[ Page 2123 ]

CONTENTS

Ministerial Statement

Alert Bay medical services.

Hon. Mr. Mair –– 2123

Mr. Cocke –– 2123

Routine Proceedings

Oral Questions.

Natural gas exports. Mr. Macdonald –– 2124

Housing initiative program. Hon. Mr. Chabot replies –– 2124

Air pollution. Mr. Skelly –– 2125

Renovation of Queen of Prince Rupert. Hon. Mr. Heinrich replies –– 2125

Foreign ownership of land. Ms. Sanford –– 2125

Macdonald inquiry into RCMP behaviour. Mr. Leggatt –– 2125

Committee of Supply; Premier's Office estimates.

On vote 9.

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2126

Mr. Leggatt –– 2126

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2127

Mr. Macdonald –– 2128

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2128

Mr. Lauk –– 2128

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2129

Mr. Barrett –– 2129

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2129

Division on the motion that the committee rise –– 2135

Mr. Howard –– 2135

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2135

Mr. Leggatt –– 2138

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2139

Mr. King –– 2139

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2139

Mr. Cocke –– 2142

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2143

Hon. Mr. Wolfe –– 2145

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2145

Mrs. Dailly –– 2145

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2145

Mr. Lea –– 2146

Hon. Mr. Bennett –– 2148

MONDAY, APRIL 28, 1980

The House met at 2 p.m.

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Prayers.

MR. KEMPF: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery this afternoon is a Mr. John Mitchell. John is the director of industrial relations for the Ocean Falls Corporation. He is a long-time friend of mine and in my estimation a fellow who is doing a very good job of relocating the employees at Ocean Falls. I would ask the House to make him very welcome.

HON. MR. NIELSEN: Mr. Speaker, among the many visitors to our capital city today and among the many American visitors is Elizabeth Read, who is visiting our city from Los Angeles by way of direct invitation of the people of British Columbia. I would like the House to welcome her.

MRS. WALLACE: In the gallery at the moment are a group of students from Lake Cowichan Secondary School together with their teachers and three exchange students, two from Ontario and one from Newfoundland. I would ask the House to join me in welcoming them.

HON. MR. VANDER ZALM: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to welcome Alderman Jerry Paul and his wife Sybil from the city of Trail. They are visiting with us today.

MR. SEGARTY: Mr. Speaker, in the gallery this afternoon are Mike and Adeline Wasnock from Fernie, British Columbia. Mike is chairman of School District No. 1 in Fernie. I would like the House to welcome them.

MR. PASSARELL: Mr. Speaker, in your gallery today is Mr. Oskar Daum, who has travelled down from the constituency of Atlin, and I wish the House to bid him adieu for today.

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Hon. members, visiting with us from the Legislative Assembly of the Yukon is the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, Mr. Patrick L. Michael, and I would ask the House to give him a warm welcome.

HON. MR. SMITH: Mr. Speaker, visiting here in the gallery today is a former resident of British Columbia, Mr. Ronald Jones, who works in Tokyo and whose father was a well-known educator in Kamloops and probably known by some members of this House. He is a long-time family friend of mine. I would like the House to make him welcome.

ALERT BAY
MEDICAL SERVICES

HON. MR. MAIR: Mr. Speaker, there being no introduction of bills, I would like to make a ministerial statement.

Mr. Speaker, concerning the recent federal study on Alert Bay, I'd like to inform the House this afternoon that the study commissioned by the federal government and undertaken by Dr. Goldthorpe on Indian health and health-care services in Alert Bay has been completed and released by the federal Health minister on a limited basis. I don't know what "a limited basis" means, but it means at least to the Vancouver Sun.

In view of the great public concern about the implications of Dr. Goldthorpe's report, I would like to take this opportunity to report to the House on my visit to Ottawa last Monday to meet with the Hon. Monique Bégin, and to comment on the action I have taken on Dr. Goldthorpe's report. I might say that when I met with MoniqueBégin I had not the opportunity of seeing that report, nor had it been released. My deputy minister and I met with Mme. Bégin and her senior staff and made what I feel is significant progress in resolving the problems caused by the split responsibility for Indian health care in this province.

I am pleased to table for the information of hon. members the document that was presented to the federal Minister of Health. In so doing, I would like to point out that this meeting took place, as I said a moment ago, before the publication of Dr. Goldthorpe's report.

1. I wish to inform the members that Mme. Bégin has agreed to the formation of a liaison committee of the federal and provincial governments with the active input and representation of the native people at Alert Bay. This committee will oversee the joint resolution of the current problems in Alert Bay and will work towards the establishment of one system for the community as a whole. I would like to impress upon hon. members the significance of this committee and the fact that this is a first for British Columbia. This will, I hope, serve as a model for the resolution of native health-care problems in the province as a whole.

2. Work is going on to establish an alcohol treatment centre in Alert Bay.

3. There will be further planning and discussions in regard to the need for acute-care facilities in this community.

4. Action will be taken to review the constitution and bylaws of the health facilities in Alert Bay to ensure adequate representation by population from the community.

5. Investigations will be made immediately into the possible limitation of surgical procedures at St. George's Hospital in Alert Bay.

6. The Ministry of Health is endeavouring to obtain the services of a second physician in Alert Bay as soon as possible. A subsidy will be available to this physician under the provisions of our service to isolated communities program. There are currently two physicians practising in Port McNeill who are being subsidized through this provincial program.

Mr. Speaker, as for that specific report, I have today sent a telegram to Dr. Goldthorpe asking for the specific evidence on which he based his criticisms of Dr. Jack Pickup. Dr. Goldthorpe made some very serious allegations. While I am not directly concerned with the actions that may have to be taken by the College of Physicians and Surgeons, I intend to bring Dr. Goldthorpe's evidence to the attention of the college and of the St. George's Hospital board in Alert Bay with the strongest possible recommendation that they consider this evidence and take the appropriate action.

I would like at this time to table the document which I presented to the Hon. Monique Bégin last Monday, along with copies of the two Telexes I sent today, one to Dr. Goldthorpe and one to the Hon. Monique Bégin.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the opposition I thank the minister for his statement. I note that he is particularly concerned about the native health care in not only Alert

[ Page 2124 ]

Bay, I'm sure, but in the rest of the province, and I have read some of the proposals by the provincial government. I'd like to alert the minister about the concern of the natives in terms of the provincial direction of native health care. I've heard directly from the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs and they are most concerned — to say the least.

I'm particularly pleased that the Dr. Goldthorpe report has come down. I really think it reinforces a feeling that I've had for some years, and that is that it's time we looked at not only lay people sitting on grievance committees of the different professional organizations — particularly one as sensitive as health care, and particularly one as sensitive as the leaders in health care, the doctors.... As a matter of fact, I feel that there should be lay representation in the college.

I hope to see the remainder of the report. I'd like to know how the Minister of Health for Canada responded to the minister's statement, and I'm sure that that will be given to us in due course. But Alert Bay, I think, has been particularly focused upon. It's not the only area in the province that has trouble, but I do hope that this limitation of surgical procedures is very limited and that we're able to bring doctors into the area in order to give emergency care, because deaths can result when a place is as isolated as that from the mainland. I would sure hope that we can get doctors into the area in order to provide the level of care that those people, just the same as any other groups, require.

Oral Questions

NATURAL GAS EXPORTS

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources. On April 15 the federal government announced a six-month moratorium on increases in the export price of natural gas. I want to know whether or not the minister and this government were consulted prior to that announcement of policy by the federal government.

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

MR. MACDONALD: Would the minister then, as a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, advise the House when the government was consulted, what representations were made, and how were they made to the federal government?

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I would have to look in my diary to see exactly when I had conversations with the federal government on this matter, but I can say that during the first meeting that I had the opportunity to have with the new Minister of Energy, Marc Lalonde, we talked about this matter. British Columbia put forward its concerns, and the day after our meeting, I believe, the Minister of Energy for Canada was in conversation with the national energy secretary. As a result there were some changes made to the formula for achieving increases in the export price of natural gas, some of them as a result of the concerns that British Columbia had expressed. From that time until now I've had a number of conversations with the Minister of Energy for Canada, and I expect we'll continue to have these conversations, as the minister has promised that there will be full consultation before any changes of this nature are made.

MR. MACDONALD: The minister seems to be saying that notwithstanding this six-month freeze, which affects the economy of British Columbia very substantially and puts our gas below the world export price for that six-month period, this was a case of John McMillian of Northwest Alaskan Pipeline Co. of Delaware putting a thumb on the federal government to get that freeze, and that this government made no written representations, but has just had casual conversation with the federal minister. I am asking whether there was any brief or any position presented in writing to the federal government. If there was, will he table it with this House and not just tell us about casual conversations with the minister? Was there any written submission made to the federal government on this important matter? That's my question, Mr. Speaker.

HON. MR. McCLELLAND: I will take that question as notice.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary question, am I being told that the minister doesn't know?

DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, please. There is no supplementary to a question taken as notice; the member is aware of that.

HOUSING INITIATIVE PROGRAM

HON. MR. CHABOT: On April 16 the member for North Island (Mr. Gabelmann) asked questions regarding the Housing Initiative Program, specifically circumstances surrounding the allocation of funds by the Saanich Peninsula Savings Credit Union for a rental project in Port Hardy.

The member asked whether the program was designed to apply to new construction begun after January 15, 1980. I advised the member that, yes, that is a matter of public knowledge. He further asked whether I condone the demolition of construction work started prior to the commencement of this program in order that new construction can appear to begin following the initiation of the program and developers can qualify for the 9 1/4 percent program.

I've made inquiries through the British Columbia Central Credit Union on the question asked by the member for North Island, and I've been advised that Hartshorne Construction Company approached the Saanich Peninsula Savings Credit Union for a mortgage loan in January, following our announcement of the Housing Initiative Program. The construction of the proposed building required that the footings be poured in a monolithic pour in order to satisfy construction standards. For this reason alone the partial footings placed upon the site in Port Hardy could not be used for the construction of the proposed building.

In addition, it was also the intent of the government that no existing construction qualify for the Housing Initiative Program, which implies that any building which qualifies for the MURB benefits, which were discontinued December 31, would not qualify under the terms of the program. In order to verify enforcement of both these conditions the award of a rental loan to Hartshorne Construction was made conditional upon an engineer's verification that the site was cleared of the old footings before construction was commenced. Hartshorne Construction complied with this condition. In carrying out their initial placement of footings upon the site Hartshorne Construction was merely protecting a right to receive MURB benefits on the project and did not have

[ Page 2125 ]

financing secured for its construction. Thus the footings would have sat on the site unused for a lengthy period of time. Only one application for rental loan in Port Hardy was received and it has led to the immediate construction of a 52-unit building in Port Hardy. The building will contain 36 three-bedroom suites, 16 two-bedroom suites, and as the demand for accommodation from Utah Mines will only use 40 percent of the total units, there has been an addition of units for the use of the people of Port Hardy.

In summary, the conditions of the program have been complied with and a building is now being built in Port Hardy when it would not otherwise have been. This new building does provide a net addition of rental units available to Port Hardy for the public use. The question of cancellation of anticipated MURB benefits is being dealt with by CMHC. The ultimate decision as to whether this project qualifies for participation in the Housing Initiative Program was the sole determination of the Saanich Peninsula Savings Credit Union. They have found that the project qualifies and have allocated funding accordingly.

MR. GABELMANN: I have just one question, Mr. Speaker. I welcome the reply by the minister. Most of the information contained there is consistent with the information that I have.

The $200 million program the government has in its terms of reference implies that construction initiated — I believe the word used is "initiated" — following January 15, 1980, is eligible for benefit. At what point does initiation of a project begin? Does it begin with the clearing of the land? Does it begin with the pouring of the foundations.? Does it begin with the actual on-site carpentry work? Where is the point of initiation? This project in question was in fact initiated last fall in several respects.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Mr. Speaker, I'd have to suggest that pouring of the footings means initiation of a project. But if the footings that have been poured, for instance, are not poured in a fashion in which they could adapt the building for which an application for funding has been signed, then they have to be removed, because there wasn't a continuous pour and they didn't meet the guidelines. That determination, based on the guidelines we established, was made by the credit union movement. The Saanich Peninsula Savings Credit Union made the determination that this particular project met the criteria which was outlined to them, and based on that they advanced the funds.

MR. GABELMANN: Mr. Speaker, are the criteria for building construction that the credit union movement uses different from local building standards? In this case the footings were approved by the building inspector for the area.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Those footings might have been adequate for a different building but they weren't adequate for this building.

AIR POLLUTION

MR. SKELLY: I have a question for the Minister of Environment. As a result of a 1977 report on air quality in the Elkford-Sparwood-Fernie area, the pollution control branch ordered Kaiser Resources at Sparwood to reduce sulphur dioxide emissions by January 1, 1979, or face closure. According to a document recently filed by Kaiser with the Ontario Securities Commission, Kaiser has yet to comply with this order. Will the minister advise the House what action his ministry has taken to enforce the 1977 order?

HON. MR. ROGERS: The answer goes into about 42 pages. I just happened to suspect that perhaps this question would be directed at me today. Perhaps it would be more appropriate if I tabled a response because it involves starting off 60 years ago. I could start off, if you'd like, and go through the whole story, but I'll get it in a tabling form and table it. It's too complicated to read it all out.

RENOVATION OF
QUEEN OF PRINCE RUPERT

HON. MR. HEINRICH: The hon. member for Esquimalt–Port Renfrew (Mr. Mitchell) had asked the question I believe last week concerning asbestos in the renovations of the Queen of Prince Rupert. I took the question as notice. The answer which I now have is two pages and I would just as soon file it, if acceptable.

FOREIGN OWNERSHIP OF LAND

MS. SANFORD: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Attorney-General. In response to my repeated requests to initiate a review of foreign land ownership in British Columbia, particularly of farmland, the Attorney-General communicated to me in January of this year that he is awaiting further information on the matter and would be in touch with me again once he'd received that information. Can the Attorney-General now tell the House what the status of this review of foreign land ownership is?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: At this moment I cannot, Mr. Speaker. I'll take the question as notice.

MS. SANFORD: I have a new question to the Attorney-General. The Attorney-General indicated to me in January that he was undertaking a review and would be in touch once he had received information. This morning I checked with the land titles office, where the information concerning the citizenship of foreign land buyers in this province is contained on a form known as Form 16. I contacted the land titles office and they informed me that form 16 is being kept in the land titles office. It is simply being stored there, and no one has looked at those forms for the past four years.

In view of the fact that the agrologists from the Peace River region appealed to the government over a year ago to take action on foreign ownership of farmland, I am wondering when the government is going to do something about this. They haven't done a thing yet.

MACDONALD INQUIRY
INTO RCMP BEHAVIOUR

MR. LEGGATT: I take it the minister isn't intending to answer that particular question. Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Attorney- General. It concerns a report last week that the federal Solicitor General, Mr. Kaplan, has indicated that if requested by provincial Attorneys-General he would provide or consider providing the particulars of

[ Page 2126 ]

offences that took place within their province by members of the RCMP under present study by the Macdonald inquiry. Would the Attorney-General advise the House whether he has made any specific requests for particulars of offences and names of those who may have committed those offences within the province of British Columbia?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, the information to which the member refers, I assume, came from the press reports. I would urge him to obtain, if he can, a copy of the Solicitor General's response to questions on the subject in the House of Commons, which are somewhat different than the press reports.

The specific answer to the question is yes, I spoke with Mr. Kaplan last week and I have confirmed my conversation by letter. I have asked him if he would provide me with all the information which he is able to provide with respect to the matters under consideration.

In so saying, Mr. Speaker, the member should be aware that in responding to a question in the House of Commons the Solicitor General said he would make available such information as he legally could. There seems to be some problem with respect to what information is available to him from the Macdonald commission inquiry.

MR. LEGGATT: Would the Attorney-General now provide the House with his assurance that when he is in receipt of this information he will proceed in the usual way against any persons who have violated the laws of the province of British Columbia — that there will be the normal processing of this information as with regard to any other person in British Columbia?

