of the United States economy.

And that can be done. It can be done in a number of ways. It can be done by restraint of government; it can be done by increased equity ownership amongst Canadians. It would call for governments in Canada not only to pay lip-service to Canadian ownership, but also to have the type of government programs and tax structures that not only leave money in the hands of Canadians, be they individuals or small corporations, so they can continue and carry out that investment — and, yes, buy back our industry — but also encourage them to do so. Up until now, we've had governments which on one hand were saying, "We want you to own the country," and on the other hand were increasing the public costs, thereby increasing taxes and taking the money out of the people's pockets at a level that left no money for discretionary investment. The same governments that said, "You fail to invest as individuals," even though they were the culprit for taking all the money, now will be the buyers as governments — and we know what a record that provides.

So, Mr. Chairman, there must be, along with a tax structure that leaves money in the hands of people, government incentives to encourage people to invest. They can invest in a number of areas. The first area they can invest in is in an area of deficiency that exists in our province and our country, and that is in rental accommodation, in apartment construction. I've advocated and I say now that we must restore the federal capital cost allowance to 10 percent. That would encourage the private sector to mobilize their capital to build rental accommodation. Governments shouldn't be so greedy for tax dollars that they cancel a tax incentive that encourages our people to provide for a deficiency. The taxes from cancelling that one single tax incentive amount to only $15 million across the country. The impact in British Columbia of taxes which will go now to the federal government is $1 million, yet that tax incentive was worth hundreds of millions of dollars of potential construction in this province. More than that, and more than the jobs it would create, it would help to end the rental accommodation deficiency we have in this province. You talk about zero apartment growth. Let's get to the root of the problem with government incentives that will encourage our people who have capital to build the apartments and rental accommodation, and then allow the people a choice of where they want to live and where they want to rent. They have no choice when greedy governments don't provide the incentives to the private sector for people to build apartment space. Instead, some people answer: "Oh, the government must get into the construction business. The government must build them."

That's not the answer. Governments, by leaving the capital in the hands of our people, by government programs which will encourage the use of that capital in specific areas, can obtain the type of construction necessary. That's an incentive to getting our people to invest in equities, to get their money out of interest-bearing accounts or bank accounts and harness it to equity ownership, not only for existing industry, but for the development of new industry and new businesses. They don't have to be mega-businesses of international scale; they can be small businesses which employ one or two people. That's the way you solve unemployment. You encourage the people who elect you by leaving them their tax money — not taking it all in taxes — by incentives, by the security of the fact that they can trust that the government isn't — I was about to say: "heck-bent"! — hell-bent on confiscation by taxation, taxing their properties, businesses and homes away from them, and by giving them the security that they have a future and, given efficient operation, a chance to achieve success. The vagaries of the marketplace are tough enough without the fear of government as the real or potential enemy for small business in this province and this country. That is why I say that that is the way this government has attacked unemployment, by trying to create a climate and opportunities for employment. And it's working.

It's working on a large scale, because we've seen large scale investments in major industries. It's working on a small scale, because we have record numbers of incorporations of new small companies in this province. And that is good. Those figures tell a tale. But it is the person who is employed by the new small company, whether it's in the service industry, which is expanding because of the great tourism promotion of the Ministry of Tourism that has opened up an area providing employment and investment opportunities for people with limited capital.... Those are areas where our people can show initiative and start a new service that doesn't need large capital amounts, but create employment, perhaps for themselves as a single proprietor and, hopefully, for others. That's where employment is being picked up in British Columbia, and that's part of our success.

What about the unemployment rate we have, though? The answer has yet to be fully developed because, as I say, it has national and federal implications. But this province, in the last four and a half years, has a record of twice the national average for creating new employment. We have a record, against the national average, of inflation. Really, this government and this province have been moving in the right direction, but not as quickly as we'd like, because while there is still one person unemployed who is willing to work, then unemployment is too high. But we're moving in the right direction and we believe the policies which we have been bringing in will bear fruit. I know the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) will be expanding on this when it comes to his estimates, because he has developed not only a climate, but he has worked at the international level providing markets and encouraging our private sector, as well as being a major part of giving new hope to those wishing to start small businesses in this province. That's why I say it's a record that, while it has not resolved the total problem, has come a long way and made British Columbia the bright light within this country.

Now, rather than criticize those things which are providing success, what we should all be doing is working to make sure they work even faster or better and to look back and say: "Yes, those of us who believe that government ownership, government spending, government borrowing and government debt of a few years ago was wrong admit that it's part of the problem we've got to pay off over the next few years, and then we won't be encouraged to repeat and compound past mistakes." But admit that that's part of the problem we have today — paying off the irresponsibility of the past.

Those are, in a general way, the things this government has done to create employment in this province — real

[ Page 2088 ]

things. It's a record that's felt out there by those who are working. You only have to go around this province today and ask people how things are, and they say: "Good." Then they have to search to try and find something wrong — something wrong here and something wrong there — but generally the opportunities have never been greater.

As we predicted in our five-year mid-term outlook, we have a softening of the lumber market because of a lack of housing starts in the U.S. — that will be relieved. In the years 1981-82-83-84 we see a stability coming to our forest industry that it has never had before — a stability and security it can rely on, because this government has, for the first time, embarked on a five-year program of forest management to guarantee that the forest base will be there not only for the industry but also for the people who work in the forest industry, so they have gainful employment. Prior to that, there was only lip-service to silviculture, good forest industry, tree-planting and reforestation; but now there is a major commitment by government of not only dollars but also a plan of how it is going to work. It's a plan that will provide a more secure forest base in every part of this province. That's appreciated by the people who work in the forest industry. They know that they need this type of leadership from government, which will not only guarantee them employment now but will also guarantee that their jobs will be there in the future. There will be trees to cut, chips to process, pulpmills, newsprint, all of which will be manufactured and supplied because we will have taken care of our forests, and we will have made provision for the future. The overcut, the inefficient use of the forest industry in the past is gone.

I know that our Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland) can hardly wait until his estimates are up, to deal in detail with the positive programs, the new Forest Act which he brought in, the major five-year plan, the provision for the security of our forests in the future, and stability for those who work in them. During his four and a half years as Minister of Forests he has taken the industry from a period of insecurity to a point where they are ready to commit billions of dollars to new, much-needed investment. I hope the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) will acknowledge the insecurity felt by the industry through the years 1972-75, when the type of investment which should have been taking place didn't take place, because the public can see it. The people of Powell River can see construction of the first newsprint machine in ten years in this province. In other parts of the province the people who work in the forest industry can see it.

Stand up and give some credit. Say something positive about what's been happening. I know that although that member made some mistakes during his earlier remarks, he would not mislead the people of British Columbia. Mr. Chairman — through you to the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew — those are the things we are doing about employment. By the eager way he has been smiling and nodding, I know that he agrees with what the government is doing and that he wants us to do more of it — and better — and we will.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the Premier’s words. I sincerely hope that you will give me the same breadth of discussion that you allowed the Premier. I hope that you enforce the same law for me as for him, and that you don't cut me off, as your predecessor did when I strayed a little bit from his interpretation of the law.

I would like to get back to the point of order — I will say that it's a point of order. If the first minister of the province misinterpreted what I said, I think that if he reads the Blues he will find out that what I said was not what he stated. I said — and I repeat it again that the Premier, the leader of the political party that governs the province of British Columbia, never asked for the source of his political funding. If that is an offence.... I didn't say that he received them; but his party campaigned with literature, his party campaigned with thousand-dollar bills, his party campaigned with vast sums of money throughout the province. When that Premier says, "I never question the source of my political funding," I find it interesting. All we are asking is that we establish a certain credibility in this House, that we answer questions. When we get direct answers to questions that have been ruled as parliamentary and in order, then we can accept the flowing statements and glowing stories that we hear from the first minister.

I find it interesting, Mr. Chairman, just going over a few of the little notes, that he talked about this great debt. I think the Premier listened intently when the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) explained the manipulation of funds that created the so-called debt that this province is under, when in January 1976 there was a surplus of $60 million, and when in February 1976, following the defeat of the NDP government, there was another $60 million to $70 million. Because of the manipulation and the phony loaning of $181 million to ICBC one day, and the phony borrowing it back the next day to create a paper debt that did not exist....

When we have a minister who will stand up and keep running by this House.... You're not convincing anyone on this side of the House of the facts. They know the facts. And you're not fooling the members of your own cabinet, because they know the facts, they know the political manipulation that was done by that ministry, by that government, to confuse, confuse and confuse. But you didn't confuse the members on this side, you didn't confuse the members on the government side, and you're not confusing the public.

We talk about debt, and I know a part of the debt that was created. A ship was built in my riding that was paid for out of general revenue. Two ferries were constructed for $35 million, and they were sold to some political friends of the government back east, and that money then came back on a lease basis. Those were items that the people of British Columbia had paid for in cash, and now we are saddled with a debt of $80 million to $90 million. If that is not manipulation, debt creation or building an albatross around the necks of the people of this province, I don't know what is. We can go into this discussion and talk about creating jobs. Money that was created from the industry that was assembled by the NDP was turned over to the BCRIC shares. An $80 million investment created $600 million funds. What do they invest that money in? They invest it in shares in MacMillan Bloedel. That money did not create one new job. It created a profit to those who own the shares. It was not even the people of British Columbia, Mr. Chairman, it was the CPR back east. It didn't create one new job. It created profits for shareholders. If there is money that isn't needed in this province it should be invested in industry that is going to create jobs. What we must develop is new jobs, new industry and credibility from this government. We have asked certain questions, and if we are going to accept and be expected to accept some of the statements that are being bandied around, then you must establish credibility by answering these basic questions that we have asked.

[ Page 2089 ]

I again ask the Premier if he feels that he isn't capable of answering or will not, for one reason or another, answer the questions that we have asked, or if he would like the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development (Hon. Mr. Phillips) to answer how much money he committed from the British Columbia Development Corporation to guarantee jobs for American companies. If he wants to have that minister get up in this House and give these answers, then he should withdraw his estimates and we'll go on to that minister's. This is a very practical and simple question. Let's get the ministers who have the answers that we want up before this House and we will ask them. Then we will get back to the Premier, because we have other questions that each one of us would like to have answered, but we cannot accept any answers until we establish credibility, and this will be by systematic, step-by-step answers to questions that we, on this side of the House, have asked, and by what we feel from the statements and what we are receiving from the constituents throughout the province. As the young lady in the gallery said: "We have a right to know. " Mr. Chairman, as part of the opposition and part of the elected people, we have many, many questions. But we cannot ask these questions until we have the answers that are needed.

The minister stands up and very blatantly says: "We have created all this employment." What is the employment that he has created by selling Panco to an American-dominated poultry and grain company under the name of Gargill, who are stifling, condemning and holding up...?

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Cargill.

MR. MITCHELL: Cargill. I accept your correction.

When this company can sit down and dominate the turkey business....

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew has the floor. Carry on, please, Mr. Member.

Interjections.

MR. MITCHELL: They're gargoyling. They're gargling. They're garbling facts. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that.

MR. CHAIRMAN: One more point: Committee of Supply is chaired by the Chairman, Mr. Member.

MR. MITCHELL: The Chairman. Well, I was promoting you. Everybody gets promoted today. I got promoted to Minister of Culture. I'll explain it to you when we do get on that side of the House. I'm going to be the Whip. I'll tell my cabinet eventually.

Mr. Chairman, what we want on this side of the House is answers. Then we will move on to why this government, instead of creating hospitals and long-term beds, is building and spending the money that is needed for important and vital services to the people of British Columbia on B.C. Place and football stadiums. These are the issues that we want to get into. Again, Mr. Chairman, through you, I ask the Premier to humbly rise and answer the simple questions that we on this side of the House have asked.

I will run them by him again. When we were before the courts we'd say: "We would like to refresh our memories from our notes." I would like to refresh the Premier's memory from my notes. I'm asking you not to give me speeches about the problems of the investors and why they shut down such areas as Ocean Falls. I am asking him to stand up and give me answers and tell me what took place in a meeting organized by him dealing with the jetfoil shipping firm in Victoria. I'm asking him to give an explanation. Who were the signing officers? Where did the political campaign funds that came out of the Premier's office come from? I'm asking the first minister of the province of British Columbia to set up an all-party committee to study the police reports that are available out of the Attorney-General's office and to study the dirty tricks scandal that rocked our province. I'm asking him to bring to this House a little light on the actions of the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf). Why did he fire all the Social Credit research staff?

Again, the first question, I believe, that was asked by the members on this side was: did the government of British Columbia wish to make sales of uranium in Europe and in Asia, and have they changed their mind? If they have changed their mind, I'm one of the first to congratulate them. I think these are the questions we asked.

In sitting down, Mr. Chairman, I sincerely ask that we not have any more questions or speeches off in the never never land of fantasy. Let us get down to the questions that have been asked. Let us establish the credibility that is needed. If he cannot answer them, withdraw his estimates, and go on to the estimates of the Ministry of Transportation and Highways or the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development all these other sections that we need. Once we get these questions answered and have established credibility, then we can go on to the many, many questions that we have to bring forward.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Just quickly to the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew: the government has outlined the first policy on uranium exploration I guess this province has ever had, and that is that there is to be no uranium exploration or mining in the province. He asked me to identify what our policy is; it's already been identified and public statements have been made on it. I don't mind reiterating it for the member for Esquimalt, who I know keeps abreast of all the things that are happening in British Columbia. Secondly, it was very interesting, Mr. Chairman, because I think it's the first time that I've heard a member from the New Democratic Party admit that taking over existing companies doesn't create new jobs. It's an admission of failure of the investment they made when they were government. That's what he said. He said that BCRIC was irresponsible....

MR. MITCHELL: I didn't.

HON. MR. BENNETT: He said that BCRIC was irresponsible, created no new jobs because that company invested in some shares of MacMillan Bloedel. Well, I want to remind him that the investment — if that's what it was — or the purchases or the takeovers by his government created no new jobs. They took over Plateau Mills. They didn't create it — it was already operating. they took over Kootenay Forest Products. It didn't create any new jobs; it was already operating.

[ Page 2090 ]

MR. MITCHELL: It was being shut down.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member for Esquimalt says it was being shut down. That's incorrect, Mr. Chairman, and it's the sort of thing we've come to expect from him now. That's a complete misstatement; it was not being shut down.

MR. MITCHELL: It was going to be sold.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, now he says it was going to be sold. He's changing his story. But I want to get back to the point he made in his vicious attack on the management and directors of the British Columbia Resources Investment Corporation when he said they were making poor investments in buying shares of MacMillan Bloedel. BCRIC is not a government company — it belongs to the people as individual owners. He's chosen to introduce them into the debate by saying that's a poor policy because it creates no new jobs, and that company out there owned by the people is not doing anything because it bought existing shares. This is the member who has been defending the takeovers by the New Democratic Party as government when they took over Plateau Mills. It didn't create any new jobs. They took over a mill that was operating and was going to continue to operate. They took over Kootenay Forest Products. Those are the sorts of things they acquired.

It was nationalization, but it wasn't initiating new business. I know the business it did initiate — it did try to initiate a company called Swan Valley Foods, which we know has been a disaster. This is the first time I have ever heard a member of the New Democratic Party admit that the actions that they took in government ownership created no new jobs. He condemned that policy among private sector firms. I'm going to be glad to take that statement from the member for Esquimalt who is a major — if not the major — spokesman for his caucus and his party. He's a member who was elected to this House before many of the members ever entered politics and who has been part of the political mainstream of the New Democratic Party for years. So he speaks with authority on the thinking of that party. His condemnation of the fact that taking over creates no new jobs is a dramatic shift in policy for them and a dramatic condemnation of the policy they carried out as government of government takeover of existing business. I agree with him, and that's why we think governments should not be in the business of business but should allow the people of the province to carry out business and investment in business development. The great industries that are operating out there now were started by people; they weren't started by governments. I agree with him. I like to see new initiative, new businesses, new jobs. That's what I like, and I'm glad that member agrees with me. I hope he convinces his party that they erred when their commitment to takeover was stronger than initiative and initiating new business. Mr. Chairman, that's been a dramatic breakthrough.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'm very pleased to get into this debate on the Premier's estimates this afternoon because I've heard my name mentioned the odd time.

To start off I would like to comment on.... Oh, I see the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) has taken off. He can't stand to stay in this House and have somebody comment on what he said.

MR. HOWARD: He's gone out to talk to the Premier.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, is he out talking to the Premier?

Mr. Chairman, I listened with a great deal of interest to that member, who was not in this Legislature from 1972 to 1975 or, as a matter of fact, from 1975 to 1979. He's a new member, and he tries to lecture us in this House about what happened when the party that he is part and parcel of was really in this House. I think he must have been out of the country.

AN HON. MEMBER: Out to lunch.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Yes, and I think he's still out to lunch. But I think he must have been out of the country during those dark, dreary years — 1972 to 1975 — when the socialist hordes overtook the government of this province. I'll never forget those dark days. People were despairing in the streets. Businessmen were going broke. Oil companies were leaving. As a matter of fact, in my riding you didn't dare be on the road leading to Alberta, because you'd have been run over by the oil trucks and the seismic crews rushing into Alberta, leaving the great province.