HON. MR. WILLIAMS: Mr. Speaker, I don't think I should need to give such assurance. But I am prepared to say to the member that that is precisely what will occur when the information, such as it is, reaches here; it will be turned over to officials of the ministry and then to the appropriate police authorities. I might say on the subject that when I spoke to the Solicitor General and again when I wrote to him I reminded him that it is the responsibility of every citizen in our country, and particularly the Solicitor General, to make known to the appropriate authorities information that he may have with respect to the commission of crimes in this country.

MR. MITCHELL: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to correct a statement appearing in the Blues on Thursday, April 24. On the question of the proposed takeover of B.C.'s largest cablevision operator, Premier Cablevision, by the Toronto conglomerate, Canadian Cablesystems, the hon. second member for Vancouver South (Mr. Hyndman) is recorded in the Blues as follows: "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." The charge made by me was that the member was a director of Canadian Cablesystems and owned shares in Premier Cablevision. That is what was recorded in the Blues, and I just wanted to correct the correction.

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: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of advice. Mr. Lawrie Wallace, deputy minister to the Premier, who would normally be sitting beside me as he has the last while, providing advice on the administration of the Premier's office, is unavailable today as he, along with other government officials, is attending meetings with the members of the Bureau of International Expositions. This is the pre-inquiry team that is meeting in Vancouver to look at British Columbia's bid to present Transpo '86. Mr. Wallace is there not only because of his expertise in the development of expositions or fairs of this nature, but also because of his particular knowledge, having been agent-general in London with the members of the team, and having sat in on the preliminary discussions held in Paris. So that is why Mr. Wallace isn't here today.

However, the expertise and experience is not lost. While she will not be in the Legislature, a senior administrator in my office, Mrs. Patricia Paulsen, who has served three Premiers in succession and perhaps knows more about all of us than we would care to have known, is standing by with any information not readily available to me which I may need to provide for members of the opposition.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Chairman, I wanted to follow some of the questions that the Premier was asked on Thursday by the member for Maillardville-Coquitlam (Mr. Levi). The question of Mr. Goldfarb was raised across this floor to the Premier and the Premier's response was....

HON. MR. BENNETT: When? Nobody asked him a question.

MR. LEGGATT: Well, in any event, as I read the Blues the response was that the Premier felt that it would be appropriately dealt with in public accounts. I am simply going to provide the committee chairman with some reasons why it's a matter that has to be dealt with in the Premier's estimates.

I'm particularly interested in the Goldfarb question because of an invoice that I have in my possession directed to the Premier's office from Goldfarb Consultants. The number of that invoice, by the way, for the assistance of the Premier and his assistant today, is 594499. It is a bill directed by Goldfarb Consultants to Mr. David P. Brown, Communications Planning Adviser, Office of the Premier, Parliament Buildings. The date of this bill is December 28, 1978, and it concerns a two-month period — August and September 1978. There are a number of things about this, Mr. Premier, that are interesting and I want you to direct your mind, if you will, to certain aspects of this particular account, particularly with reference to any conversations you may have had with Mr. Brown which surround this particular account.

As I say, the account was dated December 28 and it contained some interesting notations. The persons who have made notes have been good enough to sign the particular note. The account was for $2,500 and initially would have come under the Premier's vote number 005. That number has been struck out and the number 213 has been put over it.

[ Page 2127 ]

Obviously the reason was to change it from the Premier's estimates to those of the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), if I understand this numbering business correctly. One of the reasons I'm asking the Premier to direct his attention to this particular invoice is because of the nature of the notations that we find around this account.

I'll read the notation to the Premier. It says this: "Mr. Brown has advised that the consulting work was of a confidential nature in connection with communications problems and that further information, if required, is available to the comptroller-general from Mr. Brown. He also has advised that the terms of the contract do not exceed two months." This was signed by a Mr. Ian Fraser, who I understand is the comptroller for the Provincial Secretary's ministry. This account was received in the Premier's office on January 3, 1979. Initially I'd like to have the Premier test his memory or perhaps consult his notes. The question of Goldfarb was raised last week so I presume there has been some opportunity for the Premier to refresh his memory. Initially I'd like the Premier to confirm, if he can, that in fact the Premier's office hired Goldfarb Consultants for that two-month period back in 1978 and in fact he consulted with Mr. Brown surrounding the appropriateness of this account.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I can't provide all the information to the member but I would say that if it involved information for a number of government ministries the information collected would be paid for under the Provincial Secretary. The vote at that time for the director of government communications, Mr. Brown, was paid under the Premier's office. That too has been transferred to go along with other information services to the Provincial Secretary. As the member has suggested, this would probably then come under the accounts of the Provincial Secretary, having provided the normal funding for information that may touch a number of ministries. The reason for the communication director, I'm perhaps trying to reach back now — would be to coordinate a number of ministerial requests.

MR. LEGGATT: Is the Premier able now to table with the House or provide the House with any specific in respect of the nature of the service that was provided by Goldfarb Consultants for this particular bill?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Such service may have been for a number of ministries where the information would have been provided directly to each minister.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Chairman, this particular account was directed to Mr. David P. Brown in the office of the Premier. I'm making the assumption that in the normal course of events when one hires a consultant the bill goes to the person who hired him.

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, the member would understand that that is not always so and in fact most likely not so in government if you're coordinating for a number of ministries. The moneys available would be under the Provincial Secretary. However, somebody's always called upon to coordinate ministerial work and requests and presumably the director himself collected such requests. The appropriate bill was sent to the appropriate ministry for payment.

MR. LEGGATT: Can the Premier advise the House whether or not this particular instance was a case of Mr. Brown coordinating for several ministries, and was there a specific request for Goldfarb Consultants to provide that two-month service?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I would presume so. If the answer is any different I'll bring it back, but I presume so. If it is different than I think at this time — trying to recall back, trying to recall at all — I will bring an amended answer to the House, but that's what I presume would be the case at that time.

MR. LEGGATT: I indicated this particular note on the bill and I'll read it again so that the Premier has a chance to digest it.

"Mr. Brown has advised that the consulting work was of a confidential nature in connection with communications problems and that further information, if required, is available at the comptroller-general from Mr. Brown."

I'm wondering, Mr. Premier, if you are in a position to recall whether yourself and Mr. Brown discussed this particular bill. What should be done with this particular invoice?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, obviously something has been done. It's been sent to the Provincial Secretary, and, I assume, been paid. So it's not a matter of something to be done with it. It has been dealt with, I presume. Unless the member rises to question why payment hasn't been made or is acting as a collector for Goldfarb Consultants.... But I would understand that under the normal procedure it would be paid by the appropriate ministry, and obviously the member suggests it has. In regard to confidentiality, all government business is confidential, as the member would know. That is why public servants take an oath of confidentiality.

MR. LEGGATT: I appreciate that the Premier is going to bring us back some specific information concerning this particular notation. There is also a memorandum attached to this particular bill dated January 31, 1979. It is directed to someone called Mike. The Mike is a Mr. Mike Mitchell. It is signed by a fellow called Dick. His name is Dick Fetherstonhaugh, and he's from the office of the comptroller-general. I would like to read this memorandum to the Premier so that it will assist him in recalling this particular incident. The memo reads: "Mike: We lack sufficient detail to properly audit this account. I refer this for information since this area is politically sensitive. Dick."

I have the Premier's answer around the question of coordinating several ministries. I'm just wondering now if the Premier can direct his attention to this particular relationship with Goldfarb Consultants, and his recollection of any conversations he mav have had with Mr. Brown in his office. Is he able to tell us why this was politically sensitive and not merely confidential?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I don't know Dick or Mike, and I certainly don't know who wrote the notation or anything about it. If the member would send me a copy of the bill I would certainly take a look at it. I haven't seen it or had anything to do with it, but I'll take a look at it and find out who Dick and Mike are.

[ Page 2128 ]

MR. LEGGATT: I'd like, first of all, Mr. Chairman, for the Premier to try to recall whether in fact he ever saw this particular memorandum. It seems obvious from the memorandum, Mr. Chairman, that the nature of the account was discussed by Mr. Brown and Mr. Bonnell, I would expect.

The next memorandum attached to this particular account is directed to Dick from the desk of Mr. M.F. Churchill, executive director of operations, who says this: "This discussed with Mr. Brown and the comptroller-general. Mr. Bonnell has approved this voucher as okay." What I'm asking now, Mr. Premier, is whether in fact you participated in any way in okaying the payment of this particular voucher.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The appropriate officers have the ability to deal with government accounts, and the one thing the Premier doesn't do is act as the bookkeeper for the government. I understand you to have stated that officers in authority, Mr. Bonnell and others, have felt the account to be suitable for government payment. They're our greatest safeguard that accounts are submitted and paid correctly.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Chairman, I take it it's a little unusual for the comptroller-general to discuss an account which is not that large an account — $2,500 — an account which contains a notation on it that the work was of a confidential nature in connection with communications problems. I think the Premier will have to forgive me if I find the account somewhat suspicious when I look at that and worry that we are running the risk of seeing public money used for an inappropriate purpose, a political purpose, a purpose which has nothing whatsoever to do with the operation of that particular ministry. That's why it's important that the Premier refer back in his records to this particular account and try to recall any conversations that he had with Mr. Brown around the account, because I'm sure there is no question that any use of public funds for the purpose of assisting in polling, for example, to determine political rather than governmental questions.... I'm sure the Premier would agree with me that that would be an abuse of public funds.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, I agree with the last part. As for the front part, I don't keep files for all the different ministries. I can't look back and find anything that would appropriately be handled on the administrative side of government. Now to suggest that I could look back in files.... Obviously if it's been approved by responsible government officers, it would be an appropriate government expense. Because it is a bill incurred in the past, the public accounts committee has first and full opportunity to deal with it, and that's where it can be dealt with. I understand the member is interested, but that would be the appropriate spot. That's why we have a public accounts committee.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Chairman, is the Premier willing to come before the public accounts committee with regard to this particular account?

HON. MR. BENNETT: There would be no necessity, Mr. Chairman, for the Premier to go. I'm sure the ministry that is expending the funds could deal with it quite adequately.

MR. LEGGATT: Mr. Chairman, I would point out that even though the amount of this consulting fee and travel costs is $2,500, the account from Goldfarb Consultants is over ten times that amount.

Interjection.

MR. LEGGATT: A hundred times that amount. Thank you. I think it's $290,000.

I'm concerned, and I'm sure the Premier is too, that the taxpayers of the province of British Columbia have not paid a $2,500 attendance fee to obtain a contract for $290,000.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I don't think so, Mr. Chairman.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, Mr. Chairman, in listening to the exchange and the answers I find it very odd that a respected public servant would mark a document as being "politically sensitive," and that of all Premiers in Canada, this Premier knows nothing about it. Mind you, the Premier hasn't said he doesn't know what this account was for and what the poll was about, so I'm asking him directly: do you know, Mr. Premier, through the Chair, what this poll was? What was the question asked? What were the results?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Obviously the account referred to is much larger and may have dealt with a number of ministerial services, and that would have to be asked of the different ministries that received the service.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, my question was fairly simple. I'm asking the Premier whether he knows what this poll is about.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Government business.

MR. MACDONALD: Well, that makes it in order for this Premier.... I don't think all government business is confidential, as I think the Premier said at one point. So if this was government business, it is appropriate now that the Premier tell the House what the poll was about. What were the results? Why would somebody consider it politically sensitive? Tell the House about it.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, the member presumes from his own thinking that the word "political" relates to partisan politics. If you look at the definition, it's the art of public business; it's public business that's being done.

MR. MACDONALD: Mr. Chairman, I don't want to detain the committee — is that the right way of putting it? The committee has been detained for quite a while for non-answers already. The Premier has told the Legislature of British Columbia that this poll had to do with government business. Now I'm asking the Premier what government business. What were the questions that were asked and what were the results? What was it about?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I never mentioned the word "poll"; that has come from the member for Vancouver East. We are talking about a service to government. He's presuming on a certain service.

MR. LAUK: To the Premier on the same subject, everybody in Canada, and I assume elsewhere, knows what Gold-

[ Page 2129 ]

farb does. I mean, that's no secret; the public knows what Goldfarb does. They don't provide stationery. They don't provide technical advice to government. They poll to provide information, usually to partisan groups, or official organizations asking specific questions. They poll the public, Mr. Chairman; that's no secret.

The hon. member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) has provided a sufficient amount of information to the Premier for him to answer the very simple question put by the second member for Vancouver East (Mr. Macdonald). It was a sensitive political topic. It concerned confidential government communications. Now what are the public to believe that means? If it had to do with some engineering firm, or some other firm, we'd perhaps understand that some of the technical information would be confidential; but this is a poll-gathering group, and they've submitted a bill to the government for payment by the provincial taxpayers. Surely the Premier can answer the question. What was the nature of the questions asked by this polling group?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Again, I've tried to help the member. I said it might be services to a number of ministries over a period of time — if you're talking about more than the single bill — and those can be dealt with in Public Accounts; they could be dealt with under the various ministries in Public Accounts.

MR. LAUK: It's astounding, Mr. Chairman. Do you mean to say that the Premier is even now saying we can't ask him any questions about his office's expenditures, or about how his office directed the expenditure of certain funds involving one of his close personal aides, Mr. David Brown? This is incredible!

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'm not saying that; I'm saying the member can get the information from the ministry that paid the expense.

MR. LAUK: We could get the information from Mr. Goldfarb. All right, if we ask Mr. Goldfarb, he isn't by the convention and tradition of the British parliamentary system required to answer, as the Premier is. Mr. Goldfarb isn't the Premier. Mr. Goldfarb wasn't elected to be an elected official in this chamber, or the first minister of the province, responsible to the public who have a right to know.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, Mr. Chairman, all of the services to government — that may or may not be coordinated — obviously fall under one of the votes of one of the ministries. If there are a number of ministerial requests that may require coordination, that's fine — and under the appropriate authorities to spend money and acquire services, they are. That would be a ministerial request that's developed in the ministry. It comes up through the system and, of course, would be advanced as a ministry expenditure and would be dealt with. That's all. That's a very simple procedure and one that's traditionally been there. Health service, or any other service of government that may need coordination, still goes back to its ministry, and is accountable there, both as a request for funds and a provision of government service. So that's where this question can be dealt with. I'm trying to help the member as much as I can.

MR. BARRETT: Nothing the Premier has said deals with this particular instance.

AN HON. MEMBER: it does.

MR. BARRETT: It does not! There is a note here to Mike Churchill from Dick Fetherstonhaugh saying: ''We lack sufficient detail to properly audit this account. I refer this for info since this area is politically sensitive." Now this is not a routine Health inquiry. This is not a routine coordination. This is a statement by civil servants saying that this is politically sensitive — "I don't have any information on this, and I want to know why I should pay it." Then the answer comes back from the staff in the Premier's office, saying this: "Dick, this has been discussed with the comptroller-general, Mr. Bonnell, and is approved. The voucher is okay." We want to know what the discussion was. We want to know what made it okay, and we want to know what came out of your office on this issue.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, Mr. Chairman, I want to say again that obviously responsible government officials have been adequately presented with information so they could pay the account. To suggest otherwise would be to suggest that they have done something improper. Public Accounts would be a good place to take that up. Obviously I'm pleased to see that those who work in the public service are careful about accounts that are presented to them. I've no doubts that with the tight controls this government has imposed.... While the member for Coquitlam-Moody said he didn't think $2,500 was much, I know that we think it's a lot of money, and the controls that are in obviously dealt with it in that respect. The advertising or information or part of those things done for government that may be coordinated would still come under the public information and government document votes. Then if they involved a direct expense to a different ministry it would involve that ministry's vote and expenses for information or service sought by that ministry, and that's where it could be dealt with.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Brown works in the Premier's office. This is a bill from Goldfarb Consultants. It is for two months of a consultation fee and travel costs ordered and requested out of the Premier's office. I'm asking the Premier this question. I read a quote here saying: "Mr. Brown has advised that the consulting work was of a confidential nature in connection with communications problems." I ask the Premier to tell this House what specifically Mr. Goldfarb was asked to do out of your office that was of a confidential nature.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The Leader of the Opposition presumes something which may not be correct, and that is that requests come out of the Premier's office. Public information services were coordinated when requests came from the various ministries, and votes for public information and government documents come under the Provincial Secretary. Obviously coordination probably saves money where you get a number of requests relating to a similar service. You can relate that to the Provincial Secretary, and if they're concerned they can deal with it in public accounts for the year in which the service was incurred and the payment made. I would suggest that the coordination is not the seeking from the Premier's office.