Then they try to stand up in this House and tell us: "Oh, it was the national energy policy that drove the oil companies out of British Columbia." I want to tell you that in 1973 there was an energy crisis, one of the greatest that had ever hit the world. It offered the oil companies the greatest opportunity to drill in British Columbia that you had ever seen. But during that great crisis, what did they create in the province of British Columbia? They created chaos; they created havoc. And for the people of British Columbia, they created a false shortage of natural gas due to their policies, because they drove the oil companies out.

They had the opportunity handed to them on a silver platter. They didn't create the world oil crisis or talk to the OPEC countries to raise the price of oil. But they were handed, through this world crisis, one of the greatest opportunities handed to any provincial government in history: the opportunity to capitalize on our natural resources; the opportunity to bring in the drilling companies and the petroleum companies and have them drill. But what did they do? The entire opposite. They drove them out, and they created in this great province a shortage of energy. That shortage that they created by not doing any drilling or exploration created insecurity not only for the people but indeed for the industry of this province. That's why we had a crisis. And the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew tried to stand in this Legislature and tell us that we created a false impression of the financial situation that existed when the socialists were run out of power by the people of this government.

AN HON. MEMBER: It won't wash.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I want to tell you it will wash, because I was here. You're a new member. You were down in Ottawa, with your ears full of cotton batting, like most of the MPs down there in Ottawa. You weren't paying any attention to what the socialist hordes were doing here in British Columbia. You weren't paying any attention. You were....

Interjection.

[ Page 2091 ]

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: You're biased, to start with. I'm not biased; I just want to lay the facts before the House.

We all know that the socialists were facing financial ruin in the last year of their government. It was during that period of time that the now Leader of the Opposition for a few years tried very unsuccessfully to carry the portfolio of Minister of Finance, although he had criticized W.A.C. for the previous 20 years for being Premier and Minister of Finance. What happened? The province of British Columbia moved closer and closer to the brink of financial disaster, until finally the now Leader of the Opposition, who was then Minister of Finance, abandoned ship before it sank entirely. He knew it was beyond his capabilities, or the capabilities of his cabinet, to run the government and the finances of the province. So he jumped off the ship and brought in the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich) to try to get things back into a state. He told the minister from Nanaimo: "Now look, I've left the financial ship of state here in British Columbia in a devil of a mess. I couldn't run it; I never could run it; I should never have kept it. What I want you to do is try to smooth this thing over. Don't let the people of British Columbia know that we socialists have run the province into such financial chaos." So the member for Nanaimo went to the Department of Highways and said: ''Mr. Member for Prince Rupert...." He was then the Minister of Highways. He never had any money to start with, because the highways.... Oh, I want to tell you, on the highways in this province then there was no new construction; there was absolutely no maintenance. No wonder he had to tell our great American visitors to stay home, that we didn't want them.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Mr. Member, just before I recognize the first member for Victoria, I'm going to have to tell the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development that, in fact, we are on the Premier's estimates, and although wide latitude has been allowed, the member should remember that standing order 61(2) says, "Speeches in Committee of the Whole House must be strictly relevant to the item or clause under consideration," and that we are on vote 9, the estimates of the Premier.

MR. BARBER: Mr. Chairman, you have made my point of order more eloquently than I possibly could.

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, I think the generosity of the Chair should be afforded the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development. After all, he has very, very little to say in any event, and he might as well take up the time saying whatever suits his mind.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Standing orders are still maintained, hon. member.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Well, Mr. Chairman, I certainly appreciate your admonition, and you know that I would never want to disobey the Chairman; but, if you recall, the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew was talking about the financial condition of the province, and I was just trying to respond. I know that the member for Skeena stood up on a point of order — he usually doesn't ever have anything to say anyway — but it wasn't really a point of order. But we get so that we expect that from the member for Skeena. The member for Skeena doesn't really like me to talk about what the socialists did; he hopes that we'll forget that.

Mr. Chairman, to get back to the Premier's estimates, if you will allow me to develop my thesis, you will understand what I'm getting at — and I know the socialist hordes opposite really hate to hear this. What I'm trying to point out is that the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew was saying that we created the financial disaster by manipulating some bookwork. That's not true, because the people of this province are not going to forget. Certainly we're not going to forget over here, because we know that in order to stem the tide of financial disaster, the member for Nanaimo (Mr. Stupich), when he took over the portfolio of Minister of Finance, cut, cut, cut — cut out social programs, cut out road expenditure, cut out expenditure on small business, cut out expenditure on education. They even tried to cut out some programs and stop expenditures in Human Resources.

MR. LEVI: No way.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Oh, no way. You spent more on that, because that would help the economy. That was your theory. That was the theory of you and the member for Vancouver East.

But, Mr. Chairman, it did happen; it was there, and the province was indeed in debt — a far cry from the situation when they became government, when the coffers were full. Mr. Chairman, I want you to get the picture. The coffers were full; they were bulging at the sides due to the good management of the previous Social Credit government. Not only that, they took over an economy that was moving solidly and swiftly ahead, and even they couldn't kill it immediately. They had one good year, they had two good years, and their cabinet ministers were running around the province saying: "We can't spend the money fast enough." You remember them saying, "Why, what a bonanza we've got here," never realizing that they should put a few dollars away for a rainy day. They thought it would go on forever — and it would have gone on forever if Social Credit had stayed in government. But I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that the policies that they had initiated in the first and second years caught up with them in their third year. And if you look at every graph — I'll provide them during my estimates — every graph indicates the downhill slide in 1975, when the policies of the socialist hordes in British Columbia had finally caught up with them. I can give you the figures. More people were leaving than were coming to our great province. It was a disaster.

Now what did we do? We turned the entire situation around, and we turned it around because of the leadership given to us by our Premier? That's why I feel that we should get this vote over with, give our Premier his money in his estimates, so that he can get on with the job of building this great province — building it not for today, but for future generations, so that the young people of today, when they grow up and take their place in this great community which we have here in this great province of British Columbia, will indeed have the same opportunities that we had when we were growing up, so that they will not have to look to the future with insecurity, not knowing if they're going to have a stable supply of energy in this great province of ours.

I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, the people of British Columbia can look forward to the future knowing that because of the policies we have brought in and the way we are

[ Page 2092 ]

husbanding our energy resources, indeed British Columbia will be energy secure well into the future. Because of the policies of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) and because of new initiatives taken this year in this budget by the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer), all British Columbians can look forward to the future, knowing that because of the policies of this government under the leadership of our Premier, British Columbia will once again lead all the provinces in Canada in having secure energy resources — which will be diversified. We will be taking new initiatives to gasify and liquefy our coal so that the people can look forward to the future knowing that they will be able to run their automobiles. We will be taking new initiatives to assist industry in using wood waste, and, Mr. Chairman, that is a great new initiative. We will be look at all areas, and we will be developing our great coal fields, not necessarily for today, but to provide security for the future.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.)

The member said that we hadn't created any new jobs. It is very easy to stand in this Legislature and talk about the unemployment figures, because the unemployment percentage is related to the number of people who are unemployed. But our workforce has been growing and people are coming to British Columbia because there are opportunities here. They are coming from other provinces and other areas in the world that don't offer the same opportunities that are offered to them in British Columbia. That's one of the reasons our unemployment percentage may be higher than in some other provinces, because people are coming here, and when they don't find a job immediately, they go on the unemployment list. This government, industry and the private sector in British Columbia hold an enviable reputation in new jobs created in the last three years. It wasn't easy to turn that around.

While I was talking about energy to give security to the future I was looking at a publication which came across my desk on April 15 from the Northern News Agencies in Fort St. John. The reason I'm pointing this out, Mr. Chairman, is to tell you the significance of our policy. Because we brought in policies, generally speaking, to ensure that the the investors and the workers in our natural resource industries, and indeed, the people of British Columbia, would receive a fair return, and indeed they have, and that's one of the reasons that we have surpluses today. It is not from taxation of the people, Mr. Chairman; it is additional revenue from our natural resources and our natural resource industries, which were here when the socialist hordes were in power.

Here is a little item which caught my eye: "About ten miles south of Dawson Creek there is a well which is keeping the rumour mill well supplied with material." What they're talking about, Mr. Chairman, is an oil discovery south of Dawson Creek. That oil was there. The opportunities were there when they were government. Had they had policies which would have kept the oil industry in British Columbia, we would never have had to go through that insecure period where we didn't know whether or not we had any resources. I remember the member for Vancouver East, who was then Minister of Energy, when we made the announcement in this Legislature that we were going to build the Grizzly Valley pipeline. What did the opposition of the day say? "Don't build a pipeline; there's no gas in the area." Talk about creating jobs! The pipeline is now built at an expenditure of some $82 million. A new gas scrubbing plant was built at an expense of some $120 million — which created jobs. But not only that, there is additional exploration and drilling going on in the area. The pipeline in that Grizzly field, which lies only a little to the west of what is probably one of the greatest gas fields in all of the world, the extension of the Elmworth field into British Columbia.... They were there. But the policies of the socialist hordes drove the petroleum industry out of British Columbia, make no mistake about it. That's one of the reasons you were going broke; that's one of the reasons there was insecurity in this province.

Mr. Chairman, I could talk about practically any policy that the hordes brought in. They all developed, and they all caught all of their policies — their bad policies — policies which were alien to the great province of British Columbia. It was those policies that brought this great province of ours to the brink of financial disaster in the dying days of 1975, when that group over there called a snap election because they did not want the people of British Columbia to know the facts about the financial picture. Yet the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew tries to stand in this Legislature, as he did a few moments ago, to tell us we created the situation. I'd just like to ask the people of this great province of ours: if they were not in financial problems, if the province was not going broke, why did the Minister of Finance cease spending — cuts, holds? If things had been going well, why did they bring in that policy? The policies that they brought in in their last six months of government, in curtailing expenditure, speak louder to me about the problems they were having with finances than any report we ever could have done. Under our great leader, under our Premier, we have been able to turn that around. Now that we have surpluses, they're telling us how we should spend them.

I remember when we were first government in 1976, they were telling us we should be spending more on this and more on that. I'll tell you why they could stand in this Legislature, Mr. Chairman, and tell us why we should be spending more and how we should be spending our money. Deep down in their hearts they knew that this government had the ability and would bring in the policies to turn the economy around. And today you can't find one among them who doesn't know that this government has done a fantastic job of turning this economy around.

I have listened to the debate on the Premier's estimates. Not one time have they stood in this Legislature and condemned the policies of this government or the leadership of our Premier. I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, they know that under our Premier's leadership this province has become the envy of the world. That is why they stand in this Legislature day after day preaching pessimism, preaching doom and gloom, telling the people of the province the sky is falling in. But ask them what their policies are. Ask them if they subscribe to the Waffle Manifesto. Ask them what they would do.

I ask each and every one of you in this Legislature today to think: have you heard a constructive policy decision from the socialists over there? The answer is no. We've heard the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) stand up and make some statements. Every time he stands in this Legislature he seems to make a mistake. Just the other day he said the government hasn't increased the minimum wage since we became government. They've got all these new research people, Mr. Chairman; they've got it all....

[ Page 2093 ]

MR. LEGGATT: When was the last time you increased it?

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: I'll tell you, my friend. You've got all kinds of people up in your office, and I'm not going to do your research for you. You've got the staff. Now I know, Mr. Chairman, that they need somebody to do some research for them. And they need somebody to come up with some policies so that they can stand up in this Legislature....

Every day that goes by I'm hoping that they're going to talk to us about their policies, because we haven't heard anything about them.

Under the leadership of our Premier we have a solid, sound economy. We have a growing economy. People are looking forward to the future with a great deal of anticipation, hope and expectation — not pessimism and insecurity like it was when the socialist hordes were in government. That's all because of the leadership of our Premier.

A moment ago the member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) was telling us: "Oh, you're spending money on bridges and B.C. Place, and you're not spending any money on services to people." That's what he said. Let's take a look at the record. I know they hate to hear the facts. On health and social services in the year 1975....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, if we were to go into this we would, in all essence, destroy the reference that we have for vote 9. I know how anxious the member is to go into the particular aspects which he is starting to refer to, but if the Chair were to permit continued discussion on this, then, in fact, the debate under the Premier's estimates, which is already more wide-ranging than possibly it should be.... It would be virtually impossible for your Chair to try to enforce the strict adherence to the administrative responsibilities of the Premier under vote 9. If that is opened up by one side or the other, then, in turn, a reply from one side or the other is very much in order, and we're right back to where we shouldn't be in this particular vote.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I want to tell you sincerely that I accept what you have said. You know, the Chair hasn't changed but the Chairman changed.

The member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew was saying that under the leadership of our Premier we were just spending money on job-creating hardware and on great new visions for the people of British Columbia, which he's against. We're spending money on B.C. Place and trade and convention centres which will bring new industry and tourism and bring people to British Columbia. It'll be great for the future because it will help our trade. Whether we like it or not British Columbia is Canada's window to the Pacific, and Vancouver is Canada's window to the Pacific.

I want to tell you, Mr. Chairman, that what the member was drawing attention to was the fact that we were not spending any money on people services. In a very few short words I wanted to point out that our expenditure on health and social services per individual has grown from....

Interjection.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: No, it's not. Not at all, my friend. You do not want to hear the facts. Every time we try to bring up facts and figures in this Legislature and put some truth into this debate, I'll tell you, they fight it. They don't want to hear the facts, but I'll tell you the facts, Mr. Chairman. The expenditure on services to people, excluding education, has doubled from $420 per person. I'm not talking global figures; I'm talking per person. And remember when I say " per person" that our population has grown. It's doubled since 1975, the last year they were government, to $906 per person this year in this budget. Yet they have the audacity to stand in this Legislature and say that we're not looking after the people of this province.

MR. COCKE: You're not looking after the people of this province.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Now there's the member for New Westminster, the man who surpassed every other corporate manager in the province by losing $180 million in one year through ICBC without any competition. That's the manner of the man who just stood. I don't know how he did it. He must have had to work day and night to lose $180 million with ICBC.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, in addition to pointing out that your time is almost up....

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: My time is up? I've just got started.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Well, my green light is on. Hon. member, again I must ask that the debate return to the relevance of vote 9.

Ah, the time is up, hon. member.

Interjections.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: They don't want to hear the facts

They don't want to know how much money we're spending on people services here in this province.

MR. LEGGATT: I must say, I continue to be delighted with the Aesop's fables we get from the minister. He's a past master at pressing certain buttons in his skull. You know, there's a kind of brain damage that happens to everybody in this business. But no one has been more able to set those fables as firmly into the frontal lobotomy than that particular minister. It's really quite incredible.

I rise to deal with the Premier's estimates, but particularly in regard to the charge which is constantly made by the Minister of Industry and Small Business Development about the statistics of immigration and emigration around that period of time when Social Credit was government and when the New Democratic Party was government. I wish he would listen to this, because he is constantly accusing people in this place of not having their facts straight. I was in Ottawa; I wasn't around. I had the problem of reading what Statistics Canada said about immigration and emigration in the province of British Columbia. I hope he will just listen to this for a minute. The accuracy of the allegation concerning the hordes of people leaving the province while the NDP was in and the thousands who came to British Columbia when Social Credit came to power is a fable these guys have lived on, It's such a wonderful falsehood that they wouldn't know how to correct the record up there. It would take all that kind

[ Page 2094 ]

of political brain damage.... It's so deep in the minister's mind that it may be a little hard for him to manage a few of those neurons around to correct them. I just want to ask him to go and look at Statistics Canada, which covered all that interesting period about which these myths were created — about the government of British Columbia, both Social Credit and New Democratic Party.

This is right out of Statistics Canada. During the '72 to '75 period there was a net gain through migration of 69,660 persons. That was the period when the New Democratic Party held office. Let's see what happened when Social Credit came into power.

AN HON. MEMBER: Is that immigration?

MR. LEGGATT: Those are immigrants — net immigration to the province of British Columbia.

Let's ask what happened when this allegedly terrible government was thrown out in 1975, and these wonderful promoters — this new government that was going to solve all our problems and would stop all these alleged hordes running to leave the province of British Columbia.... What happened then? Well, during the period 1975 to 1977 there was a net loss of 5,885 persons. In other words, what the minister says is doubly false, because in fact the reverse was true. I ask the minister to check the statistics in Statistics Canada and to stop peddling this silly myth around the province.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Minister of Industry and Small Business Development rises on a point of order.

HON. MR. PHILLIPS: Mr. Chairman, I would ask you to have the member withdraw the fact that I made a false statement. He is manipulating his statistics. I will bring in the facts and figures and table them in the House, and I will prove him completely wrong.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The minister has asked for a withdrawal of what he considers to be an offensive reference.

MR. LEGGATT: There is only one problem with this, and that is whether you see fables and myths as falsehoods. There's a question of definition around this.

MR. CHAIRMAN. I appreciate that. Order, please.

MR. LEGGATT: We deal with so many fables and myths in this House, it's very hard to deal with the question of whether falsity or otherwise is imputed.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. member, a simple withdrawal of something which the member finds personally offensive has been asked.

MR. LEGGATT: If the member finds that personally offensive, I have an unconditional withdrawal.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. The matter is cleared.

MR. LEGGATT: The last thing in the world one would do would be to try to introduce personalities or try to get the minister mad. When the minister becomes mad he becomes less funny. I think he's much better when he's in a good humour and we can all laugh and have a great time with the Aesop's fable he produces for us on a routine basis.