I've told the member that if there's anything other than

[ Page 2130 ]

what I've already told him I'll bring it back, but I've provided as much information as I can. I know the Leader of the Opposition was out of the House for that period we were discussing this, and perhaps he didn't hear that or the answers that were given before he came into the House today.

MR. BARRETT: There is nothing in here that states any of this has got anything to do with any kind of coordination. I don't know where that came from. Are you telling us that this was a project of coordination? Is that what you're saying this voucher's about?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'm saying it's a voucher that's paid by the Provincial Secretary, who could probably give him that information.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, the Premier said that this is something to do with coordination. Now he's saying it isn't something to do with coordination and might be an answer that the Provincial Secretary can give. Does Mr. Brown work in your office?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Brown works in the Provincial Secretary's office, where the coordination of government services is now consolidated. Obviously, Mr. Chairman, if the Leader of the Opposition had taken the time to be in the House when the member for Coquitlam-Moody was sincerely asking some questions, he would have known that I covered this and said if there's any additional information I could find out that would appropriately be answered here I would bring that information. I have no other information. That's all I have today, and if there's other information I'll bring it back later.

MR. BARRETT: At the time this bill was submitted, Mr. Brown was in your office. Is that right?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I've said that if there's any other information I'll bring it back.

MR. BARRETT: Let's deal with the information that is obvious, so that we can get to the information we want coming back. Did Mr. Brown work for you, out of your office, under your control, in December 1978?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I know the Leader of the Opposition loves to play Perry Mason, but I've said I'll bring such information as has been requested by the member for Coquitlam-Moody. If there's any information that should appropriately be answered here it will be provided.

MR. BARRETT: I'm asking the Premier a simple question so that we can go through this step by step and deal with the information that he may not have and he may bring back. Let's deal with the information that he does have. Was Mr. Brown working for you on December 28, 1978?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Perhaps we could clearly identify where accounts paid by the Provincial Secretary's office should be dealt with. I would say it's a matter of public record that Mr. Brown was working for the people of British Columbia at that date and that his vote was paid through the Premier's office. The vote for public information is paid through the Provincial Secretary's office, where this bill is incurred.

MR. BARRETT: The bill was incurred by Mr. David Brown, Communications Planning Adviser, Office of the Premier, Parliament Buildings, Victoria, B.C. If you'll just sit still for a minute we'll deal with it and we'll deal with it properly rather than you trying to jump up and avoid answering questions on this issue.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Are you threatening?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Let's address the Chair and avoid direct confrontation across the floor. It's most appropriate that way.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Tell him not to threaten me, Mr. Chairman. He's being a bully, a big bully.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I'm being nice to the Premier; I'm trying to help him through these difficult times. I'm not saying things about him behind his back or on television like his colleagues are. I say them right to your face. Let's start with question one. Is your name Bill? Okay. Now that we've established that, though you, Mr. Chairman....

HON. MR. BENNETT: Do you want me to answer it?

MR. BARRETT: I have the floor. You make note of the questions and we'll deal with them.

Mr. Chairman, this is a bill — to Bill — and it says "from Goldfarb Consultants, 3077 Bathurst Street, Toronto, Ontario, submitted December 28, 1978, to Mr. David P. Brown, Communications Planning Adviser, Office of the Premier, Parliament Buildings, Victoria, British Columbia; received in the Premier's office January 3, 1979." Now that makes it pretty clear to me that Mr. Brown authorized this work and was billed out of the Premier's office. If there is any dispute about this document, then we've got a real case, but I don't think we have any dispute over that.

Now that we've identified that it's the Premier's office that ordered this consultation, this is the appropriate time to deal with it, during the Premier's estimates. There is a note here. When the civil servants asked what this $2,500 was spent on, the note comes back to Mike Churchill who is responsible to see that the public's money is well spent, spent openly and honestly on government business. He must find out what government business transpired. So he writes this note: "Mike, we lack sufficient detail to properly audit this account. I refer this for info, since this area is politically sensitive. Signed, Dick."

Somebody in the Premier's office, i.e. Brown, made a decision to hire Goldfarb to do some politically sensitive work, and Goldfarb billed for it. The civil servants in protection of the taxpayers' money said: "What was the work that was done, before we pay this bill out of the Premier's office?" Then what happened, Mr. Chairman? Mike went and talked to Mr. Bonnell and Mr. Brown. Then we have a conversation — according to Mike Mitchell, back to Dick: "Dear Dick, this was discussed with Mr. Brown, who worked for the Premier at that time; this was discussed with Mr. Brown and the comptroller-general, Mr. Bonnell, has approved this voucher as okay."

[ Page 2131 ]

We're asking the Premier to tell us: did he have knowledge of this particular project before today? Did he have knowledge of it?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I've never seen this particular bill before today.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, the Premier has difficulty in listing the questions, because he gets his answers confused. I didn't ask the Premier if he'd ever seen this bill before. I asked the Premier: does the Premier have knowledge of this particular project? Did he have knowledge of it before today?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, first of all, to discuss this in my vote, you're presuming that a bill sent to the information coordinating officer presupposes that the sender of the bill would know who in government would pay for the service. Now obviously it was to be paid for by the Provincial Secretary, and was, and that's where it should be dealt with.

Now the Leader of the Opposition knows that. If all of the public that contract services felt they should send their invoices to the Premier's office — I'm sure from time to time some people in frustration in the past have — they still would be appropriated to the proper ministry and the proper vote, and that's where they would be dealt with. Now I have said if there is any information I can provide on this, I will bring it to the House. With the best of intentions I can do nothing more than to bring that information back, and I will. If there is any information I can provide, Mr. Chairman, I will bring that information back over the amount the Provincial Secretary's office paid, incurred in the amount — I understand from the member for Coquitlam-Moody who introduced this subject — of $2,500, which he says is a small amount, and on that we disagree. I think it's quite extensive, and I should try to find out something about it.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I specifically asked the Premier this question: did you know anything about this special consultation fee or request? Did you, at the time, and do you now, know anything as to what Mr. Brown asked from Mr. Goldfarb?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I'll have to bring any information back. The fact that some government ministries were utilizing services from that area was known to me, but not the specifics. That particular question can only be answered after I have a chance to ask for the information of what it's all about and whether it was appropriately paid or not and whether it should be answered under my vote. I will bring that information back, if I can.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, we're getting places now, bit by bit. The Premier said, as I just heard him say it, that he was aware that Goldfarb was being hired by government ministries. That's what you just said. You were aware that Goldfarb was being hired by government ministries. Is that correct? Did I hear that correctly?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I have said that I was aware that some government ministries would be utilizing the services — or had, or may, because I have heard the name, and I do know that they were utilizing, or going to utilize, or some may have. These precise bills or the precise areas would be up to those ministries if they dealt with public business, and such information could be got by them. The particular question of a bill that was sent to the communications planning adviser to send to the appropriate spot, which apparently appeared to be the Provincial Secretary's office, and was okayed by those in authority, and paid for by them, indicates that some service was being contracted for.

MR. BARRETT: I'm getting closer now to some answers. We've learned that the premier was aware that maybe ministries may have used Goldfarb, or someone else, to do surveys. Are we agreed on that, Mr. Chairman? I think we are. Are we agreed to that?

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, I'm not agreed to what you just said.

MR. BARRETT: Oh! You're not agreed to that? Okay.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The Leader of the Opposition put a word on the end. I said Goldfarb services; he used the word "surveys."

MR. BARRETT: Services.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I said services.

MR. BARRETT: Okay. Now I....

HON. MR. BENNETT: I know you wouldn't.... It's just an accident that you might change the word.

MR. BARRETT: No, no. Lord, help me. Mr. Premier, through you, Mr. Chairman, just to get an answer out of you, I wouldn't change it.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Do I still have the floor, Mr. Chairman?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. One member at a time, please.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Does the Leader of the Opposition not want me to have the floor?

MR. BARRETT: It's all yours! Oh, yes!

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I wouldn't want the Leader of the Opposition, either inadvertently or for any other reason, to start changing words. I said I've provided as much information as I can. I'll bring such information as I can back.

However. Mr. Chairman, I think you should consider, in dealing with the Premier's estimates, whether accounts paid under the Provincial Secretary's vote or the Attorney-General's vote or the Agriculture minister's vote should be dealt with by public accounts.

Next, Mr. Chairman, I would like to have you help me in the type of information I should prepare for my estimates — whether I should deal with any services any other ministry may have contracted or will contract in the future. If you

[ Page 2132 ]

could give me some guidance, this will help me in the way I wish to try and cooperate with the opposition by offering to bring information back. It may be that in doing so, in being generous with the type of information I may wish to bring back, I would be broadening the scope of the debate that more properly belonged in other areas.

Mr. Chairman, I would ask you to rule whether bills incurred by other ministries, or any ministry of this government, should be dealt with — paid for by any ministry of this government — or whether government should be dealt with in my estimates. If it was broadened that way, it would require a great amount of preparation for the estimates here, because we would then, in fact, be taking on the job of the public accounts committee....

MR. KING: Boy, can you ever squirm!

HON. MR. BENNETT: It's not a matter of squirming. The member for Shuswap-Revelstoke....

Interjections.

MR. KING: Have you ever answered a question straight in your life?

HON. MR. BENNETT: It's very difficult to talk when....

MR. KING: Disgraceful!

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

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke is carrying on this characteristic behaviour — a model of decorum and certainly an example to the students who are visiting the Legislature to see how he and his friends operate on their behalf at great public expense.

I would like some direction as to the appropriateness of it, because if you want to broaden the discussion, it will change the character of estimates and the type of information you want me to provide during this forum, when access to the information is available in Public Accounts. It may be the member's asking...or it may be the New Democratic Party does not have the type of representation on Public Accounts that they feel can sufficiently get the information on behalf of their members. If that's their problem, they should deal with changing the members they have on Public Accounts.

MR. CHAIRMAN: The point brought by the Premier to the attention of the Chair is a most difficult one for the Chair to resolve. The Premier has asked for a ruling from the Chair. During committee any matter revolving around relevance, particularly of the Premier's estimates, is always difficult for the Chair to make a specific ruling on when the only information that the Chair has is the information that is presently before it. Again, I would ask all members to bear in mind the relevancy section when we are dealing in estimates, and again, with the estimates of the Premier's office particularly, the fact that the scope traditionally over the years has been a very broad one. Nevertheless, it is the responsibility of the Chair to see that in some way the relevance factor is maintained during the process of debate. You have asked the Chair a very difficult question: to rule on the particular relevance regarding the particular subject now before us, with the limited information that the Chair has on this particular matter. The Leader of the Opposition on the point of order.

MR. BARRETT: On the point of order, I wish to bring your attention to.... I am referring to a document which was a bill to Mr. Brown at the time he was in the Premier's office. It's addressed to the Premier's office, stamped and received in the Premier's office. I ask when the decision was made to take it out of the Premier's office and send it to the Provincial Secretary. I haven't come to that yet; I haven't got the answers yet out of the Premier's office. So I want to stay in order, Mr. Chairman, by dealing with the Premier's office.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. Again, that is the only specific information that the Chair has at this time. The only reference the hon. Premier made to date is the reference as indicated, and it is indicated that it was addressed to the office of the Premier. That is the only information that the Chair has to go on at this time.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, the information that you have from the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) also is that the bill was accepted as a bill belonging to the Provincial Secretary and as such was given authorization and paid in that area. It is now a matter of public record open to public accounts. The member, I believe, presented that information earlier when the Leader of the Opposition wasn't in the House. He now has that information along with the member from Coquitlam-Moody and the rest of us who were here. I am saying that if you make a decision that bills accepted by different ministries and paid — because of the rules of this House — belong to public accounts.... No matter how urgent the member may feel about it, if you do it for one, you would open up the whole area of public accounts into discussion under the estimates of the Premier's office. Mr. Chairman, I'm saying that you could rule....

In a sincere attempt to deal with the questions from the member from Coquitlam-Moody, who I believe was sincere, I said I would attempt to bring such information if it was appropriate and had to do with the expenditure of $2,500 that was made. Obviously I've already given that undertaking. The Provincial Secretary's office obviously felt the bill was appropriate as it was approved and paid. So you have that information. If you make your ruling now you can prevent me.... If the ruling is that I will not deal with those matters which belong to public accounts, you'll save me a lot of work of going to try and find it. If you don't, Mr. Chairman, I would hope that I could get an early answer so that the staff work that would be involved in going to other ministries for accounts paid by them could be received.

MR. LAUK: On a point of order, the point of order raised by the hon. Premier either reveals a certain mischief in committee or a remarkable lack of knowledge of the way accounts are paid through government service. The point of order is — if you will hear me out — that if the point of order of the Premier is to have any credence whatsoever, it would mean that the way the bill was handled in the first place was unusual. No accounts are paid by any ministry except through voucher by the Ministry of Finance and through

[ Page 2133 ]

approval of the various financial officers of the various departments. The Premier knows that, we know that and everybody knows that. Does that mean we cannot ask any minister on his estimates about any expenditures of funds in estimates because of the fact that vouchers are sent through their financial officers to the Minister of Finance? It makes no sense whatsoever, and the Premier's point of order is without merit.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. One point of order cannot be used to interfere with another point of order. I recognize the Premier on a point of order.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I would ask you to ask the member for Vancouver Centre to withdraw the word "mischief" as he attributed it to the Premier.

Although it might not be in Hansard, the Leader of the Opposition called across that we were hiding something and that's incorrect. I'd ask you that if that was more than just an aside he withdraw that as well.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I would ask the first member for Vancouver Centre to withdraw the word "mischief," which has been found offensive to another member. Would the member withdraw any imputation of mischief.

MR. LAUK: I cannot withdraw it, Mr. Chairman, on the grounds that I suggested it was either mischief or the Premier's remarkable lack of knowledge of the finances of government. It can either be one or the other.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. LAUK: If he denies mischief then I withdraw it. Let ignorance stand.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member. The Leader of the Opposition, rising on a....

MR. BARRETT: No, Mr. Chairman, on vote 9 and in order.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the Chair will determine what is in order. This is becoming a bit of a habit that the Chair is finding rather offensive: when members determine what is in order, not the Chair.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I was just reminding the House that I haven't been called out of order in referring to the Premier's estimates in vote 9, dealing with a bill that went to his office. There's a bill to Mr. David P. Brown, who ordered something from the Premier's office. He ordered some consulting services from Goldfarb. When he ordered those services, did the Premier know what he was ordering? That's simple. Did he know what he was ordering? I'll give you some time to think.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'll give you the same opportunity.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I asked the Premier, when Mr. Brown ordered these services, whether or not he knew at the time the services were ordered what was being ordered — that's (1). (2) After the services were ordered and there was some question about the payment of these bills, did the Premier discuss with Mr. Brown that this bill was incorrectly directed to his office and that it should go to the Provincial Secretary? It's stamped "received" by the Premier's office. Those are the two questions. Did you know what was being asked for in those consulting services? Did you discuss with Mr. Brown that the bill should go elsewhere?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, any letter sent to the Premier's offices to anyone who comes under the Premier's vote, even though they may be in various offices on various floors in various parts of the building, is stamped "received" by the Premier's office. That's a matter of record. If the Leader of the Opposition writes me a letter unsolicited, it's stamped "received'' by the Premier's office; that would be it. I said I would try and bring the other information relating to this to the Legislature.

The member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) yelled across to me that it was a political poll. I'll tell you, you're absolutely wrong. This government has not run political polls in the government.

MR. COCKE: The $259,630 went to Goldfarb, and they're a famous polling company.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, the member for New Westminster has mentioned a total account paid, probably, a number of ways to Goldfarb Consultants, and I'm sure we can deal with that. I've said that I will bring the information back. But I wouldn't want that member to make an incorrect statement as an aside and leave the impression that the government did that, because that is not correct. I will bring the information back. I've asked, you, Mr. Chairman, for a ruling.