MR. BARBER: We have a number of questions of the Premier, but he skipped out of the House three-quarters of an hour ago. In order to call him back, I move the Chairman do now leave the chair.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 20

NAYS — 29

An hon. member requested that leave be asked to record the division in the Journals of the House.

MR. BARBER: I'm pleased that the vote got the Premier back in the House. Maybe now that he's here, having been absent for almost an hour, he might be prepared to answer a few questions.

The Premier puts forward a very curious argument. He says that just because he called a meeting, he shouldn't have to answer questions about it. Just because the meeting took place in his office, he shouldn't have to answer questions about it. Just because the outcome of that meeting was pre-arranged by himself, he shouldn't have to answer questions about it. The Premier's argument is not entirely honest. I'm not saying the Premier's dishonest; I'm saying his argument is not honest. On that basis, presumably the Premier could refuse to answer anything at all, if he wished, and have us believe that some other minister did it, and some other minister should have to carry the ever unpopular can for this increasingly unpopular government.

The Premier's argument is not credible. The Premier claims that just because he called the meeting, just because he invited those who attended, just because he chaired the meeting, just because he gave three long-winded speeches during the meeting, and just because he announced at the end

[ Page 2095 ]

of the meeting the decision he had already made before the meeting occurred, doesn't mean that he has to answer questions about the meeting. Well, he's wrong. He's wrong on a number of important grounds. He's wrong because that's an irresponsible attitude. He's wrong because that's a politically immature attitude. He's wrong because that kind of maladministration is unacceptable to the people of British Columbia. And he's wrong, as well, because it adds to his current problems.

The people of British Columbia are well aware that the Premier of British Columbia's credibility has been damaged in the last six months. It has been most recently damaged in the Vancouver Sun by his own colleagues, who tell us that he does not sparkle in debate, that he does not run an open government, and that clearly he does not command the respect of certain of his colleagues. If it were not so, the Vancouver Sun would never have printed it, I'm certain.

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

MR. BARBER: Ah, they're sensitive, Mr. Chairman. They read the same article, and they all attended the same meeting to discuss how to reply to it.

HON. MR. MAIR: Do you want to read this letter, Charlie? That'll tell you the story.

MR. BARBER: Send me a copy of the letter, and if we haven't received it already, I'd be glad to read it.

The Premier's credibility has been damaged. It has been damaged for the last six months because of his incompetent handling of the dirty tricks affair. It has been damaged because of his refusal to be candid and plain and straightforward in regard to his own involvement, and that of his own office, in the dirty tricks affair. His credibility has been further damaged because he prefers to take a vow of silence rather than accept the vow he took when sworn in as Premier. He prefers the vow of silence to cover up his deeds, rather than accepting, as an obligation of his oath of office, the responsibility to answer legitimate questions about what he and his direct employees have been doing.

This Premier's credibility is damaged more by his silence than by his replies. He seems not yet to understand the peril in which his incompetent leadership has placed his own government. How many polls do they have to commission and how much worse do those poll results have to become before they realize that if they were to call an election tomorrow they'd lose?

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: Well, if we're wrong, call an election tomorrow and let's find out. The people of British Columbia would be delighted, I'm sure, to register....

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: In the year that has passed you have defeated yourselves by your maladministration, by your incompetence, and by the totally inept leadership of your Premier.

Interjections.

MR. BARBER: Sure, I'm biased. I have very strong feelings about these things and I'm happy to have them tested by the electorate any day you care to call an election — any day, any election, any time is fine with me.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. When the first member for Victoria would address the Chair, the debate seems to stay in order. That's one of the things that I'm here for, hon. member — it really does help debate in the House.

MR. BARBER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm always happy to address the Chair. You're an excellent listener, and unlike the Premier you don't leave the chair during the debates. You are occasionally replaced by a pleasant impostor, but by and large the Chairman is in the chair, unlike the Premier, who abandons his chair whenever he can. Thus the need to call motions from time to time that you leave the chair — not because we want to get rid of you, but because we want the Premier to return to his duty, which is here in the House.

Admittedly the Premier does not sparkle in debate. We know that; the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) obviously knows that and now the whole province knows it. But so what? You don't have to be a great debater to tell the truth. Admittedly the Premier does not sparkle in debate. But so what? You don't have to be a tremendous debater to be plain and simple and straightforward in reply to plain and simple and straightforward questions. So frankly, Mr. Chairman, we don't care whether or not the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications thinks the Premier sparkles in debate. It hardly matters. What does count is his willingness to be candid and open and to accept the wise counsel of the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) who tells us that if he were in charge he would run a far more open style of government than does the current Premier. That counts, so forget the sparkling and bring on the candour. We'd be happy to have sparkle replaced by candour any day of the week.

In regard to the Premier, let him tell us why Ron Grieg resigned, why this employee in the Premier's office was apparently in the business of forging letters and signatures in the name of Gordon Townsend. We know that the Premier interviewed Mr. Grieg. We don't know what he said. We don't know because Mr. Grieg ain't talking and neither is the Premier. I can understand why Mr. Grieg might not want to talk. He could be, I suppose, liable to a charge under the Criminal Code. He might not be, but then again we'll never know, because the Premier won't tell us. I want to know whether or not an employee of the Premier was in the business of forging letters and signatures.

We do know, as a matter of historical record, that at least one other person in the employ of a Social Credit premier was in the business of forging signatures and he went to jail for that offence. His name was Al Williamson. The practice of forging letters is not exactly unknown in the history of Social Credit in this province. So we know someone else in another Socred premier's office did it. We wonder whether or not Ron Grieg did in this Premier's office. If he did not, then let the Premier tell us so, and further, let him tell us on what basis he repudiates the public conception that Ron Grieg was in the business of forging signatures on letters. Why does the Premier choose the defence of silence? Why isn't it the more honourable and appropriate course for the Premier to answer

[ Page 2096 ]

a plain and simple question with a plain, simple and truthful answer? Why does he instead refuse to tell us and refuse to be held accountable for the behaviour of the people in his office?

We have other questions about the people in the Premier's employ. We know, thanks to the no doubt accidental admission of Mr. Tozer, that there were in the Premier's office — there may still be to this day, for all we know — a couple of secret trust funds. These funds were apparently organized by Socred bagmen. They were apparently administered entirely by people in the Premier's office. As well, apparently those funds were never reported as they should have been reported under the requirements of the Election Act. If this is the case, and we have only Mr. Tozer's word for it, then we do have to wonder why employees of the Premier's office were busy contravening provincial law. It's an important question, Mr. Chairman. Does the Premier acknowledge that people in his office were apparently breaking the law of the province of British Columbia which he has sworn by oath to uphold? If they weren't breaking the law, then let him tell us so, and again, let him tell us on what basis he has reached that conclusion. But if they were breaking the law by failing to file declarations required by it, perhaps the Premier could tell us when he found out about this and what quick remedy he took to put an end to it.

Let me ask a hypothetical question, Mr. Chairman. If Mr. Tozer hadn't accidentally spilled the beans, would we know today whether or not such a secret trust fund existed? Would the Premier have volunteered the information? There are some who wonder and think that he might not have. Why does the Premier prefer the defence of silence instead of giving simple, truthful replies to our questions? What advantage does silence have that truthful answers do not have? What political benefit does he find in silence instead of reply? I talked some days ago — and no doubt will be talking in days to come; we're not through his estimates by any stretch yet — about the British tradition which says that no man can be compelled to testify against himself. The American equivalent of that tradition is perhaps better known — the fifth amendment. If Mr. Grieg or Mr. Campbell or all those other employees of Social Credit for their own purposes wish to find refuge in silence, then I suppose that is their own business. I can certainly sympathize with people who might be in contravention of the Criminal Code or the Election Act or some other statute preferring to take refuge in silence. But I don't understand why the Premier prefers to find refuge in silence. After all, if everything he did was honourable and above-board he should have no hesitation whatever in providing immediate, quick, honourable and above-board answers to our questions.

I know the Premier hasn't forgotten the questions, although from time to time, for the sardonic fun of it, we remind him what the questions are. The questions are these. Who else was in charge of the secret trust fund operated out of the Premier's office, in apparent contravention of the Election Act? Who else had signing authority? Did the Premier himself have signing authority? Would he have told us about the trust funds if Mr. Tozer hadn't accidentally blurted it out? Would the Premier have come forward in this House and said, "You know, there's something I've been meaning to tell you," and then gone on to tell us about the secret trust funds being operated, apparently illegally, out of the sanctity and secrecy of his own office? Well, there are some people who are skeptical, who think that maybe the Premier wouldn't have told us anything about it.

Nonetheless, now that we know, we want to find out more. It's a simple request. We want to know who contributed to the Premier's office in contravention of the law. We want to know who had authority to collect those funds. We want to know what particular appeal they made to those corporations. I, for one, would like to know if they made an appeal to the Boeing corporation for funds. Boeing has been known to make political donations around the world. Boeing, as I've illustrated time and again in this House, has been done three great favours by this government. I wonder if they returned the favour. Did Boeing make a political donation to the secret trust funds in the Premier's office? If they did not, let's hear the Premier tell us so, and that's the end of that.

If the Premier finds refuge in silence, then we can only feel obligated to ask our questions again and again, until he replies honestly and thoroughly and completely to those questions — because they are legitimate questions. They are questions that call into account the willingness of the Premier's own employees to uphold the law — in this case, the elections law of the province of British Columbia. These questions call into account the ability of the Premier — who is today apparently doing a Jack-in-the-box number, getting up at every moment not to answer questions, but to make long-winded speeches instead — to understand the special requirements his office places upon him. Okay, so he doesn't give sparkling speeches; that's fine. No doubt the Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) gives more sparkling speeches — at least in his own personal estimation — but so what? We just want plain answers to plain questions. Those answers will do very nicely.

Why did Ron Grieg quit? What did he tell you when you asked him about whether or not he forged letters? What questions did you ask and what replies did he give? Were employees in your office collecting funds from corporations and from individual donors contrary to provincial law? If so, on what pretext? If so, with what authority did you grant that they should collect such funds? If the Premier's office cannot uphold the law, what office in the land can? If the Premier's office cannot be accountable for the activities of its senior employees, what office will ever be held accountable in this government? It is the highest office. He knows that and so do we. It must therefore uphold the highest standards. He should know that. We do. If Dan Campbell was busy handing out thousand-dollar bills, contrary to the provincial law, when did the Premier find out about it, and what, if anything, did he do to stop it? If you can't expect the highest standards to be met by the Premier's own office, what kind of standards do you have to suffer from across the province?

Those are important questions. The Premier may not think so, I grant; nonetheless we do, and we also represent a fair number of people in this province. May I say it again: the Premier's credibility is more damaged by his silence than by anything he's ever said in reply to these questions. The Premier's continuing refusal to answer the questions about who did what in his office in the whole dirty tricks affair tends to make people suspect that they did even more then we already know about. Otherwise, surely the Premier would set the record straight of his own volition. He could have done that some months ago. He's had a good half year to do it.

He could have, in January of this year, for instance, Mr. Chairman, told us when the Attorney-General's report, on apparent contraventions of the Election Act by his own party,

[ Page 2097 ]

would be made public. But January has passed and so has February and March, and April is almost over. Four months have gone by and the Premier has still yet to reply on behalf of his government, still yet to say a single word, as the leader of that government, about the apparent contravention by the Social Credit Party of the Election Act, in failing to disclose something like a quarter of a million dollars in campaign funds and expenditures. But no, once again he prefers to find refuge in silence.

That refuge is a political mistake for the Premier. We're sufficiently convinced of it that we have been asking by and large the same questions for almost a month now, and getting, as usual, the same replies — which is to say, none at all — about the involvement of the Premier's office, and of the Premier himself, in every aspect of what the people of British Columbia have come to know as the dirty tricks affair. If the Premier was not personably knowledgeable of the trust accounts, let him say so. If the Premier does not to this day know who the other signing officer was, let him say so. If the Premier does not to this day know who the other signing officer was, let him say so. If the Premier to this day is not aware of whether or not those trust funds have been closed down, let him say so. If the Premier is unaware to this day of what was done with that money, let him say so. He may, thereby, have to suffer the embarrassment of admitting that he didn't know what was going on in his own office.

, He's a proud man, this Premier. He comes from a proud family, and maybe it's hard for him to admit that he didn't know what was going on in his own office and that his administration of it was less than able. But surely, Mr. Chairman, it's preferable for him to admit that he didn't know what was going on than to suffer the continuing condemnation of the people of British Columbia who suspect that he knew everything that was going on and didn't lift a finger to stop it. Surely it would be preferable for him today, at long overdue last, to tell us what he knew, what he authorized, what he instructed and what he found out about. Maybe some time down the road....

Why does the Premier prefer to find sanctuary in silence than to give plain answers to plain questions? Are the trust funds still in business? Are the secret accounts still collecting money, contrary to the law, for the Social Credit Party out of the Premier's office? The people of British Columbia have, I think, a right to know that. They have a right to know whether or not, to this very day, the law is being upheld, to wit, the elections law of the province of British Columbia. It's not adequate law; it's not good law. No one would think that it's workable law particularly, and it's something that we needn't be in the least proud of when you compare it with the law in other jurisdictions that's tremendously more progressive and tremendously more able to hold everyone, including Premiers, to account for what they do during elections. Defective as it is, it's the only law we've got, and it's got to be upheld until it's changed. Well, apparently it wasn't upheld by people in the Premier's office. The Premier takes refuge in silence. To continue to do so damages his credibility. The Premier's staff cannot take refuge in silence without totally impairing their own credibility. Unfortunately for them as individuals, I think that's what has happened.

The Premier has an obligation to be plain and simple and truthful — that's all, no more. Can I say it again? We're not especially looking forward to sparkling speeches. He doesn't give them; we don't expect them. That's fine. But he can give truthful speeches. He can give truthful replies to straightforward questions. Are the trust funds still in business? If not, when did they go out of business? How much money did they collect out of your office? Who collected that money and with whose authority? Who had signing authority over those funds? Were collections received from American corporations, for instance? Did any overseas company make a donation? If so, what favours, if any, did they return?

If the Premier's office can't uphold the law, what office can? If the senior employees of the Premier don't understand the law, what employees of any political person ever will? The Premier's staff cannot pretend that they're innocent. Dan Campbell is no political innocent in this province. He's been in the business for a long time. He knows the law and he may well have helped to write it. He's been in business for a long time and in the eyes of some people he has, or did have, a respectable political career. Dan Campbell cannot pretend to be innocent of the elections law, but there he was handing out thousand-dollar bills. Did the Premier know about it? Did he tell Dan Campbell to do it? Did he tell him not to do it? When did he find out about it?

All of these questions call into account the ability of the Premier to properly manage his own employees. They call into account the Premier's judgment. They call into account the judgment he made when he hired people who, it would appear, were in the business of forging signatures.

If Ron Grieg didn't force signatures, let the Premier tell us so plainly, and let him tell us how he knows, plainly. Let him also tell us what Dick Lillico was doing in the Alexis Building at 895 Fort Street, starting in 1975. Tell us about the newspaper clipping service that the Premier's office runs or the envelope of Gordon Townsend letters apparently distributed at the direction of the Premier, He said: "Something has got to be done about this guy. He's too nasty." What about the letter-writing committees that were subsequently set up and the letter-writing committee that Ron Grieg was responsible for here on Vancouver Island? What did the Premier know about that? To what extent was he responsible for it? Did the Premier give instructions to a senior employee of his office to take a bunch of Gordon Townsend letters which his clipping service has obtained and say to a senior employee of the Socred research office: "Do something about this. I don't like this criticism. You've got to get a reply out. This guy is mean to me"? Was someone in the Premier's office so totally ignorant of politics in the capital city that he thought Gordon Townsend didn't exist, that he was imaginary and wouldn't object to a letter being forged and his signature being appended to it? Was someone in the Premier's office so ignorant or so naive that they thought that...?

[Mr. Strachan in the chair.]

MR. BARRETT: You knew who he was.

MR. BARBER: Well, Lyle Kahl knew who he was too.

Mr. Chairman, these questions revolve around what the Premier did with the money we gave him last year, and as I and others have said on a number of occasions, before we're prepared to give him any money for the coming year we want to find out what he did with the money we gave him last time. It's a simple matter.

We're going to debate economic stuff, and I'd like to talk a bit about that in just a moment.

[ Page 2098 ]

AN HON. MEMBER: Economic stuff, eh?

MR. BARBER: Ideas, projects, programs, schemes and plans — stuff. We're going to talk about the failure of this government to enact the B.C. Savings and Trust Corporation legislation. We're going to talk about the wilful refusal by this Premier to exercise important leadership in the field of economic development in the arena of a mixed economy, where public and private enterprise both have a place, a responsibility and a role. In the days to come we're going to talk about the ideological hangups of this right-wing government, which seems not to understand the important Canadian tradition of public enterprise when it serves the public good. We're going to talk about all those things., We have a lot of ideas, and the government might even approve of one or two of them — I don't know. But until the Premier tells us what he did last time, we're not going to tell him what we think he should be doing this time. It's as simple as that.

Interjection.

MR. BARBER: That's right. So answer the questions. That's all we ask.