Earlier when the member for Coquitlam-Moody asked me questions relating to a bill that was sent to Mr. Brown in the Premier's office. It was obviously appropriately found to belong to another ministry and was accepted and paid by that ministry. I said I would check into it, that's all. I will do that and I will bring that information up. I can't offer to do more than provide the information which has been sought. Along with your ruling and along with our willingness to end the type of speculation that a statement that the member for New Westminster might invite. I would hope that we could get that information quickly.

MR. BARRETT: I'm not talking about a normal stamp of being received. I'm talking about a stamp called the coding block stamp that is put on any voucher and then has to be initialled by the responsible person in that special stamp, with the number of where the bill is to be paid. The coding block stamp originally has the Premier's office on it and was acknowledged by David Brown's signature. I have the document here in front of me. So now we're agreed that it was in the Premier's office, received there not as a normal piece of mail but by a normal method of dealing with a bill incurred by the Premier's office. Here's the coding block; here's Brown's signature. Okay, we're agreed.

At the time Mr. Brown signed it he was working in the Premier's office. The Premier says that he's willing to go and get information that he hasn't got right now; I accept that. By

[ Page 2134 ]

that, is the Premier saying that he has absolutely no knowledge at this moment of what this particular consulting job was for Mr. Brown? Is that what he's saying — that you have no knowledge whatsoever at this moment of what Mr. Goldfarb was hired as a consultant for at this time by Mr. Brown, and that you'll go and get the information? Is that what you're saying?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I've said to you, Mr. Chairman, I have no knowledge of what the $2,500 expenditure paid by the Provincial Secretary's office related to specifically.

MR. BARRETT: Is the Premier saying that he had no knowledge of what Mr. Goldfarb's terms of reference for this project were? What was this project about? Did the Premier have any knowledge at this moment of what this particular project was about?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I said I would bring such information as I can back to the House.

MR. BARRETT: When he says, "I'll bring back information," is the Premier saying that he has no knowledge? I'm asking you now: do you know anything about it now, or do you need to go out for the information? There's no need to be slippery.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please.

MR. BARRETT: I will withdraw the word "slippery." There is a need to be clear-cut.

I ask the Premier this question. When he says he will go out and get the information, is he saying by that answer that at this moment he knows absolutely nothing about this particular project — what Mr. Brown hired Mr. Goldfarb for in terms of consulting? Is that what you are saying?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I've said that as to any request that might involve more than a single piece of work, I would go out and get the information. In the interests of accuracy I will collect such other information as may be appropriate.

Mr. Chairman, there is a question before you and a ruling to be made. I would hope that the government, perhaps not through my estimates, but perhaps other ministers concerned about this question may be able to deal with it quickly....

I wouldn't want the suggestion that the member for New Westminster called across the floor of the House to become a basis for unfounded allegations.

Obviously it is in the interests of the government to prevent any delay in the type of questioning.... It may not be appropriate for the Premier's estimates; I wouldn't want to set a precedent in broadening that to accounts that are paid elsewhere. I have given assurance to the member for Coquitlam-Moody about checking into certain information. I'm sure information is what they want and it will be provided when I have been able to ascertain where to get it, how to get it, and how it can appropriately be made available to members of the House — such will be done.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I am dealing in vote 9 with the bill sent to the Premier's office stamped by the coding block "Received in the Premier's office," signed by Dave Brown. This is the only place where this bill, in terms of these questions, can be dealt with. It is dealing with the Premier's office — an order placed by David P. Brown, acknowledged in the coding block "Received in the Premier's office." It is in order, as I understand the rules, and I would be glad to give you a copy.

What we can't get an answer from the Premier on is whether or not he knew what this project was about. When the Premier says, "I will send out for information," he hasn't told any of us that he knows a little bit about it, although he did let a slip go to the member for New Westminster. I wrote down what he said: "It wasn't a political poll." If he doesn't know what it's about, how does he know it wasn't a political poll?

The Premier said it wasn't a political poll. We have to accept his word for it. If you know what it wasn't, how much do you know of what it was?

HON. MR. BENNETT: I'm going to find out.

MR. BARRETT: How did you find out sitting there that it wasn't a political poll? You get that information by osmosis, but you have to send out for the other information? Mr. Premier, sometimes your actions betray the results of what you say. Sometimes you don't connect your words. I want to give you some more time to think.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I can give a quick answer.

MR. BARRETT: You never give a quick answer.

HON. MR. BENNETT: You don't want it? I can give you a quick answer.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, would you call that anxious member to order while I have the floor?

HON. MR. BENNETT: He doesn't want the answer, Mr. Chairman.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, the Premier has told us that it is not a political poll. I assume the answer is that the Premier has a policy that there be no government money spent on political polls. Do you have that policy?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Very good.

MR. BARRETT: Ah, very good! We are now getting somewhere. He knows exactly what it is.

Can you assure this House that this wasn't a consulting fee to set up a political poll? I know that's a little bit more difficult. It is complex for you. We accept your word that it wasn't a political poll. As a matter of fact, it wasn't a poll at all. It has nothing to do with a poll; it's a consulting service that we're after. The Premier knows that it wasn't a political poll. I want to know whether he knows whether it was a consulting service to establish questions for a political poll, perhaps for the Social Credit Party. Was it that?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, obviously the government has very clear guidelines about what is government responsibility and what would not be paid for by government. No public servant would pay for a political poll. As I say, it is a matter of government policy. That's how I would know and I know that no public servant....

[ Page 2135 ]

The Leader of the Opposition seems to find it strange that public servants under this administration wouldn't pay for something which he would term "political" in the partisan sense. I presume we are all agreed that the definition of public business is the word "political." All things then having to do with public life are considered capital "P" political but not partisan. I am sure the members understand the distinction.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the Premier's definition of capital "P" politics and small "p" politics. This is the first time in my years in the House I've seen public accounts vouchers where the following notation was made: "Mike, we lack sufficient detail to properly audit this account. I refer this for info, since the area is politically sensitive...." — small "p". Now I ask the Premier, since he's made a difference between a small "p" and a large "P" relating to politics.... This is the first time that I have ever seen, on a public voucher, any mention of big "P" or small "p" politics of any kind. What is meant on this voucher by "political sensitivity"? They are brand-new words to me in public accounts. I have never, ever seen a civil servant mark on an account: "This is politically sensitive."

Now we've got some explanation. The Premier tells us it's not capital "P" sensitive, it's small "p" sensitive. All right, we accept your word. Now we want to know this: if you didn't know anything about this and you're going to find out information, tell us you don't know anything about it now, and you're going to find out the information. You see, that's the definition I want to know. I want to know whether or not you know something already and you're not telling us. I'll take your word for it. Just tell us; just stand up and say: "No, I don't know anything at all about this project and I'll find out the information for you."

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, the Leader of the Opposition, in Perry Mason style, is suggesting that the $2,500 bill is a single project or, as called across the floor by the member for New Westminster, the $259,000 total accumulative — I'm not sure if that's in one year, two years, three years or four years...

MR. COCKE: One year.

HON. MR. BENNETT: ...which the member talks about, would be a number of requests from ministries or a single or double or triple. "Project" is the word of the Leader of the Opposition. It may involve a number of separate services required by ministries. That's the information I've set out to bring and make available to the House, Mr. Chairman. Now as I said, rather than make your job difficult by broadening my estimates on a matter before you for a ruling, I've said it's of much concern that we don't let the member for New Westminster leave an allegation that it may be something other than what it is. So I would hope that if it can't be dealt with here, that early information can be developed by the appropriate spokesman for government and made available to members of the chamber and everyone. If they're not prepared to pursue it in Public Accounts, perhaps the government can deal with it some other way.

MR. BARRETT: Mr. Chairman, I come back to a bill sent to Mr. Brown, the communications planning adviser of the office of the Premier, stamped with a coding number in the Premier's office, received by Mr. Brown, dealing with expenditures under vote 5, as it was, the Premier's office.

The Premier won't answer one simple question. Do you know anything about this bill at all at the present time?

Mr. Chairman, I think it's important enough that, as the Premier announced today that Mr. Wallace wasn't here, he'd have someone else from his office available to break this impasse. Why not take a five-minute recess and get us the information? A five-minute recess would be more than ample to provide the Premier with enough time to pick up the phone down to his office and ask some questions. Send a note down, and we'll take a five-minute recess, have a cup of coffee, cool out and get back on track here.

We've made absolutely no progress in 17 days of debate with the Premier of this province, who refuses to answer specific questions related to information out of his office with the expenditure of taxpayers' dollars. Mr. Chairman, I think it would be appropriate for the Premier to expedite his estimates if he would get some information. I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again, to give me Premier some time to come and put his head together and get some answers to this House.

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS 23

NAYS 28

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

MR. HOWARD: I wonder whether the Premier could enlighten me, for one, and the House generally, as to whether Mr. David Brown is still working in the Premier's office.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, the answer is no. I know the member has his copy of the government restructuring and cabinet reorganization of last fall, and is also acquainted with the estimates. That position is contained in the Provincial Secretary's estimates for this fiscal year.

Perhaps to assist you, Mr. Chairman, in your decision on the question before you, and to help the hon. members

[ Page 2136 ]

particularly the member for Coquitlam-Moody, who is concerned — it might be useful to just underline the mandate for the coordinating position that Mr. Brown had concerning the executive council, and then the Provincial Secretary. I would point to the report published when the position was set up, which recommended "that there be established within the office of the executive council the position of communications planning adviser, said adviser to be responsible for provision of necessary planning advice and expertise to members of the executive council, to ensure that department communications plans submitted for review are assessed for expense identification, adequate cost-benefit analysis, and consideration of alternative strategy." That clearly identifies the role, and presumably the role may have been carried out in this particular case. However, I have suggested to the member for Coquitlam-Moody that I will certainly attempt to answer his requests and provide that informnation, should it fall under our vote, and to assist you, Mr. Chairman, so we do not broaden the vote and set a precedent. I will await your ruling for guidance. However, I have said that I'm concerned that suggestions by the member for New Westminster imply improper use of government information, and I would hope that way the information will be provided in the proper way by the proper minister.

MR. HOWARD: I wonder if I could ask the Premier, with respect to this David Brown — because part of the thing that we do....

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please, hon. member. Clearly discussion of that individual at this point is out of order. The answer has been given that the ministry currently under discussions no longer responsible for that individual. Therefore any reference to him is clearly out of order.

MR. HOWARD: I know your anxiety, Mr. Chairman, but perhaps, if I had been able to conclude the sentence that I was putting together, it would have become clear that I might be in order, because what I was saying with respect to Mr. David Brown was that one of the things necessary in examination of expenditure of public funds by ministers of the Crown, and in particular by the Premier, is examination of what happened before in that office, and coming to some conclusions about what may happen in the future. It's not a matter, I submit, of whether or not Mr. Brown is currently at this specific moment working in the Premier's office or working somewhere else. The key thing that we're examining is what Mr. David Brown did when he was working in the Premier's office in the past. That's what we're looking at in order to give us some guidance as to what we do in the future. Mr. Brown's name appears on a memo about consulting fees and about identifying something as politically sensitive and this sort of thing. I want to know if that was the same Mr. David Brown who worked in the Premier's office before and who received the bills from the Social Credit Party in Vancouver submitted to Mr. Brown and to the Premier's office in the past in order that Mr. Brown could expedite the processing and the paying of those bills from the Social Credit Party. Is that the same Mr. Brown?

HON. MR. BENNETT: What was the question? I didn't hear you, sorry.

MR. HOWARD: I'll just repeat the question then for the Premier. He was busy talking with somebody else.

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, I was listening to somebody else.

MR. HOWARD: Is the David Brown whom we are speaking about when he was working in the Premier's office — that is, the David Brown whose name has been mentioned in connection with this particular consultant-fee project and who signed that coding block stamp on the letter — the same David Brown who received the bills from the Social Credit Party in Vancouver when Mr. Brown was working in the Premier's office, and the same Mr. Brown who expedited the payment of those bills? Is that the same person we're talking about?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. David Brown is the member who did the Brown report on government information and services to government, who latterly in 1976 was hired to fill the post of information officer through the executive council, a vote that also came under the Premier's ambit as well as intergovernmental at that time. A number of votes were taken in the Premier's block — Premier's office, executive council, Intergovernmental. Now that position has been moved to the Provincial Secretary's office which has the information budget of government and the same Mr. Brown occupies the position.

MR. HOWARD: This is what I said the other day, Mr. Chairman. We get responses from the Premier, but in the response he circumvents the question, and that's tantamount to refusing to answer the question, in my opinion. I didn't ask him what this chap did. Is this the same David Brown we are talking about now who was also the David Brown who worked in the Premier's office and who had submitted to him from Social Credit Party headquarters in Vancouver Social Credit Party bills and that Mr. Brown in the Premier's office who expedited the payment of those bills through this special fund that was operated out of the Premier's office? That's the question. Is it the same person?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 9 pass?

MR. HOWARD: Mr. Chairman, I think Hansard should show that the Premier refused even to respond to the question or pay any attention to it. It's noteworthy, I think, all so to put on the record that the Premier has established a practice — for those who read Hansard and may understand what's happening here — of refusing to deal with questions that he doesn't want to answer.

Well, if he wants to reply, I gladly yield the floor to the Premier.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I want to thank the member for extending the same courtesy to me as I extended to him a moment ago in yielding the floor.

Obviously the member in the preamble to some of the questions implies a number of things which make them unanswerable. Not all the questions which members from that side of the House have made — which are quite often political in nature and unanswerable because of the number of things contained in the question — can be answered. I would hate to accuse the member for Skeena of being political, but darn it, I suspect, Mr. Chairman, he might be just a little bit political.

[ Page 2137 ]

MR. HOWARD: You may smile, Mr. Chairman, and the Premier may smile when he says that — or was it a smirk? — but that is the prime example of what I'm talking about: the dissembling approach that the Premier takes to specific things put to him. He evades the question, talks beside the point, attempts to obscure the fact. If the word "coverup" was not out of order that word could very easily describe what the Premier is doing, not covering up anything wrong but just refusing to answer the question by answering in a roundabout kind of way. There was a David Brown who worked in the Premier's office in 1978. Is that right? Did one David Brown work in the Premier's office in 1978?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Aye.

MR. HOWARD: The Premier says: "Aye." Does that mean yes, Mr. Brown did work in the office, or are you just trying to....

HON. MR. BENNETT: I thought they called my vote.

MR. HOWARD: You're going to call for your vote to be answered. Okay, I've had no choice, Mr. Chairman, but to put it directly, what I can put together of it, in the absence of any comment from the Premier to the contrary: that David Brown did work in the Premier's office. David Brown was paid for by the taxpayers of this province. David Brown was a political person, partisanly political on behalf of Social Credit. David Brown received the bills from Social Credit headquarters in Vancouver, expedited the payment of those bills through this secret fund operated out of the Premier's office. Put those as positive things. David Brown was the person who authorized some kind of examination or study to be made by Goldfarb Consultants, and he did all these things with the Premier's knowledge. There's no other conclusion that one can draw.

The Premier's having knowledge of all of these activities by Mr. Brown indicates to me that the Premier was deliberately and consciously involved in using his office to advance the interests of the Social Credit Party, and using public funds to do it. No other conclusion can be drawn from a person who refuses to answer specific and direct questions about what went on in his office with respect to one David Brown and the question of these particular accounts and this — how much was it? — $2,500 for consultant fees to Goldfarb Consultants and so on. The absolute refusal of the Premier to answer those questions leaves us in no other position but to draw the conclusions that I've just drawn.

I know there's an anxiety on the part of the Premier to get this vote out of the way so he doesn't have to face up to the general public by answering specific questions. These aren't the only ones. That anxiety on the part of the Premier shows up with his continual reference to calling "aye," meaning he wants the vote to take place.

HON. MR. BENNETT: That was the Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing (Hon. Mr. Chabot).

MR. HOWARD: Well, you're being goaded on by your colleague from Columbia River. Both of you may laugh about it, but it's a very serious matter. It's a very serious matter when there's an impression abroad in this province that the Premier's office and public funds were used to advance the cause of a particular party called Social Credit, and that the Premier refuses to answer specific questions about the use or misuse of public funds. That's a very serious question.

HON. MR. CHABOT: Look who's talking!