The Premier would have us believe that the government shouldn't be in the business of business, and he's quite wrong. His ideological hangup and ideological rigidity, his nineteenth century ideology, tell him that government shouldn't be in the business of business, and he's wrong. Who could he ask? Well, if he were still about, he could ask his father, who knew that private business couldn't be entrusted with the development of electricity in this province and who set up a public business in an important way. He could have asked his father whether or not government should be in the business of business, and his father would have told him: "Yeah, you bet. That's why we established B.C. Ferries and B.C. Hydro."

The Premier is wrong when he says that an administration that works for all of the people shouldn't be in the business of business. Sometimes it's appropriate that they be so. It was appropriate that our government stepped in and saved the jobs and saved the circumstances at Ocean Falls. It was appropriate to enter the business of business at that point, and I'm glad we did it. Surely the Premier wouldn't tell us it was wrong to enter the business of business when our administration purchased the Princess Marguerite and the 14 acres in Victoria's Inner Harbour formerly held by the CPR. Was that a wrongful decision? Was that mistaken advice? Of course not. It was a good idea. It was appropriate, it was necessary and it was done, because our government, at least, was flexible and imaginative enough — not hung up in the nineteenth century ideology of Social Credit — to recognize that at the point when the CPR wanted to pull out, the public had to step in. Because if they didn't, the tourist economy of Vancouver Island would be damaged.

The Premier is wrong when he says that public enterprise isn't the proper role of government, or as he put it this afternoon: "We shouldn't be in the business of business." Well, if he really meant that, I suppose the takeovers of B.C. Electric and Black Ball Ferries were wrong things as well. But, of course, the Premier doesn't mean that, because no politician in his right mind would argue that we sell B.C. Hydro back to private enterprise or that we break up the B.C. Ferries system and try to flog that to private enterprise too. No one in the province would stand for that sort of nonsense, even from Social Credit.

There are important economic debates and we propose to lead them and contribute to them, and we will do so during the Premier's estimates, after he has answered a number of questions we put to him about what he knew, what he authorized and who did what on his behalf during the entire course of what everyone in British Columbia knows to be the Social Credit dirty tricks scandal. Until the Premier cleans up that mess, he does not stand on solid ground when he wants us to debate future messes he may get into. After he has told us what he did with his previous policies, we will debate with him future policies, and not before. Only after he has accepted the requirements of his oath of office to tell the truth about what people in his own office did will we be prepared to debate what the people in his office should be doing in the future. Our position is pretty simple and it's not going to change. We've been here for some time and we'll be here for some time yet. The Premier hurts himself by hiding in the defence of silence. He hurts himself every day he refuses to tell us what happened at the meeting which he called, which was attended by businessmen he invited, which heard a speech about a jetfoil he made, which heard commitments he made on his government's behalf for public financing of a jetfoil service that was never previously economic. At the end of that meeting he spoke again, saying it was the obligation of good businessmen in Victoria to support the Social Credit government because if they didn't they might lose the next election and most surely the seat of the Minister of Finance (Hon. Mr. Curtis). If the meeting had taken place in some other minister's office at some other minister's request we wouldn't be asking the Premier what he did there; but the meeting occurred because the Premier called it. Because the Premier spoke at it and because the Premier made commitments, we want to know what commitments he made. That's why we're asking the questions and that's why we'll keep asking them until we get answers.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I can remember when we were elected in 1975 and the first session of the Legislature in 1976 when the member for Victoria issued some brave and noble words about the conduct all members should indulge in in this Legislature. How quickly he has forgotten his own noble words of advice. The member indulges in a practice of innuendo and allegation, which borders on muckraking, which touches people not in this Legislature.

MR. BARBER: Then answer the questions.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, would you ask that member to be quiet!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The Premier has the floor on vote 9, the Premier's estimates.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, the first member for Victoria is not satisfied with taking the opportunity to abuse people not in this chamber. He continues shrilly — in his own inimitable style — to babble from his place while we are attempting to deal with some of the questions and some of the policies of this government. The bulk of his questioning involved politics, not programs of government but politics. A number of suggestions he makes are allegations.

He made allegations about a former employee of the

[ Page 2099 ]

information services of government under Mr. Brown, the information director, whose vote came under the Premier's office. It is a matter of record that when those allegations were made public I interviewed Mr. Grieg by telephone and passed along to the authorities all the information I could get under the investigation that was called by this government. The member knows the results of that investigation.

MR. BARBER: Tell us again.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The Attorney-General made the announcement.

Why would the member continue this practice? To that member, Mr. Chairman, partisan electoral victory means more than people's names, it means more than the reputations of individuals. His conduct in this Legislature and outside is to win at any cost, with no consideration for the cost to others, their families, their friends or their names; that is beyond the ability or the practice of this member. He uses the privilege of this House to make wild and irresponsible charges after the matters have been dealt with. It is no secret that our party, through the statements of some, went through some difficult political times. That has been dealt with; but that doesn't satisfy that member.

MR. BARBER:. It has not been dealt with. The people don't believe it has been dealt with at all.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, could you bring the member to order. He can hardly contain himself from getting up and mentioning other names, which he can do under privilege. He makes insinuations and allegations through rhetorical questions. I could use the same tactic on that member. I could say rhetorically, "Is the first member for Victoria still using drugs?" or some other wild statement. He has to give credibility to the statement by an answer or, as he suggests, make it credible by not dealing with it at all. That type of attitude and style don't suit this House. I could ask all sorts of rhetorical questions, but it would not be in keeping with the traditions of this Legislature or at least the history of parliament.

If the first member for Victoria is truly concerned about Mr. Ron Grieg, let him go out to the private sector and make a statement or lay such information or charges as he feels are justified, because I do not have that infortnation. I do not have it now and I never have had it. That doesn't satisfy that member, because he hasn't got the guts to do that. He is willing to, in a cowardly way....

AN HON. MEMBER: Oh.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, Mr. Premier.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Don't say "oh" to me!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Courtesy in debate....

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the word "cowardly."

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. I should remind all members present that courtesy in debate is a facet of this House and of all parliamentary houses.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I agree. Courtesy must be stated to those outside this House as well.

I had great respect for the first member for Victoria (Mr. Barber) when he was first elected. His ideas in his initial speeches in this Legislature were worthy of consideration; I didn't always agree with him. But in the past four years his tactics have become the same as those of the New Democratic Party. I suppose that's why that party will always be in an opposition role in this province. Perhaps someday it may not even be opposition. I think the public recognizes that constructive criticism is worthwhile — and they know that we're going to play politics — but the utilization of those partisan tactics can have a far more damaging reaction on the public than that member may care to find out.

We have attempted to deal with those events that happened outside this chamber in a very forthright fashion. Nothing will ever satisfy some members of this chamber who aren't satisfied when they can find nothing wrong. They're not after the truth; they're only after the truth as they see it. They're only after the results they want to see achieved; that is what they're after. This government has taken appropriate action in those areas. Mr. Chairman, I only deal with it because it has been dealt with. It's not a subject I'm going to continue to deal with, but I was concerned about the style and method of the first member for Victoria; that does concern me. I don't want our members to be drawn into the old thing of fighting fire with fire and using the same tactics; I don't think that's worthwhile. Those who throw mud always lose ground; I think that that's been proven time and time again.

To the first member for Victoria, I would state again that my office does not collect campaign funds, nor does anyone in my office collect campaign funds. That has been stated before. Again, even with the knowledge of that, he has tried to imply that again. That is what's been so difficult about many of the questions: having had the answer, they're willing to keep repeating an allegation which they now know is not true. That's an old technique. But I've got to tell you it will not work — through you, Mr. Chairman, to the first member for Victoria. It's an old technique that has never worked.

I want to respond, though, to questions brought up during the debate on my estimates that do involve government policy, government action and the philosophy of government, because in a general way we can touch on philosophy in my estimates. People I have talked to recently who have not witnessed this chamber for some time are amazed at the breadth and scope of items brought up under the Premier's estimates. We're a government that is willing to discuss the people's business. But there are items that are unanswerable or do not properly belong in the Premier's estimates.

Quite frankly, I think you have been a wise Chairman and have shown great latitude and understanding to members on all sides. There comes a point where many of those items can only be dealt with in the detail in which the public would like to find answers from the ministers themselves. I'm as anxious as everyone is to have those stories told, because they are a story of success — the successes of this government. Ask the public; they're happy with the results of the policies of the government. During estimates the ministers can bring them out. I think they're happy with the philosophical moves of the government.

MR. COCKE: Is that what Goldfarb tells you?

[ Page 2100 ]

HON. MR. BENNETT: Goldfarb who? I think the member is talking about a study that was done for government. I'm sure the member would be interested in the results and the questions asked,

I would like to say that the policies of this government have been sound. That's what we've been dealing with, from time to time, during our estimates, beyond those questions, some of which aren't asked with the intention of getting an answer, some of which aren't asked with the intention of getting information for the public, some of which are asked — and I hate to say this, Mr. Chairman — I think with political motivation. While they don't deal with the business of the public, they titillate the imagination of the members of the opposition, who have been publicly criticized by the press and observers of the Legislature for being poor in opposition and research — not positive, very negative. The negative label has now stuck. They're trying to run from it, Mr. Chairman.

I hear a giggle from the member for Victoria. He doesn't think being negative is bad. He thinks that the public are paying him, at great expense, to run around saying: "Everything that Social Credit does is bad. Everything this government does is bad. They haven't done one good thing." That's what that member keeps saying. The public of this province can feel the results. They see the results and they're not going to believe that member, Mr. Chairman.

I would like to deal with the increase in the amount to operate the Premier's office, because it has been brought up in my estimates and it would be worthwhile to deal with it at this time. Under reorganization of government we have, for the first time, created a Ministry of Intergovernmental Relations. Up until then intergovernmental affairs was run out of the Premier's office, and I am pleased to say it was an initiative of our government on being elected and taking office in late 1975 and early 1976. It improved and coordinated the ministries of government and also their access to and contact with not only other provincial governments and the government of Canada, but also with other governments, utilizing such federal instruments as foreign affairs, in improving the relationship and image of British Columbia and Canada with the nations with which we do or would like to trade. The growth in the importance of that part of the Premier's office, the experience of other provincial governments in giving it ministerial status, led to the further reorganization. Now, of course, the first member for Vancouver–Point Grey (Hon. Mr. Gardom) occupies the very sensitive and important post of Minister of Intergovernmental Relations.

With the changes in the Premier's office, then a new intergovernmental ministry, it was felt after four years' experience that, yes, the Premier's office can use more advice; yes, we can use stronger administrative abilities. We have set up an increased vote that will allow us to bring in those types of abilities, such as the deputy minister's position that we have in the Premier's office for the first time. I believe that the administration of that office will help the administration of government. The support staff for the deputy minister is also part of the increase in vote. The opportunity to hire and place positions that are not yet filled — policy positions within the Premier's office — again adds to that vote.

I might say that the number of increases in positions are not yet filled. This is a potential for an improving performance for the Premier's office and brings it in line with the types of operational staff available to other Premiers' offices across the country. I might point out, though, that it is still substantially lower than Premier's offices in other governments across the country. The Premier's estimates here will be $551,000. In Alberta in the last fiscal year the Premier's office had an allocation of $2,200,000 for staff. You can see that even at this increased figure we are about one-fifth of the amount that it takes to operate the Premier's office in Alberta. Take a look then at Saskatchewan, a much smaller province, in which the vote for the Premier's office last year was $1,044,000. The second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald) said the other amount was an oddity. What do you call this?

AN HON. MEMBER: Monarchy money.

HON. MR. BENNETT: It's a monarchy in Saskatchewan?

MR. LEVI: In Alberta.

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, I asked about Saskatchewan. I was talking about the $1 million in Saskatchewan.

Mr. Chairman, I take it from the remarks of the members during my estimates to date that they think the Premier's office could be improved. So rather than complaining about the increase from $289,000 to $551,000, I would think they'd want to vote me more money; I would think they'd want to make it at least a million, the same as the Premier of Saskatchewan gets. Then I think they would take a look and say: "British Columbia is more active — a much bigger population, bigger than Saskatchewan. Perhaps we should double it and at least make it what the Premier of Alberta gets to run his office, $2 million." If the opposition would make that constructive suggestion, I'd be willing to entertain it. I'm not apologizing for the increase, but I am apologizing that it's not enough, that I'd like to see it much more. If the members opposite can help me convince the Minister of Finance and the head of Treasury Board to increase the amount to at least what the Premier of Saskatchewan gets, I would welcome this very constructive help from the members of the opposition, and I would appreciate it.

I point out that the money to improve the Premier's office isn't paid to me personally; it's paid to those who work on behalf of the province and try to help deliver the best possible job. After listening to what the members opposite think of me, Mr. Chairman, they must be willing to vote me more money to let me do a better job to compensate for all of the things that they say are wrong with me. So I'm hopeful that not only will they enthusiastically support my estimates, but they'll recommend to this Legislature and this committee that we double or triple the amount of money to help the Premier do a better job.

I recognize that their criticisms are their opinion; I disagree with them, but if they feel that way about me personally, then I know that they'll be moving to have this chamber — over and above the Minister of Finance, who has been very cautious and very tough on trying to increase the number of people in the Premier's office — give some direction to him, and they'll put a motion that we increase the number, and perhaps increase it to comparable numbers in Premiers' offices across the country. I think the weight of their debate leads me to the conclusion that they wish to do this. They probably have a plan in which they are going to ask us all to

[ Page 2101 ]

consider increasing the staff for the Premier's office. I want to tell them that I will give them support and I welcome their support in helping my case with Minister of Finance.

MR. LEVI: Well, the Premier did offer us a couple of suggestions about what we might do with his office. I would be prepared to vote the Premier far more money if he would be prepared to undertake that he would bring his office up out of the bunker and put it on street level so that everybody could see what's going on. That I will certainly would do. I think that's worthwhile.

The Premier was asked before about Goldfarb. Goldfarb, as the Premier knows, does political polling and some consultant work. I can recall some years ago during estimates when the present Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources (Hon. Mr. McClelland) asked a question in the House as a result of what he found in the estimate book. At that time it related to the Empress Hotel, as a matter of fact. He asked me — at the time I was the minister — if amongst the $53,000, was any money spent on putting juveniles in the Empress Hotel. This is by way of analogy, Mr. Chairman. He had, of course, an incredible amount of information. You know, at that time we used to refer to him as the Minister of Bombast. He usually led with his lip and he never really had any facts to back it up.

However, what I would like to put to the Premier is — because the hour is getting late and he'll have time to think about it — whether the Premier can tell us whether any of the the $259,000 which was paid to Goldfarb was spent by his office. Did the Premier utilize any of the services of that corporation? He also indicated that he would be prepared to make reports available. That was on the general question of Golfarb and the $259,000, but I really want to ask the Premier whether he's prepared to tell us if his office spent any money with Goldfarb in the last fiscal year — I'll be sitting down in a minute, Mr. Premier — and if he would undertake to table.... His mouth is open. My God, he's also a gasification victim! Will he undertake to tell us if they utilized the corporation, and will he table with the House the work that was done by the corporation? We would be pleased to receive some acknowledgement from the Premier on that.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam knows full well that in public accounts there is full opportunity to deal with accounts from past years of this Legislature, and that's where they are to be dealt with. We have a standing committee and full opportunity to deal with the amounts spent. I would again suggest that he direct his inquiries in the appropriate spot.

MR. LEVI: I think the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot) wants to introduce a bill or something. You want to introduce a bill?

Interjection.

MR. CHAIRMAN: With the greatest respect, we are still in estimates on vote 9, and in committee.

MR. LEVI: Leaving aside what public accounts can do, I just want an assurance from the Premier, because there are things that we cannot get from public accounts. If we want to receive from the Premier any information in respect to any projects that might have been paid for by his department, I'd just like the undertaking from the Premier that we can in fact get the information. That's beyond the public accounts. We're now talking to the minister responsible for that department. We simply want to know, if there is such information that tells us where there might have been expenditures, that we can in fact get it. That's a question that the Premier might answer.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I have no intention of further broadening my estimates to start to do the work of House committees. I think the access to information and to accountability is available not only during estimates but to standing committees of the House, which have served the House well in the past. I think it would be reflecting upon the abilities of the members of that committee to suggest that they don't have the opportunity even to suggest that they aren't capable of getting the type of information they're charged with in taking their places on that committee. I have no intention of being party to such a suggestion that they couldn't carry out their job.

MR. LEVI: The Premier has indicated that if we need the information it will certainly be forthcoming, and that really is what I was attempting to get from him.

In view of the hour, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again. The minister can submit vote 10 next week.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

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

Leave granted for the division which took place in committee to be recorded in the Journals of the House.

HON. MR. CURTIS: I have the honour to table the report of the Assessment Appeal Board of British Columbia for the calendar year 1979. I apologize to the House for the fact that this report is some three weeks late. It is to be regretted, and it will not happen again.

MR. DAVIS: Mr. Speaker, I beg leave to introduce a bill intituled An Act to Amend the Royal Canadian Legion Act.

Leave granted.

AN ACT TO AMEND THE
ROYAL CANADIAN LEGION ACT

On a motion by Mr. Davis, Bill PR404, An Act to Amend the Royal Canadian Legion Act, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be referred to the Select Standing Committee on Standing Orders and Private Bills.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:54 p.m.