MR. HOWARD: The Minister of Lands, Parks and Housing can chatter and laugh and act in a jovial way if he so desires, but it is not a laughing matter. It's a very serious matter that we're engaged in this afternoon.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, again the member for Skeena is incorrect if he's saying that the government spent public funds to advance the cause of the Social Credit Party. Yes, government performance has advanced the cause of the party because of the good things we've done, but that comes from good legislation. Now the member for Skeena knows the difference it's made in the constituency he now represents. It was a depressed area — the Terrace area and others. He wasn't there then. I understand he was living in another part of the country while things were tough there during the New Democratic Party years. But he knows that the policies we've brought in to do with mines and forests, repealing the Mineral Royalties Act, and a number of things have created prosperity in the area. Even the member for Skeena will say that it even brought him back — well, just that didn't bring him back to B.C.; I understand he had a appointment from the former government, which I'm sure wasn't patronage, which paid him a salary. But I'm not sure it brought him back; I understand they may have had to mail the cheques.

But he knows very well that the way governments advance their political cause is to provide good government. He knows that when the New Democratic Party were government they did not provide that government and were thrown out. He knows that this government, in two successive elections, has achieved the highest vote percentage of any party in the last 25 years in this province; that is, a 49 percent vote attainment, which with a number of parties running is a great endorsement of our policies and legislative program. That's how governments use the office of government to either advance their cause or expose themselves.

It's easy in opposition, in being negative, to appear to be all things to all people. It's when you're accountable, as this government is, that the warts start to show and the blemishes appear. That's how a party can come to office with great expectations after years in the wilderness, as they say, having been all things to all people, and destroy themselves in a three-year period. Then you see other parties with a record of sound achievement and accomplishment — not perfection — achieve electoral success year after year. The people start to assess the things that they have acquired over the years, the opportunities they have been allowed. It's not just a balance sheet relationship to government, because although there are many good things in the way the government provides income benefits, its concern about those in need, the way that government responds to the transportation needs of areas in providing roads that were lacking and fixing roads that were falling apart, the way that government works in providing opportunity for the economy, and encouragement in the forest, mining, processing and the small business sectors to create jobs for the people.... That's the sort of thing

[ Page 2138 ]

which makes the people respond and that's the only way a government can get a successive number of electoral victories.

It isn't just an election victory that shows up; it's the results that they leave for a long time — the benefits to the province. We believe the record of accomplishment of this government has earned us a continuing mandate from the people.

Mr. Chairman, the member says that's the way governments get re-elected, but I want to say that he's totally incorrect in making that allegation, even though it was a round about allegation framed under the guise of a question that somehow public money was going into partisan politics to pay for re-election of government. All government accounts and bills are substantiated in Public Accounts. Mr. Chairman, the opposition should know about that committee, because one of their members is the chairman of that committee and can call that committee. So they can't say the government's restricted their opportunity to question any public bills that have been submitted to government or paid. It's improper for them to talk in areas where they have the opportunity to deal with bills and services of government, to deal with public servants and public accounts and to deal with these matters and then bring them up and expect to fool the public by trying in this manner — where they do not have to have the responsibility that they have outside this chamber — by allegation through a question to make some suggestion.

The only question dealing with improper use of public money by a political party was asked in this Legislature by the member for Kamloops (Hon. Mr. Mair), who wanted to know whether I thought it was proper for an MLA to use what are publicly funded constituency offices in an electoral way during a federal election campaign. I said I didn't think any MLA would use those facilities, as they were there to provide assistance for people responsible to the provincial government. I had no knowledge of such a thing and I don't think any MLA would abuse the public purse, because that would be a serious abuse indeed. So, of course, to those sorts of questions, in that case and in this case, I am quick to say there has been no abuse. Certainly in this case I can say there is no abuse. The government bills are all subject to scrutiny, not only through public accounts, but through the auditor-general, the comptroller and the system of checks which we have put up that provide accountability to the public. So, in here, political gamesmanship certainly will not reflect upon the ability of trusted financial officers responsible to the public to protect their interest, because the public trusts them and they trust the auditor-general. Of course, I was just as quick to say that there was nothing wrong as far as I knew in provincial constituency offices, funded not for partisanship but local MLAs' duties to their constituency, being used in federal election campaigns.

Mr. Chairman, you know that I can't speak for all parties in the House but I can speak for our side, because we have no federal counterpart. We're strictly a provincial party and as such would not be involved in the federal election campaign. I would just assume that nobody would do that, and I think I'd be safe in saying it hasn't been done. When I gave that answer to the member for Kamloops I would be positive that no member in this House would have done that.

MR. HOWARD: Why don't you answer the question, Mr. Premier, instead of this circumvention of the whole thing? I think it's interesting to point out that the question I posed to the Premier was distorted and twisted by him in his response to indicate that there was something there in the question which was not said or implicit in the first place. It's that kind of distortion of things in order to place a foundation for putting some kind of answer on the record that leaves the general public with the feeling that the Premier has got something to hide. It's just a style and a manner that appears almost to be habit, and the more it's engaged in the more it leaves the impression that there's something there other than what there might be. Let me give an example.

At no time did I say that government was using public funds to advance the interests of political parties, and for the Premier to have said that I did is a distortion of fact. What I wanted to know was this: did David Brown, who worked in the Premier's office, receive bills transferred or channelled to him when he was in the Premier's office, a public servant paid by the taxpayers of this province? Did he receive bills sent over from Social Credit headquarters in Vancouver in order to have the payment of those bills expedited through the special fund that David Brown somehow had a connection with? That's what I said. That's not government using funds; that's somebody working in the Premier's office, if that's what happened. Every indication is that it did.

Then I said that in the absence of answers from the Premier about that, one is entitled to conclude that the Premier knew what was happening, knew that that was taking place. The longer the Premier tries to use this distortion approach in dealing with legitimate and serious questions, and attempts to laugh them off, and attempts to go in some other direction, whether of the nature of a personal attack, which is what the innuendo was in his first response, and which I wouldn't dignify in any other way except by ignoring it.... When the Premier does that, all he does is underline and tend to convince the general public that, yes, the Premier knew all these things were happening. He knew that they were partisan. He knew that they were on behalf of Social Credit. And he knew Dave Brown was up to his ears in advancing that while being paid as a public servant. The Premier's leaving that impression. What other impression can be left?

It can be dispelled very easily just by a simple statement by the Premier that says: "No, I did not know that David Brown was doing that." Or: "Once I discovered that David Brown was acting on behalf of a political party while he was working in the Premier's office, I cancelled it. Then I said to David Brown, 'You shall not do that any more.'" Some response of that nature is all that is required.

MR. LEGGATT: In the course of the Premier's remarks, he indicated that since the bill was paid, since it was authorized to be paid, it must have been all right. Certainly that was the impression I received.

The scenario of the time factor on this thing is very important. If you look at the date, the bill was received on January 3. It was obviously sent out immediately to be paid. A memo came back immediately — that's January, 31, 1979 — from those same responsible civil servants who do such a good job for all of us in terms of making sure that these accounts are appropriate. It said: "We lack sufficient detail to properly audit the account. I refer this for information since the area is politically sensitive."

Mr. Chairman, we on this committee have to be concerned that a civil servant was not pressured, was not approached, was not talked to with the suggestion that the bill

[ Page 2139 ]

had better be paid. I don't know whether that happened, but it's important that it not happen, that our civil servants always feel completely free and independent in terms of their recommendations about any accounts that may be received. If a civil servant says this should not be paid, that should be an end of it. I am concerned that civil servants are asked to come in and consult with the Premier's special adviser on communications planning — if not the Premier — to have discussions around this kind of account. Because that's not an equal situation. When a person who holds the political clout — the most important political figure in the province, the Premier — and the Premier's special adviser start talking about whether a bill should or should not be paid, I wouldn't want to be that civil servant, because he's clearly in an inferior position in that situation.

If the Premier wants to make an immediate response, go right ahead.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, I would like to clear up any suggestion which the member might leave by the line of questioning that I talked to any public servant about paying a bill. I haven't. So I'd like to clear that up for the members, so you wouldn't have to pursue that line of questioning, therefore compounding the suggestion that perhaps I did.

MR. LEGGATT: Thank you. The only suggestion, of course, from these documents, which is the only information we have, is that if there was any discussion, it was certainly with Mr. David P. Brown. I'm pleased to receive from the Premier a specific denial, for the record, at this point, that he had any specific discussion about whether or not this particular account was appropriate or was to be paid.

But it's still interesting and important that one look at the date that the account was submitted, the speed with which it was rejected and finally, after more correspondence and who knows what other discussion, the account becomes paid. Mr. Chairman, this is the place that we have to deal with this account for another reason. The Premier has already indicated today in answers to questions that he won't be available for the public accounts committee. I would think it ill behooves the Premier to stand up and say: "Well, this is really something that you fellows should be doing in Public Accounts. Maybe you fellows should change your representation on Public Accounts, because they're not doing a good enough job." They should be dealing with this at Public Accounts, but the Premier has already indicated that he wouldn't be available to Public Accounts. It's certainly appropriate for us to deal with an account directed to his ministry which was not paid by his ministry but was referred to another after some discussion about the appropriateness of the account.

The other question I wanted to ask the Premier is whether in August or September of 1978.... I appreciate that's some time ago, but I'm sure Mr. Goldfarb is not only nationally famous but, I guess, world famous. I just wonder whether the Premier had any discussions with Mr. Goldfarb in 1978 during those two months when he was out. You see, the account doesn't talk about any material that was prepared for the government. The account simply says," consulting fee and travel cost." Now somebody from Goldfarb Consultants must have travelled in order to justify that account. I wonder whether it was Mr. Goldfarb himself and whether the Premier had any discussions with Mr. Goldfarb in the summer of 1978. He may remember that historically the summer of 1978 was a period when everybody seemed to be doing a great deal of polling, and they were wondering whether an election would be called. Perhaps the Premier can comment on whether he had a chance to talk to Mr. Goldfarb that year.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, I was hoping the Premier might change his mind and get up and give some specific answers that my colleagues have been looking for ail afternoon. I'm rather curious about the Premier's attempt to dismiss the responsibility for Mr. Brown's conduct. Mr. Brown certainly was an employee of the Premier's office in December 1978, and I think any minister of the Crown knows that they must accept the responsibility for policy or for projects undertaken by senior staff of their ministry, and certainly those that work directly in their offices. The difficulty I have is understanding what authority Mr. Brown would have to commission some kind of project utilizing the services of Goldfarb Consultants, a major internationally known firm that has their head office in Toronto.

I want to ask the Premier who initiated this project. Did Mr. Brown have the authority? Did the Premier, in his terms of reference in employing Mr. Brown, give him the authority to initiate this kind of project and retain an out-of-province consulting firm to undertake work for the government?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, as I've answered before, the creation of the position of communications planning adviser to the executive council was of a coordinating role.

MR. LEA: It was a recommendation by Mr. Brown, wasn't it?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Yes, from the great Brown report. That was to coordinate what may have been.... As you remember from the report, a large part of it had to do with cost-cutting, saving money, procedures and ministries going off on their own in a number of adjacent ways. That's why the position was set up. Because it was new, it was originally set up under the executive council. The executive council vote, Intergovernmental and all became part of the Premier's vote. The Premier's office was one, executive another and Intergovernmental another. We now have information work consolidated in the Provincial Secretary, including our positions. Intergovernmental has become a separate ministry. But I read out the role of the communications adviser and it says, "provision of necessary planning advice and expertise to members of the executive council," which should cover all ministries. That is, where submissions and programs were alike and where they go in the same direction, they could be coordinated, probably to effect a cost-saving if they are doing studies, reports, coordination of program development, those sorts of things. That's what was done.

On page 66 and 67 of the mandate those things are spelled out. And it is not, as the member suggests, an initiative; it was a coordinating role, of which.... But it has also been a role where they've brought in many innovative things to cut costs where they're found.... Really these should be dealt with under the Provincial Secretary's vote. I don't want to stray too far and broaden the discussion. They can discuss the types of things — the upgrading of the Queen's Printer, those things which I know the member for Shuswap-Revelstoke (Mr. King) is very aware of. It is a matter of

[ Page 2140 ]

public record that the mandate for the position envisaged some coordinating mechanism.

It also involved for the first time putting out to tender — and I know the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) is interested in this — those public programs that involve the hiring of an advertising agency. That is a first in Canada and has been recommended as a model for all other governments to follow, as a way of fairly distributing government business in advertising accounts. As the member for Skeena knows, there was always the suggestion that there was a political reason that the Dunsky firm got most of the business — over $2 million worth of billings, I understand, when the New Democratic Party was government. It was a firm brought in from Toronto, if I'm not mistaken. There was always that suggestion. I think you'll find now, since the Brown report, at any single time there are over a dozen advertising agencies or public information agencies from the private sector able to bid and then go through the competition in awarding contracts.

So the member will know that part of the mandate was coordinating, and coordinating with the ability to try and effect savings where there's a demand for similar government services. So that would be one thing that the communications adviser has done, among other things. The member who asked the question has been having a prolonged discussion, but I know you're interested, Mr. Chairman. This could be canvassed quite extensively during the Provincial Secretary's vote.

There are some very interesting figures, comparing the allocation of advertising agency business for the years 1972, 1973, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1977, 1978 and 1979, to show the type of change that was effected. What was happening? What was their single agency dominance? Then came the multiple agency bid process for government work. I know the member for Skeena would be interested, because he would like to see what British Columbia did — that led the rest of Canada in accountability and what's called fair practice — being endorsed by the Advertising Council and other governments — public information bodies who want to see this type of fair allocation and bid procedure.

MR. KING: The Premier is really difficult to understand in this matter. Nevertheless, Mr. Brown worked in the Premier's office. And I have to assume, as with any other executive, that Mr. Brown was under the control and direction of the Premier. Apparently Mr. Brown retained Goldfarb Consultants Ltd. of Toronto to do some work for the government of the province of British Columbia. It doesn't say what department. It doesn't say what the work was. But Goldfarb Consultants Ltd. submitted a bill to Mr. Brown in December 1978, indicating that their bill was for consulting fees and travel costs. Mr. Brown apparently submitted it to the comptroller-general for payment, and it was turned back. It was turned back by someone named Dick, who said: "We lack sufficient detail to properly audit this account. I refer this for information since this area is politically sensitive."

Then later on, on February 5, 1979, a note was written back to Dick, who had dictated the previous note I referred to, and it said this: "Dick, this was discussed with Mr. Brown and the comptroller-general. Mr. Bonnell has approved this voucher as okay."

Certainly Mr. Brown must have been the responsible person for ordering the services of Goldfarb. Mr. Brown worked in the Premier's office. When he submitted the bill to be paid, I presume the office of the comptroller-general found that there wasn't enough information for the audit to be made and noted it was politically sensitive. On that basis alone I think members of the Legislature have a right to know precisely what the service was which Goldfarb Consultants were billing the government for — what was ordered. Mr. Brown was under the Premier's direction. If the Premier doesn't know what Mr. Brown requested Goldfarb Consultants to do, I say he's either remiss in his duty or he has a questionable memory, because certainly I would not think that Mr. Brown would have the right to go toddling off by himself and retain a firm of consultants from Toronto without having the authority of his minister to undertake this project. Then, after receiving the billing, the comptroller-general of all of the provincial government found that there was not sufficient detail to properly audit the account.

No new information is revealed; it says it's politically sensitive. Well, what was the job that Goldfarb is being paid $2,500 of the taxpayers' money for? We have a right to know. This information was elicited through the public accounts committee, I believe. The Premier is sitting here asking the House to pass his estimates. He retained Mr. Brown in his office; he must have approved Mr. Brown's initiation of the program for which Goldfarb is claiming payment. If he lets obscure people in his office run around retaining firms from out of the province — or indeed from in the province — for projects which he knows nothing about, I would have to conclude that he's not a very efficient business person. Certainly he is responsible in a ministerial way for the conduct of everybody in his office.

What we'd like to find out.... Maybe this money was justified, but there is absolutely nothing in the documents revealed at Public Accounts to show that the public received value for that money that was approved in payment to Goldfarb, nor is there any information to indicate the nature of the service Goldfarb performed for the province of British Columbia. That, Mr. Chairman, through you to the Premier, is the taxpayers' business, and he has an obligation, in my view, to stand up in a very candid way and say: "Yes, I authorized Dave Brown, either in his job description or with respect to the specific program, to retain Goldfarb to do this, this and this for the province of British Columbia." We ask what the service was. If the Premier of the province allows this kind of obscure payment of vouchers to corporations out of this province without any justification of value received to the people of British Columbia, then I say he has major problems.

So that's my main question to the Premier. What was the job that Goldfarb did for the province of British Columbia?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member helps me make the very point that I made about de-emphasizing the way in which consultants to government are picked on a political basis — or advertising directors. No, I don't pick the advertising firms or those firms that deal with public information for government. That was exactly the main recommendation of the Brown report in taking out the ability of a Dunsky to get $2 million worth of billings, or whatever it was, of government agency business on almost — not entirely, but almost — a monopoly basis. That's why you have multiple firm selection, not by myself, not by the ministers — even the ministers take the advice of the board that makes the selection. So when they seek consultation or recommendation, or they ask for a particular service that's done.... Or

[ Page 2141 ]

it may be that it's recommended by the ministries in soliciting it, but I'm not going to politically select the consultants of government in there.

No, you can't say.... There is no political connection, if that's what you'd like to make — whether we're rewarding a political friend in Goldfarb Consultants with a contract. Not at all, not at all. That goes back to the type of information that's available in the mandate of information services and that situation they set out to correct where you had that type of single agency.

The member talks about a firm from out of the province — I guess a Canadian firm. Some Canadian firms provide certain types of services, I suppose, that aren't unique across the country. One of the things that is available from many sources in B.C. is advertising agencies. Of course, there wouldn't be any need to go outside, as was done in the years 1972-75. There are 20 advertising agencies in B.C. and there was no need to go to a single, large Toronto agency that had a political connection inferred because of the selection. Certain types of services could require that type of thing. That's the sort of thing that's done on a judgment basis on expertise being proven. I think one of the members said — the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Barrett) or the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) — "someone of international representation who also happens to be Canadian...."

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the Premier either has a hearing problem or just refuses to address himself to the questions that are asked. I never questioned Goldfarb's credentials. I never implied anything improper in retaining Goldfarb. I simply asked what the job was. What was the work that Goldfarb was retained to do? Whether he was retained by bid or preference is not the issue. The issue is the work they were required to do for the government for which they billed the Premier's office underling $2,500.

The Premier gets up and talks about everything but what we asked of him. I could have imagined him in elementary school being asked by the teacher: "What's 4+4?" He would get up and give a long dissertation on the animal kingdom or something. He simply refuses to address himself to simple questions that are put to him.

No wonder his own colleagues are starting to criticize him. The Minister of Municipal Affairs (Hon. Mr. Vander Zalm) says there is no question that the Premier has a credibility problem. He said: "I wish he would be more open. That's my style, to be open and answer questions. I would be happy if the Premier conducted himself in the same way." He said words to that effect. That was the intent of the minister's comments and I agree with him.

The Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) is a little embarrassed about the Premier too. He says: "Sometimes I pound my desk too hard to overcompensate for the Premier's lack of credibility."

The Minister of Universities, Science and Communications (Hon. Mr. McGeer) says: "The Premier doesn't sparkle in debate. He is too stiff." Gee whiz, Mr. Chairman, we in the opposition don't criticize the Premier that way. We simply try to explain to him the information we would like to have, which we believe is our function and our obligation as Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition — to obtain answers relating to the spending of public money.

It is very clear what the issue is here. In the Premier's estimates his employee gets billed $2,500 by Goldfarb Consultants. What we want to know is what the bill was for.

What work was done? The Premier gets up and glides around right field and underneath his desk — anything but address himself to the simple question of what work was done. Was it a political poll? Was it some kind of poll to determine which cabinet minister had the lowest credibility in the province of British Columbia?

What was the work that the public of British Columbia was required to pay $2,500 for, and which the comptroller-general expressed concern about when the voucher was sent for payment? Let me read it once again. The comptroller-general said: "We lack sufficient detail to properly audit this account. I refer this for information, since the area is politically sensitive." That's what the comptroller-general said. Then sometime later the comptroller-general discussed the matter with Mr. Brown, who worked in the Premier's office, and agreed to pay it. But no information is provided in the voucher.

The dilemma is clear. The opposition wants to know what was politically sensitive about it. What was the precise work that Goldfarb was retained to do? If the Premier would only be as forthcoming after he gets on his feet as he is when he is in his seat trying to gain the floor, we'd be very happy and the business of the House could be conducted in a more expeditious manner. The problem starts after the Premier gets on his feet; he won't then address himself to the specific questions.

What was the work that Goldfarb did for the province that they were paid $2,500 for? What was politically sensitive about it? Who authorized and initiated the project?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman. If the member had been in the House earlier, when I told the member for Coquitlam-Moody that I would attempt to secure that information and make it available to the members.... I was concerned for the Chair that I not broaden the discussion, but I told him that the appropriate way to bring it might be to the Provincial Secretary. I did say that I would attempt to find out, and I'm sure it should not be difficult. However, I've been here. I should be able to secure the information — if not here in my estimates, perhaps the Provincial Secretary can deal with it and make it available to the chamber. There's certainly nothing secretive about it.

MR. LEA: How do you know?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member for Prince Rupert asks how I know. The government has confidentiality, but we're not a secretive government. They may have been secretive about the highways they were building when you were Minister of Highways, Mr. Member for Prince Rupert. They were so secretive we couldn't find them; it was the best kept secret.

To the member for Revelstoke-Shuswap, I say that I am attempting to get the information. I've asked the Chairman for a ruling whether it's appropriate to deal with it in these estimates, but I am attempting to get the information that the member is asking for. That should be simple. You don't have to keep asking the same question, when I've already said that we would look for the information. Out of consideration for the Chairman, in order not to set a precedent which would be difficult for the Chairman's duty, I've also tried not to broaden the discussion under the Premier's estimates to include those things that might better be dealt with in Public Accounts. But his former services are in the Provincial

[ Page 2142 ]

Secretary's vote; it's that simple. If you want to get up and make political charges or frame political questions, you can at least wait until I can bring the information. I have given a number of assurances to members who have remained in the House this afternoon — those who have have been able to get the answers. Those who haven't have come back in, apparently having been somewhere else, and asked the same questions to which information is already being sought. We're trying to provide it. I can't say any more than that right now, Mr. Chairman.

MR. KING: Mr. Chairman, the Premier wants to monitor the questions that the opposition is asking. He suggests, for one question that he doesn't like: "Wait. Don't ask that of me. Wait and ask it of the Minister of Transportation (Hon. Mr. Fraser). In this case, he says: "Well, I don't like that question. You should wait and ask it of the Provincial Secretary." The fact of the matter is, this bill is directed to the Premier's office. It's been marked received in the Premier's office by an employee of the Premier's office at that time. Now why is it that he's trying to relieve himself of the obligation and the responsibility to meet and to answer for the conduct of his office and his employees?

The other thing I find just a little bit offensive is that the Premier presumes to lecture the opposition on how we should approach the questioning under his estimates. Well, you know, the Premier is not the greatest old-timer in the House by any means. I think it ill behooves him to tell members who have been in this House much longer than he has when it's appropriate to ask questions and precisely what kind of questions he will accept. I wouldn't call the Premier arrogant, but I doubt whether his father would have made such suggestions. In the true history of the parliamentary system, it is under the estimates of the various ministers that they, by tradition, are required to account for their policy, to account for expenditures. And it's the bounden duty of the opposition to elicit that information from them. I rather resent the Premier's trying to evade his responsibilities to be forthcoming and answer by suggesting that we should go elsewhere to elicit this information. It's clearly his area of responsibility. It's clearly his duty as the first minister of the province, and as the Premier to which this voucher was directed, to be forthcoming and candid and answer the question.

Now he says: "Okay. I've promised to get the information." You know, it's not very difficult. If the Premier doesn't remember the project, he could have sent out a note to his office when today's proceedings commenced, when this matter was first raised. I'm sure that within the files of his office his competent secretary or staff could have located this particular project within five or ten minutes and directed it into the House. It's not uncommon for ministers to do that. If he wanted to provide the information to the House, that could be done very expeditiously, very quickly. Perhaps the opposition is entitled to be a little bit cautious about commitments the Premier gives on answering questions, because we've been here many weeks now and we've received precious few answers to the questions we've put forward. The Premier says he doesn't know; he has to send out for the information. Well, if he had chosen to do so, that information could have been back on his desk an hour ago, and he could have made it available to the House. He says he doesn't remember the issue — apparently he doesn't know anything about it — but he's able to tell us that it was not a political poll, tell us all of the things it wasn't. The only thing wrong with the Premier's performance is that he's not open enough, as his colleagues suggest. He's not open enough to tell us what the project was about.

Mr. Chairman, I'm starting to be persuaded by the arguments of the Premier's colleagues that his credibility is being damaged. They waited till he'd gone to Lethbridge to damn him with faint praise, Mr. Chairman. But I'm starting to understand what they refer to when they say he's not forthcoming enough and open enough; he's stiff and he won't respond to the rules of the House. The rules of the House say clearly that there is a duty on all ministers to account, in an open way, for the expenditure of the taxpayers' money. That's what the Legislature is all about. The Premier chooses to talk about everything else but what this money was spent for. I didn't ask him why Goldfarb was retained rather than anyone else. I simply asked him: what was the job that they were retained to do?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, again the member deals with a bill for $2,500 for services to be paid by the Provincial Secretary, and I said I've sent out to find out. Where he's incorrect again, as was answered earlier.... I don't have any files in my office of what happens in every ministry in the government. But I have sent a request through the Provincial Secretary's office, and I've asked the Provincial Secretary, who has control of information services, to find the information and make it available. If he feels it's under his responsibility perhaps the Provincial Secretary might make it available right out there in the corridor to everybody, to the public, but it should not be developed during the Premier's estimates. But there is no attempt made to hide the information. What is apparent is that the opposition has the same question to ask over and over. When I said I'd deliver the information, seek the information and try to find it, it left them without a second question. I said we'll attempt to get it.

I've also asked you, Mr. Chairman, for guidance on how I can make your job easier, because you're always under pressure to broaden the Premier's estimates, to include things that might appropriately be held by the all-party committee on public accounts, chaired by a member of the opposition, or to deal with things in the estimates of the various ministries. Obviously many of these things relate to positive, not negative programs, on which the ministers are very eager to speak. Now in this case, to deal with something a couple of years old, I've sent out, asked the Provincial Secretary to get the information. That's the assurance I gave the member for Coquitlam-Moody (Mr. Leggatt) who's now back in the House, and I'm sure he would allow me a reasonable time to try to get that answer. I'm sure you're not part of those members of your caucus who have no research of their own, asking your question over and over, after you've been satisfied that we'll get the information. However, you did a good job, and it's good of you to share their question, even though you already know that we're attempting to get that information.

MR. COCKE: Mr. Chairman, this has been a very interesting conversation this afternoon, and I know that the Premier was quite sensitive when I called across the floor about political polls. Now there is no question in my mind that Goldfarb is deemed to be a consulting firm. However, Goldfarb is probably the most high-profile political pollster in the country, used by the Liberals and many other political parties.

[ Page 2143 ]

HON. MR. BENNETT: Or Canadian Facts.

MR. COCKE: Canadian Facts are the people who do their job, but Goldfarb is the one that does the ordering, and Goldfarb is the guy who does the billing. Mr. Chairman, it's very interesting — I wouldn't have thought of this except that this question came up today — that three or four weeks ago we were called by a member, and that member said that he was polled.

AN HON. MEMBER: A member of our party.

MR. COCKE: Yes, a member of our party said that he was polled by somebody who said that he was working for the government and they asked the following questions: "What do you think of the bridge?" No, it was: "What is your opinion of the tunnel-bridge link to Vancouver Island?" He went on to say, however, that the last question asked was: "How did you vote in the last election and how will you vote in the next?" Those questions are virtually on every poll that I've run into in this province. "How did you vote in the last election and how will you vote in the next?"

MR. HOWARD: The same way.

MR. COCKE: The same way. You're answering the question.

Goldfarb is a very, very high-profile political pollster in this country. I suggest to you that this government, led by this Premier, in the last fiscal year spent $259,630 with Goldfarb — not $2,500 that went through the Premier's office that we've so far found in terms of invoices. It's very difficult to find invoices because you have to go for vote number this, that and the other thing, and by the time you sift through Public Accounts and ten tons of invoices it's not all that easy. I've been on the public accounts committee in the past. It's not all that easy to sift out the invoices. This invoice went to the Premier's office. This invoice came from Goldfarb and the Premier has minced around with it. He's in a very similar position right now to the Premier of Ontario, only in Ontario they spent $430,000 on political polls. Mr. Chairman, they spent $430,000 and they were embarrassed to the extent that Premier Davis in Ontario has now reached the conclusion that he's going to have to table all the material.

I guess we're going to be in that position here where we're going to want to know. I notice a bill in Public Accounts from Gallup as well. It's only $4,700 but I doubt if Gallup is a consultant. I would suggest that the Gallup polls.... Incidentally, you can attach these two questions: how did you vote in the last election and how will you vote in the next, to Gallup omnibus, which runs three or four times a year. You can attach that very easily for $350 a shot. So running up $4,700 in bills takes you quite some time. We're dealing with a very politically sensitive question. The comptroller and other people that were looking at those bills realized that and that's why they made those kinds of references on the invoices and in memos back and forth saying: "How are we going to handle this?" It is politically sensitive. Any time the name Goldfarb comes up the first thing you think of is a political poll. Naturally my call across the floor was with respect to political polls. What else do you think of? What does Goldfarb give his consultation based upon?

Goldfarb gives his advice after having secured Canadian Facts, that has a group of people who go out in the community and poll people. They ask questions of people. "How do you feel about this? How do you feel about that? How did you vote?" They come back to Mr. Goldfarb and Mr. Goldfarb makes a report stating: "I would conclude, based upon information that we now have, that you should be saying this and you should be doing that." That's the question that humiliated Davis in Ontario. He was using public funds for political polls. We're just trying to find out here — and it doesn't take very long to answer a question like this.

What about that one particular invoice? We're going to have lots of questions to ask on the $259,630 that the government spent with Goldfarb along the way in the estimates, but right now there's a matter of $2,500 that we would just like to know. The one thing that I have been very, very cognizant of is that the first minister has not answered the question with respect to what he knew about it. What was it about? He said: "I'll bring a report sometime." If you listen carefully....

To my way of thinking that report is going to come through the Provincial Secretary or through somebody else, maybe the Minister of Finance, when we get to his estimates.

It would be so easy if the Premier would answer questions. I just suggest....

MR. KEMPF: Sit down, Dennis.

MR. COCKE: Holy Hannah! ''Sit down, Dennis." Listen, Mr. Chairman, through you to the member for Omineca (Mr. Kempf), he's your boss, not mine! We're equal in this Legislature and don't you tell me "Sit down, Dennis!"

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. The member for New Westminster has the floor.

MR. COCKE: I just want to allude again to this question in Ontario. "Poll Dispute Foretells Humiliation for Davis." Let's not go that far in this province. Let's be open, frank and above-board and talk in terms of where the $259,630 went and where the $2,600-odd that went into the Premier's office to be paid for went. Don't forget it was referred, no doubt, to the person who signs the cheque, and we all know that the Premier signs no cheques. We all know that that bill has to go elsewhere after having been received and duly noted in the Premier's office. But as I said last spring, the questioning in Ontario was because there was $430,000 spent on polls for the year ended last March. As soon as I saw our public accounts, little beads of perspiration gathered on my forehead as I was worrying about this government spending our money on political polls. I made that remark across the floor because the name Goldfarb and the name Gallup mean something to me if they don't mean something to everybody else in this House.

Mr. Premier, do you wish to answer?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, Mr. Chairman, I have answered and made information available on a number of things. It is difficult when that area which we've offered to bring to the House is asked over and over by the members and then they say we won't answer the questions. They'll pick the one in which we're still awaiting information and which may, subject to the Chairman, be appropriately given either under another set of estimates or another circumstance. It

[ Page 2144 ]

might even be in a legislative committee. It's not a matter of running from the question; the information will be provided. I'm sure what the member wants is the answer. It's not setting precedent to broaden the estimate debate, which could encompass — if you took that rule — all government business.

MR. LEA: Chicken on the run.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member for Prince Rupert calls: "Chicken on the run." What he called over a little while ago was: "The Premier is too dumb to answer." That's typical from him, Mr. Chairman. That's his style: nice, clear-cut, concise comments.

MR. LEA: You're a liar.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I don't know who he was calling a liar, but would you ask him to withdraw?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Hon. member, the Chair has heard that and the member has heard that. I will have to ask you to withdraw that comment. That's imputing a falsehood towards another member.

MR. LEA: Do you want me to withdraw that I'm lying or that he's lying? He said that I yelled across that the Premier's too dumb. I never yelled that. The Premier's lying.

MR. CHAIRMAN: A withdrawal, please, Mr. Member.

MR. LEA: I withdraw it. I want the Premier to withdraw that I yelled that across the floor.

MR. CHAIRMAN: If that is so, then I would ask the Premier....

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, earlier in debate I clearly heard him say that the Premier is not smart enough. I heard him say that. If there's a ventriloquist in the House that sounds like the member for Prince Rupert, as I clearly heard, then, of course, I've got to find out who the ventriloquist is.

Mr. Chairman, the member for New Westminster (Mr. Cocke) has left the inference that there was a government survey....

MR. CHAIRMAN: One moment, please. The member for Prince Rupert.

MR. LEA: I would like the Premier to withdraw it. I don't want any remarks; I just want him to withdraw it.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, I clearly heard the member call across the floor: "The Premier's not smart enough." And if he didn't say it, then tell me I am smart enough and I'll be happy. I didn't like the insult either.

MR. CHAIRMAN: I find it hard to comment on the point of order. I can only comment on what is considered by a member to be an unparliamentary expression. If there was such an unparliamentary expression and the member asked for withdrawal, then the Chair would....

HON. MR. BENNETT: Commenting on the asides which are called across the floor in this House is proven to be a tactic of the opposition. I clearly heard the member call that the Premier wasn't smart enough, and if he wishes to say that he does think I'm smart enough and he didn't say it, then fine, I withdraw.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Debate continues on the estimates of the Premier, vote 9.

HON. MR. BENNETT: It reminds me of the statements which that member has attributed to the Premier, which were also not correct, but he has now lodged them in the folklore of the Legislature. They are statements he says he heard me say during debate, which he has clearly set as his own style. So it's going to be very interesting that the member is so sensitive — one who is so verbal when he's sitting in his seat.

I wish to get back to the more serious problem, once leaving the member for Prince Rupert. The member for New Westminster said.... I am trying to remember if he said a New Democratic party member phoned the New Democratic Party caucus saying: "The government conducted a poll." They said that someone conducted a poll and said it was being sponsored by the government.

MR. COCKE: I'll tell you in a minute.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I may have got it incorrectly, but the word "government" got in there. I just wanted to say that the only poll I know that had to do with a fixed link, which I believe the member was talking about, was a private poll, not conducted by.... Yes, he used to be a cabinet minister, but in the private sector....

Interjection.

HON. MR. BENNETT: No, people in our party don't abuse their interest in public affairs once they're off the payroll, Mr. Member for Skeena (Mr. Howard). They're always concerned. They just don't wait while they're being paid, so they don't have to be hired as a special consultant or wait to be elected. They're always concerned about public affairs. It may be that they haven't had a record of trying to deal with being on the public payroll.

I reject the attempt to smear Mr. Bawlf because there's something wrong with his still being interested, which the member for Skeena talked about. There's nothing wrong with his being interested. The Victoria papers suggested it was a private poll, nothing to do with government. It would be interesting to find out whether the researchers said it was a government poll or whether somebody misinterpreted what they heard, or maybe was so eager to pass on good juicy political information to the party that they heard what they wanted to hear, that the government was conducting some poll on a fixed link, and it might be of some help to the New Democratic Party, which has had difficulty establishing a position on what they're against in means of transportation these days, and would be interested in the results of a poll.

The information, I understand, is public, so it will help you. Mr. Bawlf made it public. But it wasn't a government poll. And that's the only poll I know of that had to do with a fixed link, which the member for New Westminster dealt with. But I just felt that it might have been unclear whether he was suggesting it, or a member had suggested to him that it was a poll conducted by the provincial government. I wanted

[ Page 2145 ]

to clarify for you, Mr. Chairman, that I too read the results of that poll in the paper. Those who sponsored it are clearly identified, and they are not the government.

MR. COCKE: To answer the Premier's question, I haven't a clue who sponsored what poll, when, or how. All I suggested was that the pollster who called passed himself off, it you wish, as a person working for the provincial government.

It may be that when the lowliest of ministers, the Minister of Forests (Hon. Mr. Waterland), next writes one of his "Dear Martin" letters to Martin Goldfarb.... They're in that close a relationship with the Goldfarb company that you write a letter and say: "Dear Martin." We hardly know this great consulting firm in the east. "Dear Martin, how are we doing? etc."

Look, there's enough evidence here, Mr. Chairman, that would indicate to me that some of the $259,630 was eliciting information that would yield some political value. I suspect, going to the Premier's office, that some of the $2,500 could very well be. We don't know. The whole thing is probably the Provincial Secretary's fault. We all know that the Provincial Secretary is the most powerful person in this government and makes all the decisions around the politics....

Interjection.

MR. COCKE: What difference does it make? We all know that that's irony, and it doesn't wash in this House.

In any event, Mr. Chairman, Martin Goldfarb spells p-o-l-l-i-n-g, because that's how they do their consulting. It's based on their polls. Period. Amen.

HON. MR. WOLFE: In the interest of this House making good progress during estimates, it occurs to me that we are belabouring a point which has been directed at the Premier's estimates, in the full knowledge that the questions being raised properly fall within the ministry of the Provincial Secretary, in terms of explanations for whatever vouchers may have been involved. I think the Premier quite correctly has established that it would be a mistake on behalf of the Chairman and his duty to this committee to broaden his estimates continually beyond those questions that he can appropriately answer. He's trying his best to do that.

In terms of the questions regarding Goldfarb and surveys that may or may not have been taken, as Provincial Secretary I'd be quite happy, for the interest of members in this committee, to respond to that, both in my estimates when they arise and immediately, as to the question raised by the member for Coquitlam-Moody having to do with a voucher for $2,500. I thought that in the interests of this House making good progress — we've been a good deal of time this afternoon on this one question — I should explain this. I think we all realize that this is a question that comes under the Provincial Secretary; that's where the communications adviser is responsible. I quite agree with the Premier that we shouldn't continually belabour attempting to broaden his estimates beyond the responsibility which he has.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I was going to respond to the member for New Westminster, but he's gone again. I would have to tell him that he talks about the Minister of Forests writing a letter to "Dear Martin" as though there was something wrong with that. I guess there would be if the fellow's name was Ralph. Is he suggesting the minister has got the name wrong? I see nothing wrong with the common courtesy of dealing with people by their names.

I thank the Provincial Secretary for offering to make available — without making your job more difficult, Mr. Chairman — the information today concluding my estimates. I look forward to receiving the information as well. I appreciate him making it easier for members — now that they're going to get that information — and it will not put you in the difficult position of broadening and setting precedents in estimates.

MRS. DAILLY: Mr. Chairman, for the benefit of the Provincial Secretary, the Premier and those who may have just arrived in the gallery, I'd like to point out what really is the subject under discussion here today, and what we consider to be essential to the Premier's vote. I hope the Provincial Secretary is listening, because I think he's missed something here, and the Premier seems to be missing something. What is under discussion.... You're going to leave, are you?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Just for five minutes.

MRS. DAILLY: Well, I'd like you to just hear this one statement.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Okay, and then I'll get someone to take notes.

MRS. DAILLY: Then you can think about it when you're out, Mr. Premier.

What is really under discussion here is the political morality of this government and its Premier — what their standards of political morality are. If we cannot include that in a discussion of the Premier's estimates, and if we are told by the Provincial Secretary that that is not relevant to the Premier's estimates, I beg to have someone clear up for me why it would not be. We are discussing standards of political morality, and I have one specific question for the Premier on it. The Premier has said that he's tired of the same old questions, so I am going to attempt to frame one new question — just one to you, Mr. Premier.

It is relevant to what was brought up by the Minister of Health (Hon. Mr. Mair) when he posed a question to the Premier a number of times, and the Premier has referred to this question a number of times. That question was something to do with what the Premier would think of anyone who did not use his constituency office correctly — or misused it, used it for the wrong purposes. The Premier keeps throwing this out. Therefore I have a similar question to the Premier. What does the Premier, as the leader of this government and the Premier of this province, think of any government which would misuse and misappropriate public funds for its own political purposes? That is the issue here today. That is why we have been asking these questions in detail all afternoon.

The prime issue is that we want to know if the Premier of this province has high standards of political morality or not. Until he answers for us, very clearly, what his opinion is on whether a government has the right to take the taxpayers' money and use it for a political poll for its own purposes.... We want to know if that Premier thinks that is okay. That's all we're asking.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Number one, Mr. Chairman,

[ Page 2146 ]

I've already said that this government's policy is not to conduct partisan election information in government. That member can always put some interpretation on it, trying to say that.... The best thing for a government to get re-elected is to do a good job. If all the modern techniques of government management can be considered partisan, or aiding a partisan cause, then the member would have to stretch that very broadly. She is the first one to make that statement. Everybody has been careful, in asking questions about a $2,500 voucher — for which the Provincial Secretary is going to provide an answer.... What she has done is tipped what they want to say — what they've been trying to say, but have not been saying. They're trying to make some charge that that $2,500 went for a political poll that was partisan in nature, that asked people how they were going to vote, and if they were going to vote Social Credit and that sort of thing. I've got to tell you that the Provincial Secretary is going to deal with that, and I hope the member listens, because I answered both of those areas a number of times when the member was in the House and when she wasn't in the House, and it's been dealt with. I know some members over there can be a little free and easy with their questions by making a suggestion through a question, but it has not generally been the style of the member for Burnaby North. And I'm surprised, because that was a little harsher than she usually is, and not in what I would consider her style.

The Provincial Secretary has already said during my estimates that he is going to deal with this matter at the conclusion of my estimates. He will make the information public, and it will be available to you. That has been stated. I spoke to the member for Coquitlam-Moody and talked about the information. The Provincial Secretary now says that he'll deal with the item of expenditure, particularly so because of the type of runaway speculation that's coming from over there. We cautioned you that we would get the information, but you couldn't wait, because some of your members wanted to make that as a statement. They wanted to ask the same question a number of times, on which information was going to be forthcoming, so they could say the Premier didn't answer questions. The member for Coquitlam-Moody at least has the good sense to blush, as he recognizes this tactic for what it is.

MR. LEGGATT: You can check my complexion, Mr. Chairman, against the Premier's right now.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Well, the difference is that I spent Sunday working in the orchard, and you were in a pool hall. That's the difference between those who love the outdoors and those who sit around in smoke-filled rooms, like the member for Coquitlam-Moody. That's why you've got that pool-hall pallor. That's why it's evident when you do flush a little; it shows up. It certainly does, Mr. Chairman.

Anyhow, we've dealt with those questions. Now we have assurances from the Provincial Secretary (Hon. Mr. Wolfe), which I hope will be adequate.

MR. LEA: I'd like to ask the Premier whether these questions seem familiar to him; they're from a poll. The first question on the poll is: "(a) Are you eligible to vote in British Columbia provincial elections?" There's a "yes" with a little square beside it, and a "no." It says: "If they put down no, terminate the interview." Question (b): "We are interested in the occupations of people. Do you or does anyone in your household work for a radio or television station — yes or no, a newspaper or magazine — yes or no, an advertising agency — yes or no, a market opinion research firm — yes or no. If yes to any of the above, terminate." Does that sound like a political poll?

MR. HEWITT: Whose poll is it?

MR.. LEA: Oh, this is just a poll. I'd like to ask the Premier: does that sound like a political...?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Table it.

MR. LEA: "Table," he says. Oh, now they're getting a little uptight, eh? Daddy Warbucks is into the act now.

I think the thing that has not been made perfectly clear here is what in the devil is an employee of the Premier, working in the Premier's office, doing authorizing an expenditure of a vote in the Provincial Secretary's ministry. That's what happened. Let's take a look at these memorandums again. This one is to Mike from Dick, but I think what we have to ascertain here is who's Mike and who's Dick. Now Dick works in the comptroller-general's department, and Mike works in the comptroller's department of the Provincial Secretary. Right? So this is to an employee of the Provincial Secretary from an employee of the comptroller-general. Right?

Interjections.

MR. LEA: Don't be so nervous, Mr. Provincial Secretary. I think you're clear on this; it's the Premier who might not be so clear.

Interjections.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order. The member for Prince Rupert has the floor.

MR. LEA: Now Dick from the comptroller-general's office writes to Mike over in the Provincial Secretary's office, and he says: "Mike, we lack sufficient detail to properly audit this account. I refer this for information, since this area is politically sensitive." Now that's the comproller-general's department writing to the Provincial-Secretary's ministry. The Provincial-Secretary's ministry — this is Mike — writes back to Dick in the comptroller-general's department. It says: "Dick, this was discussed with Mr. Brown and the comptroller-general. Mr. Bonnell has approved this voucher as okay." It's signed "Mike." In other words, the comptroller-general checked with the Premier's office to see whether money should be paid out of the vote in the Provincial Secretary's office. The Premier's office said: "Yes, go ahead; pay the money out in the Provincial Secretary's office." Why, Mr. Premier, is someone in your office authorizing a vote to be paid in the Provincial Secretary's office? It's not: "Wait for the Provincial Secretary to tell us what the money was spent on and what happened."

What we would like to know is: (1) why did someone from your office, Mr. Premier, authorize that money be spent in a vote from the Provincial Secretary's department? Isn't that a bit peculiar? Well, I guess it's not peculiar, because it was the Premier's office that authorized the money to be spent. The Premier's office was the contractual office. The

[ Page 2147 ]

Premier's office was the office that said to Goldfarb: "We're going to hire you." So, naturally, when Goldfarb submitted their bill, they submitted it to the hiring office — the Premier's office. But when the Premier's office got it, they said: "God, here's a political hot potato. We can't have any money being spent out of this office for Goldfarb. We'd better find some appropriate vote somewhere else so we'll look shining white." The Premier says: "No political slur on this office. Get that out of here."

Then it says: "Mr. Brown has advised that the consulting work was of a confidential nature in connection with communication problems, and that further information, if required, is available to the comptroller-general from Mr. Brown." Well, obviously that took place. Because we see, when Dick got his memo from Mike, that Mike says: "This discussed with Mr. Brown, and comptroller-general, Mr. Bonnell, has approved this voucher as okay."

So that's pretty well the story, Mr. Chairman. Dick didn't want to pay the money out because he thought it was politically sensitive. Dick is over in the comptroller-general's office. So he wrote to Mike and said: "Look, Mike, this bill that you've submitted, it looks a little political to us. We're a little hesitant to pay it without more information." Mike says: "Dick, don't worry about it. Brown and Bonnell are going to talk about it confidentially, because this is pretty politically sensitive stuff, and they're going to talk about the political sensitiveness of it. Once, confidentially, the comptroller-general's been told it's okay, then we'll have it paid by the comptroller-general."

What I'd like to have been was a fly on the wall when Brown was talking to Bonnell, explaining to him what that sensitivity and confidentiality was. "Now this one's a strictly confidential poll that was taken." (2) Are you eligible to vote in British Columbia provincial elections? Yes? No? If no, terminate the interview. Go no further; don't go past Go, because, I'll tell you, if this person isn't eligible to vote, we don't even want their opinion." Now what does that sound like to you, Mr. Chairman?

Then in (b) it says: "We are interested in the occupations of people. Do you or does anyone in your household work for a radio, television, magazine, newspaper, advertising agency or market opinion research firm?" If anybody works for them, terminate the interview, because.... Why would they want to do that?

MR. LAUK: Terminate with great prejudice.

MR. LEA: Yes, terminate with great prejudice, because we don't want to interview anybody that doesn't vote, or can't vote. You see, the Premier couldn't have filled this out himself, because he doesn't vote. They'd have had to terminate the interview when it came to the Premier.

But the Premier has an obligation to tell us a number of things. We'd like to know what Dave Brown told Mr. Bonnell. What was it that Mr. Brown told Mr. Bonnell that convinced him that everything was okay, and the voucher should be paid, even if it was confidential?

What we'd like to know is why Dick and Mike were taken through this path of mindlessness by Mr. Brown. Why was it that Dick, who worked in the comptroller-general's office and, I assume, is paid to look at vouchers and see whether they should be paid without asking questions, or whether further questions should be asked...? Dick, who works in the comptroller-general's office, in his capacity as a professional said: "Hey, we'd better not pay this one. It's politically sensitive." In other words, maybe government money shouldn't be paid — taxpayers money. Maybe this is Social Credit money that should be paid out, and Dave Brown got the bill because Dave Brown is the person who gets the slush fund? No, that's Tozer. No, that was Brown. That's right. Brown is the person who received the bill from the Social Credit — for the slush fund money. Brown is the guy that received the bill from Goldfarb. Maybe that's why Goldfarb made a.... Did they make a mistake, do you think? I mean, if you're dealing with the Premier's office, is it slush funds or taxpayers' money?

MRS. WALLACE: Maybe there's no difference.

MR. LEA: That's right, Madam Member. Maybe there's no difference. Maybe Brown just threw them up in the air and caught one and said: "There's one for the taxpayers, and there's one for the slush fund. Write Dick and tell Mike it's okay."

[Mr. Davidson in the chair.]

Is the Premier going to tell us why his office authorized money being spent from a vote in the Provincial Secretary's office? Why couldn't Brown put down on paper the reason that it was okay to pay the taxpayers' money out for the money to Goldfarb? But it was too politically sensitive for Brown to put it down on paper, too confidential. He had to have a private chitty-chat with the comptroller-general, and tell the comptroller-general why it was okay for Dick to pay the money. Of course, Dick didn't know that. Mike told him that. Mike works for the Provincial Secretary. Mike said: "Gee, the only one left out is Jane, and she works in the Premier's office too." Dick and Jane and Mike!

Mr. Chairman, the Premier cannot run away from this one like he's attempted to run away from every issue since we began his estimates. Why couldn't Brown put down on paper why it was that the taxpayers had to pay money out to Goldfarb? Why was it Brown in the first place who was authorizing that money be spent out of the Provincial Secretary's vote? And why doesn't the Premier know anything about it?

Mr. Chairman, either the Premier does know, and he won't tell us — which is unforgivable — or he doesn't know what's going on in his office and can't tell us, which is unpardonable. It's one or the other. Either he doesn't have a clue what's going on in his office — he is an incompetent administrator and doesn't have any idea what's going on in his own office — or he does know and is too chicken to tell us. The Premier can't have it both ways. Either he doesn't have a clue what's going on in his own office, or the things that are going on in his office are so politically sensitive that he is afraid to tell us.

All we want to know is: why did the Premier's office pay this out of taxpayers' money instead of out of the slush fund?

MR. HOWARD: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Chair would take the occasion to draw to the attention of the Premier the fact that these are his estimates and he should be prepared to respond to the questions put forward by the member for Prince Rupert.

[ Page 2148 ]

MR. CHAIRMAN: Thank you, hon. member, although that is not a valid point of order. The Premier....

MR. HOWARD: The member for Prince Rupert has the floor.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Only one person can be recognized at a time. The Premier, on a point of order.

HON. MR. BENNETT: On a point of order, I'd like to respond to the member for Skeena. He stands up, wants the Premier to get up and speak, and then says I can't have the floor; it belongs to the member for Prince Rupert.

MR. CHAIRMAN: That also is not a valid point of order.

HON. MR. BENNETT: I know, Mr. Chairman, but how can I respond to these things if I can't have the same privilege that he has?

MR. CHAIRMAN: Good point.

The member for Prince Rupert continues.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I'd like the Premier to answer this question: why did his office authorize money to be spent from the Provincial Secretary's vote?

HON. MR. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, again, that was answered earlier when we read out the mandate of the communications and planning adviser, which was coordinating expenditures that would be incurred for ministries to coordinate ministries and to consolidate expenditures to save money for the government. That would be the job of coordination, which would then make sure that the proper billing account was with the proper ministry if they were saving the taxpayers' money. What the Brown report did and what mandate they had was read out earlier in the estimates and says, "(a) provision of the necessary planning, advice and expertise to the members of the executive council," coordinating the type of thing that can help to make sure the public gets value, that you don't have duplication; coordinate ministerial activity, and in that coordination they'd make sure that the billing got to the proper vote, to the proper ministry.

It's a very, very simple thing. It was a job brought in primarily to coordinate government information services, not only as they relate to information in printed pamphlet but government advertising or agency advertising which presents government information that helps make the public aware of various government programs or helps ministries carry out services or provide better services; to find out if services are lacking; and to find out if the public knows about the services that are there so that they can utilize them. All these things are important. Selection of the advertising agency then should be done on competition, which was part of the mandate, and that's part of the rules put in, rather than have what was there before where you get an advertising agency plucked out of the east like, say, the Dunsky advertising agency, which would have billings of some $1 million or $2 million — not all of it for government business, but the bulk of it.

You have a dozen or 13 or 14 or 15 or 16 or whatever — the number will vary — agencies working for various government ministries or agencies at a single time. It was to try to let it be done with expertise rather than the way it apparently was done before. Now all those things were in the mandate of the position of communications planning adviser which came under the vote of the executive council.

As you know, under the Premier's estimates we have discussed three votes in the past: executive council, Premier's office and Intergovernmental Relations. Now Intergovernmental Relations has become a separate ministry, and the communications and planning vote comes under the ministry of the Provincial Secretary.

MR. LEA: You're rambling.

HON. MR. BENNETT: The member for Prince Rupert says I'm rambling. Now he may get up and wish me to withdraw that, but I heard that clearly also — almost as clearly as I heard him the last time.

MR. LEA: You're not so dumb. You just finished counting, for the first time.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Now the member for Prince Rupert says I'm not so dumb because I just finished counting. You know, Mr. Chairman, I've come to the conclusion that member doesn't like me. I find it hard to believe that perhaps the New Democratic Party doesn't like me. That'll come as a shock to the people who during election campaigns have heard them say nothing but nice things. But, gee, it's quite a surprise to me that they may not care for me or my party.

MR. LEA: Mr. Chairman, I didn't want to delve back into the reasons for the Premier's problems in later life. Honest to God, we love you.

HON. MR. BENNETT: Now I am worried. [Laughter.]

MR. LEA: I want you to relax. Just because you grew up with the Pandosy gang down there in Kelowna chasing you all over the park and around the alleys..... Did they ever catch you? I know they chased you all over; I heard that in Kelowna.

What we now have is the Premier telling us that his office authorizes that money be spent out of any department of government. He's been reading that paper to us to tell us why that is — that the payment for anything whatsoever to do with communications, no matter what vote and what department, can be authorized out of the Premier's office. Mr. Chairman, the Premier has now broadened this debate considerably. He tries to have it two ways on every issue. He says on this specific one that he doesn't have to answer it, Evan does, because it's communications and Dave Brown is authorized to authorize money out of the Provincial Secretary's vote for anything to do with communications. That means in the Ministry of Transportation and Highways, the Ministry of Industry and Small Business Development, the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, or the Ministry of Forests. Any darned one of those ministries is now fair game for the Premier's estimates, according to the Premier. He's opened it right up.

HON. MR. BENNETT: No.

MR. LEA: What do you mean, no? He wants it both ways. The Premier now admits that his office is the authorization office that had this bill paid.

HON. MR. BENNETT: On a point of clarification for the

[ Page 2149 ]

member who is attributing to my statement of coordination the fact that that becomes authorization, I would say he's making a great mistake. He's also questioning a position....

SOME HON. MEMBERS: Order!

HON. MR. BENNETT: The point of order is that he's questioning a decision you're going to make from the Chair and that you have under advisement. As such, I stand up to further advise you in making that decision because it may be forthcoming very quickly and I wouldn't want that decision to be hampered by a misstatement by the member for Prince Rupert.

MR. LEA: The Premier has found out that he can't have it one way, and he can't have it the other, so now we're back to the naked truth. What we're back to is that Mike wrote to Dick. Now Mike works in the Provincial Secretary's office and Dick works in the comptroller-general's office. Dick was worried about paying the bill. He said: "It's politically sensitive." Mike says: "Don't worry about it, Dick, because Brown and the comptroller-general have discussed it and everything's okay." Brown authorized the payment.

When we go over to another sheet of paper here it says: "Mr. Brown has advised that the consulting work is of a confidential nature in connection with the communication problems." Therefore Dick can't know what it's about. Now Dick's a taxpayer and Dick is not even allowed — even though he has to authorize the voucher — to know what it's for. So no more Dick. Dick's not high enough in the hierarchy of the comptroller-general's office to know why it has to be paid. There was a quiet little conversation between Brown and the comptroller-general that the taxpayers shouldn't know about it because their money was spent on a confidential communications survey and we have no right to know as taxpayers, the Premier says. The Premier says he agrees. A menial reprimand should go out for this, eh, Mr. Omineca. This deserves a menial reprimand to the Premier. I think it's fitting. Barney, you get him for this!

Mr. Brown believes it is too confidential for the taxpayers to know why we're spending their money. What I want to know when the Premier's going out to get his information is whether the bill itself went through the shredder. Was it too confidential to stick around even in the files? What about Brown? What did Brown tell the comptroller-general that made the comptroller-general realize that this should not be known by the taxpayers? The taxpayers should never know why this money was being spent; it was too confidential. That's what the comptroller told Mike, or at least that's what Mike told Dick.

"Dear Dick, signed Mike. This was discussed with Mr. Brown and comptroller-general. Mr. Bonnell, the comptroller-general, has approved this voucher as okay, so, Dick, don't you worry about whether it doesn't seem that the taxpayers are going to get a fair shake, because Brown has already discussed it with the comptroller-general out of the Premier's office." Who's the Premier trying to kid, Mr. Chairman? First of all he says: "Okay, it's okay for Brown to authorize the Provincial Secretary's money be spent." He can authorize any money being spent out of any department. Then when we say, "That's true," the Premier says: ''Oh, point of order. I didn't mean that. I mean something else, but I don't know what I mean."

We know one thing. We know that Brown told the comptroller-general that the taxpayers should never know why this money was spent. We know that for sure. We know that Brown worked in the Premier's office, and the Premier says he doesn't even know what it's about.

AN. HON. MEMBER: No, he didn't quite say that.

MR. LEA: Oh, the Premier didn't quite say that. He says he won't tell us whether he knows what it's about.

MR. BARRETT: That's closer.

MR. LEA: You know, Mr. Chairman, for 16 or 17 days we've all had a chance to see how one of the indigenous firms of Victoria operates. It is called "Chicken on the Run," because indeed this is chicken on the run. This guy won't answer one question straightforward — not one. He can't tell us or won't tell us whether he knew anything about this money being spent. You know, he doesn't know what's going on in his office. First of all, you've got vouchers coming in for the slush fund money, but he doesn't know who signs them. He just had vouchers coming in from the party, people in his office signing things and millions of dollars coming through his office in slush funds, but he doesn't know anything about it and says he doesn't want to. He says: "Should I know about it? It might compromise me."

Mr. Chairman, it really takes us back to the real problem about the whole operation in the Premier's office. Either the Premier doesn't have any idea of what's going on in that office — it's completely out of control and the Premier has no authority, no knowledge or doesn't know anything at all — or he knows exactly what's going on and refuses to tell the taxpayers how their money is being spent. It's one or the other.

Now what is the Premier going to say? Does he know what's going on in his office? That's a good question for number one this time. Does the Premier know what's going on in his office? "Don't ask me," he says. "I'll send out and find out." If the note comes back saying, "Yes, Mr. Premier, you do know what's going on in your office," then he'll answer — maybe, if he doesn't go out on a call with Chicken on the Run.

Mr. Chairman, the Premier has decided to change his style. All over the province, everywhere you go, people say: "Why won't the Premier answer questions in the House?" The Premier must have heard of that. Now he gets up and talks but doesn't answer the questions.

He has a little piece of paper in his hand. He got that in an envelope from his office. That's how important it was. It was all folded up; he opened it up and it was Dave Brown's report. That was the report where Dave Brown recommended that Dave Brown be hired. He was hired and hired him. Now we find out that Mr. Brown is even closer to the government than we realized. He knows things that are so confidential that only he and the comptroller can share them. The taxpayers — it's just too confidential for the people who pay the bills. It's too hot.

I tell you, that Premier is a man who has got his finger on the pulse of this province. Every time it goes kapump, it's another taxpayers' buck going through; but we shouldn't really know where it goes.

[ Page 2150 ]

I remember a couple of years ago the Premier spent about $4,600 to get some make-up before he went on television.

AN HON. MEMBER: $900.

MR. LEA: It was $900, eh? It must have been a short program.

AN HON. MEMBER: It was a radio program.

MR. LEA: It must have been a radio program.

Do you know what they actually did, Mr. Chairman? They spent $900 to make that guy look okay for his state of the province address — and they failed. It's hard to believe. Now they go and spend money for make-up for the Premier. That voucher got lost, by the way. That was one of the ones that got lost in the inner workings of government. But this time they've spent $2,500 that's so sensitive and so politically confidential that the taxpayers shouldn't know how the money was spent. You know, when they saw that guy coming out of Kelowna, there was a great big "M" right in the middle of his forehead for "mark." Brown probably told him it was too confidential. Maybe he doesn't know. Maybe the Premier knows. Where is she? Hi!

Mr. Chairman, this is absolutely ridiculous. The Premier of the province says that things are so confidential in his office that people shouldn't know how the taxpayers' money is being spent. That's his big one today. And you know, they had to send him a note to tell him that. He didn't even know that before he got the note.

Mr. Chairman, why won't the Premier answer? For the same reason he wouldn't even talk last week. Because he knows that if he answers the questions that the opposition and the taxpayers of this province are asking, it's worse political trouble than double-talking and saying nothing. That's why he won't answer questions in this House.

I'll tell you, he must have been eating sugar beets when he was down there in Lethbridge. He must have a high-hyper thing going on this week, because he can't.... This is the Premier this week. When the opposition are saying, "How about this, Mr. Premier," he can't wait to get up. But when he gets up, he don't say nothing. He talks about Brown's report. Well, Mr. Chairman, it's just not good enough. The Premier of this province is refusing to answer questions this week by talking.

AN HON. MEMBER: What were you eating over the weekend?

MR. LEA: I was in Golden over the weekend, eating roast beef and baked potatoes. It was really delicious, I'll tell you. And I want to tell you, Jim, it's been nice working with you. They told us down there that if it weren't for the Premier, they'd vote for old Jimmy again. But they agree with Mr. McGeer and Mr. Vander Zalm — he doesn't sparkle in debate.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to move that the Chairman now leave the chair.

Motion negatived.

MR. CHAIRMAN: Shall vote 9 pass?

MR. LEA: Look, we're reasonable. If the Premier answers one question we'll let it through. Give us one answer, and we'll let the vote through. Why don't you resign?

HON. MR. BENNETT: The answer is no.

MR. LEA: Oh, Mr. Premier, now you sit down, you bad boy!

MR. CHAIRMAN: Order, please. Hon. members, not withstanding the fact that it is 5:55, parliamentary decorum must still prevail.

MR. LEA: It sure must, Mr. Chairman, but it's hard to keep parliamentary decorum when we have a Premier who week after week refuses to answer questions on how the taxpayers' money is being spent.

MR. KING: I move the committee rise, report progress, and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Davidson in the chair.

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

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

MR. KING: I just wanted to move that the House at its rising do stand adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow, Mr. Speaker. [Laughter.]

HON. MR. GARDOM: That sounds like a reasonable motion!

Motion approved.

Hon. Mr. Gardom moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 5:57 p.m.